Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries

Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes

This is a two part RfC.

A. Prior to a caucus or primary, should candidates only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they are polling at an average of 5% or above on FiveThirtyEight.com?

B. After a caucus or primary, should candidates only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they have won delegates in that contest? - MrX 🖋 01:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The objective is to come up with an infobox inclusion guideline for 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary and caucus articles. I have posted notices at Wikiproject American politics, and on the talk pages of several of the early primaries.

Previous discussions: Talk:2020 Nevada Democratic caucuses#Only 6 out of 7 candidates are featured in the infobox and Talk:2020 South Carolina Democratic primary#Candidates featured in the infobox - MrX 🖋 01:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC), - MrX 🖋 02:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• A:Yes, B:No (Delegate or >5% of the popular vote) - We need to have some cutoff. 5% has been used in the past in various elections related articles. I think it is a good one for infoboxes, concerning elections that are yet to occur. Concerning elections that have already occurred, I would propose that candidates who receive a national delegate should be included in the infobox. I also think candidates who receive 5% of the popular vote should be included in the infobox, provided there are no more than six candidates in the infobox (for style and readability reasons). If more than six candidates receive over 5%, then after delegate receiving candidates, the remaining slots will be awarded to the candidates with the greatest popular vote. In Nevada, Warren received 12.8% of the vote. She shouldn't be erased from the infobox when showing that level of support. I would also suggest that it is appropriate that both Warren (9.2%) and Biden (8.4%) are included in the New Hampshire infobox. In Iowa, the only candidate to receive over 5% and not receive a delegate was Yang. He is not included in the infobox there. While I think it is far to include him, reasonable people could disagree about the percentage of the popular vote that warrants inclusion. If 5% is not enough to be included, I would suggest >8% and >12% sure is (particularly when we are talking about real votes not just polling numbers).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Concerning what average to use, I agree with Wikiditm below. We should use our average of the aggregators (RealClearPolitics, 270towin.com and FiveThirtyEight), not exclusively 538.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• A:No, B:Yes A: Show the top 9 candidates. Polls can be wrong, and excluding candidates that have passed the criteria to be included in a contest from the infobox takes them out of the view of voters who visit that article, potentially influencing the vote. Because of this influence, we should err on the side of inclusion. On the other hand, infoboxes do have limited space, and polls are a somewhat useful measure of relative ranking, so I would propose keeping up to the top 9 highest polling candidates in the infoboxes. 9 candidates, 3 rows of 3, is a format that is easy to scan and digest. B: The formats of these contests vary from state to state, but the one constant is candidates win delegates from these contests. To keep the infoboxes simple and consistent, only the candidates who win delegates should be included, and only the delegate counts should be listed. --Jiminyhcricket (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Clarification - B: No (delegate or >5%) more closely matches my preferences. --Jiminyhcricket (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • There's only 8 current candidates. In the SC primary there are only 7 major candidates on the ballots. Some will drop out before future primaries. Are you suggesting we include "minor candidates"?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I would include all the candidates mentioned by 538 as long as they remain in the race. TFD (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: Yes; B: No, per Darryl { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: Yes (but if more than 9 qualified by 5% polling average ahead of the election then we should limit the infobox to top9); B: No (criteria after election should instead be "Delegate or >5% of the popular vote").
  I largely agree with Darryl. The main argument for why the infobox should also include "no delegate candidates if they won >5% of the popular vote", is that their inclusion makes it fast and easy to learn which candidates came close to win delegates in the specific election (and when browsing through all 57 seasonal election infoboxes such info adds value).
  If Klobuchar in Iowa had not performed strong in CD4 where she won her sole 1 delegate, then she should still be included despite that her statewide 12.3% popular vote was not enough to win her statewide pledged national convention delegates.
  Another borderline example is Buttigieg in Nevada, who won 15.4% in popular vote (or 17.3% popular vote after 2nd realignment) but only 14.3% CCD's (the determining vote metric to decide national delegates); Buttigieg did not win any statewide pledged national convention delegates because of his 14.3% CCD being below 15% but he was lucky to win 3 national delegates via >15% CCD´s in three of the congressional districts. In the hypothetical case that Buttigieg had not won those national delegates through a strong performance in one or more of the congressional districts, then he would have won 0 national delegates, but still be damn close to have won a number of national delegates (as per his score of 15.4%=>17.3% popular vote translated to 14.3% CCD's); and therefor in this made up example where he scored 0 delegates (which is mathematical possible), it would be inappropriate to exclude him from the infobox as he still delivered a strong infobox notable performance.
  So the B criteria needs to be: "Delegate or >5% of the popular vote", because when we list a 12.3% vote (1 delegate) performance its equally important to list a potential 14% vote (0 delegate) performance or even a potential Buttigieg 15.4%=>17.3% vote (0 delegate) performance in Nevada. The cut-off inclusion criteria level for popular vote could appropriately be set to 5%, as it is close to mathematical impossible to win 1 national delegate in a congressional district with <5% statewide popular vote (i.e. if CD1=15%, CD2=1%, CD3=1%, CD4=1%; then the average statewide vote would be 18%/4 = 4.5%). Danish Expert (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: Yes; B: No. I believe that candidates should be polling at 5% to be included in the infobox before the primary, and should receive 5% of the vote, even if they have no delegates, to be included in the infobox after the election. Simple as that really, Darryl Kerrigan and Danish Expert have already provided fantastic arguments for why it should be the case. I would like to note, I believe that in caucuses we should use State Delegate Equivalent's and not popular vote to decide who got in the infobox, since we are ordering the candidates within the infobox by the SDE's that they had received. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to state, since I somehow missed this the first time, we should not be using 538 as the source for which candidates are polling at 5%. They are not the supreme arbiter of polling, we should be averaging out all the polling aggregators that are considered reliable, not cribbing off a single source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A. No (as written, Yes switched to average of aggregators); B. No, per Danish Expert. As things have stood for this primary season thus far, the standard seems to have been to use an average of available poll aggregators (270toWin, RealClearPolitics, and 538) rather than specifically privileging one aggregator over the others. While I think 538's more sophisticated model is probably more accurate, I don't think a polling threshold should specifically endorse one polling aggregator over others, and would prefer that the default be an average of notable aggregators available.

With regard to infobox inclusion after an election, I think it's relevant to note this rfc from 2018 seems quite related, although it is more geared toward general elections rather than primaries. I think it would be a mistake not to include any candidate who manages to get a delegate (even if their support is somehow concentrated enough that they don't meet a 5% vote threshold), and that a 5% popular vote threshold is the default standard.Gambling8nt (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• A: Yes; B: No. I have found Danish Expert's comment convincing for B. As above for A, prior to the vote the cutoff should be based on aggregate not just 538. The infobox should summarise the key facts and a 5% cutoff is low enough to ensure we aren't ruling out any significant candidates, while keeping it tidy.Wikiditm (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: Yes (I assume you mean polling average of all aggregators) B: No (delegate or >5%) I believe that the 5% threshold is a good way to limit the size of info boxes impartially. I also believe that the threshold should rise to 10% if there are 5 candidates or less and 20% if there are 3 candidates, but that’s a discussion for another day. As for B, 5% or a delegate works in my opinion. Otherwise the New Hampshire primary page wouldn’t include Biden or Warren, which would be misinformation. Smith0124 (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A:Only if it looks that there's going to be a brokered convention on the day after Super Tuesday. B. No. Anything less than 15% means they got no delegates. Like I said, if a contested convention is a possibilty a week from now, it might be worth discussing, but that's in a week. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: No; B: No (delegate or >5%) In the case where there are 9 or fewer active and eligible candidates they should all be included. We should not be playing kingmaker. Polls (and the Aggregates) are not always available, recent, or reliable. We should not start making judgement calls on what should be counted. Keep it simple and use a criteria that is less likely to be seen as manipulation or subject to abuse.Davemoth (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: No, B: No - In both cases, I think the most WP:NPOV compliant option is to simply display all of the candidates, or the top 9 according to the equally weighted average of the three polling aggregators (per Gambling8nt) prior to the contest; and then the top 9 by delegates; and then by popular vote after the contest. We do not "need" a cutoff, other than the limit imposed by the template (which could be extended if we wanted). 5% is arbitrary, and could distort the information in these times when candidates polling at less than 5% have shown that they can jump to the lead in subsequent polls or primaries. - MrX 🖋 19:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: No; B: Yes Who cares what a statistics website thinks? Delegates lead to the nomination which is the most important thing, aggregations are nice to look at but immaterial. ⌚️ (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I somewhat agree with Darryl Kerrigan's comment above, but I would also note, as I did in one of the subsequent sections below, that to exclude a candidate from the infobox when they are still very much in the race, regardless of whether or not they currently have any delegates, would be counter to precedents set by Wikipedia articles published for prior elections, where all candidates still in the race were featured in the infoboxes until they dropped out. So there's a lot to consider here in that respect. If what Darryl Kerrigan suggested above agrees with that past precednet, I agree fully with the position he expressed, but wanted to weigh in with my opinion here, as I was invited to do so by him in one of the threads below. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: No; B: Yes I think all candidates should be included in order to meet WP:NPOV, though only candidates with delegates should be listed post-primary/caucus for each article, as that's the method of gaining the nomination. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note to closer - I think a second a vote should be held on part B, because based on the comments, many who voted no (like myself) believe that it should be either >5% of the popular vote or getting a delegate, which wasn’t an option in this Rfc. I believe that it’s an oversight and that the vote doesn’t accurately portray public opinion. For part B, I propose a second vote:

Option 1: Must get 5% or more of the popular vote

Option 2: Must get a delegate

Option 3: Must get EITHER 5% or more of the popular vote or a delegate

Option 4: No threshold — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith0124 (talk • contribs) 21:44, February 26, 2020 (UTC)

• A: Yes, B: Yes (Option 2) I think only candidates who get delegates should go in the infobox because that is the only metric that "matters".  Nixinova   T   C   04:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• A: No; B: Yes (Option 3/4) Our mandate is to report what is, not what we think should be. If a candidate actively campaigns in a jurisdiction using significant resources and still gets very few votes, that's still remarkable and should be documented. In general, every major participant should be mentioned so as not to bias future races WP:NPOV. The question that faces us is, "What makes for a major candidate?" Delaney's failed campaign in Iowa is remarkable; Yang, Bennet, and Patrick all rate mention with respect to New Hampshire. However, the scale should vary depending on circumstances; with eleven major contenders in an early race, even 0.1% is significant, but with four in a late race it's negligible. I recognize that this is not simple, but then neither is reality. We do the best we can. Gnerphk (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• A: No. B:Yes. For A, I strongly believe that only presenting those above 5% is deeply misleading. Those that visit the primary page may end up with the impression that only those on the page are running and make up their mind about who to vote for before they get their ballot. It also disadvantages those polling under 5%. For a fair primary, it's extremely important to show all eligible candidates. If that makes the infobox too large, then the layout of the infobox should be changed to allow for longer lists with smaller images or a simple textual list without images should be used instead. With B, I don't have as strong a stance. However, it does make sense to me that only those that won any delegates are shown, as that's what primaries are about. Mirek2 (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

If we are to include everyone at first, should candidates like Henry Hewes and Robby Wells be included then? We have classed them as non-major candidates. If we exclude candidates like Warren/Biden from some state races where they received over 8% of the vote but received no delegates doesn't that deprive readers of a good understanding of the primary both as a whole and as it played out in a state? Sure, delegates are the way the nomination is won. But our job is not to document only the winners/victors. Our job is to document the election. Losing candidates, campaigns that fall short, and those that make a come back in the contests that follow is part of that. Isn't excluding any candidate who doesn't receive a delegate in a state setting the bar to high? Isn't including ALL candidates (including ones like Hewes/Wells) setting it too low?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

On Henry Hewes and Robby Wells – if they're on the ballot in the state, then yes, they should absolutely be included, for the same reasons I provided above. Not including them would be misleading. As for excluding candidates that didn't win delegates: yes, the Wikipedia page is supposed to document the entire primary, but the infobox isn't supposed to document the primary — it's just supposed to provide at-a-glance info about it. Before the primary happens, that info should be who's running. After results are in, it should be who won the primary. (I should note that, currently, the Infobox doesn't communicate who's being shown. It'd be good to add the title Primary winners for clarification.) If anyone wants to gain a better understanding of how the primary went down, the Results section on the page provides detailed info. It would be impossible to include that same level of detail in the infobox itself, and if there was a threshold based on the popular vote, the infobox would again be misleading, potentially including a few select losers, but not all of them. That would mistify people about who took part in the primary. Mirek2 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Meh. Include the top six in each state by polling or, after the fact, results. --WMSR (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: Yes, B: No (delegate or >5%) Before a contest, I think we'd do just as well to not have an infobox at all, but that's a separate can of worms. A 5% cutoff is necessary to prevent the infobox from being too ridiculous in length (we couldn't include the ~20 candidates in New Hampshire even if we wanted to). After the vote, I don't think that "winning delegates" should be the only cutoff. It's not like getting second place in a first-past-the-post election wins you anything either, so simply "not winning" isn't reason enough to exclude people. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

And for Iowa/Nevada, "5%" should be 5% of state-delegate equivalents, not the first-preference vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• A: No, include all top six now that Steyer is out. This can be justified by the amount of national delegates, not polling. B: Yes, and also include candidates with more than 10% of the popular vote, and cap this at six candidates. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• A: No, B: No (delegate or >5%) - before vote there are 2 possible approaches, either we don't list candidates at all in infobox, or alternatively we try to be as inclusive as possible, so top 9 per polling order would be okayish. For results, a delegate or 5% of votes is a good cutoff point to be informative for readers without getting overly crowded.--Staberinde (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• A: No. B: Yes. I only trust polls on a case-by-case basis. We're not the DNC or Commission on Presidential debates here, so let's just do it like we do in the general elections (everyone with a path to win gets in).
  However, we should be more exclusive after the first ballots are cast and caucuses held. If the voters decided a candidate wasn't viable in the race, then so be it. Let's just not pretend that polling is a substitute for that, though. We may also want to consider making an exception for the overall winner of the nomination iff that candidate also contested an individual primary or caucus. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  To clarify though, since this isn't exactly a general, I mean only the major candidates get in. The ones we classify as non-serious should not be presented in an WP:UNDUE manner. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  To further clarify since this thing is a mess, withdrawn candidates should be removed altogether from the main page since they are not in the running. When the whole thing is over, then we can add them back.
  Also, popular vote is nice and all (not as nice as contests won, but that's just me), but if you can't get a single delegate then why do you need to be in the infobox? 15% is the cutoff there for most primary states, so having just 5% really doesn't mean much. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• A: Yes and B: No. Part A- 538 is among the best, though I would also be fine with using RCP or another well-respected polling aggregator. No sense in including someone if they can't crack 5% in polls. Do we want perennial candidates and performance artists in the infobox? I think not. Part B- 5% popular vote or a delegate is good enough for infobox inclusion for individual caucus and primary pages. 5% popular vote or an individual contest or 5% of the delegates for the overall 2020 primaries page. Winning a contest is significant regardless of whether or not a candidate goes on to win any other contests. Winning 5% of the popular vote is significant enough to influence the election regardless of delegate haul. Winning 5% of the delegates indicates that the candidate got some popular vote and also that they had some influence at convention. Winning a single delegate is good enough to get included on a primary or caucus infobox, but including a candidate for winning a single delegate overall in the 2020 primaries seems trivial and WP:UNDUE. Also, removing candidates when they drop out does not make sense. Candidates with suspended campaigns still have influenced the race up until that point, especially if the plan is to add them back in later. Try a reductio ad absurdum here. Imagine that Bernie Sanders had dropped out after Super Tuesday in 2016. Should we have removed him from the infobox despite his delegate wins, leaving Hillary as the only candidate in the infobox until the convention, and then have added him back? Absolutely not. Leave a "campaign suspended" note and leave them in the infobox. (Apologies if these thoughts are duplicated elsewhere, but I was pinged so I will place my thoughts in the RFC as well). Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: There have been a number of recent edits removing, adding, removing and adding candidates from the template. I tend to think withdrawn candidates should remain in the infobox if they have a significant amount of delegates. I am not about to edit war about it though. I encourage all editors including Michelangelo1992, TrailBlzr, David O. Johnson and Smith0124 to discuss how best to proceed here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I already commented here last week. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Understood, I was just suggesting that we should discuss the changes here as there was a lot of editing and reverting going on without discussion. Smith0124 is suggesting that we start a new RfC on the template used in this article only on the template page. That might not be a bad idea.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added my thoughts above (as well as below, in several other related threads. Apologies that this conversation has gotten so messy). Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have asked for a close here. Not sure if that is premature or not given the amount of responses received already, and the fast moving nature of this article and topic.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The last real discussion appears to have ended on March 4th. I am concerned that it may be a long wait to get a closer for this and the 2nd RfC. One of the acceptable methods for ending an RfC is for the RfC Participants to agree to agree to end it. I am not an experienced closer and I have participated here, but I will attempt to summarize the discussion here and see if we (RfC Participants) can get a consensus on the consensus here and maybe move on. I will sandbox something and post later.--Davemoth (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note to Closer: Unfortunately, conversation on this topic has not stayed within this section. There has been discussion here and also here. There has also been some discussions on a few of the State primary pages and on the template talk page here. Note there is also a new RfC below which attempts to address only the infobox/template used in this article as opposed to those on the individual states/territorial contest pages.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Note to closer and participants: The last real discussion appears to have ended on March 4th and Darryl Kerrigan asked for a close on March 6th. I am concerned that it may be a long wait to get a closer for this and the 2nd RfC. One of the acceptable methods for ending an RfC is for the RfC Participants to agree to end it. I am not an experienced closer (although I strive to be) and I have participated in this RfC, but I will attempt to neutrally summarize the discussion here and see if we (RfC Participants) can get a consensus on the consensus here and maybe move on (and save an official closer from an unenviable slog through multiple threads in several talk articles). A consensus here may also assist with some of the edit warring that seems to continue to occur both before and after primaries and caucuses. See separate discussion section below at Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Participant_agreement_about_closing_Two_part_RfC_about_inclusion_criteria_for_infoboxes--Davemoth (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Rfc regarding the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries infobox template

This is an Rfc exclusively regarding the infobox template for the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries. Previously, there was an Rfc about state pages, and this does not affect that result.

The question is:
Should withdrawn candidates that have delegates (Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg) and candidates still in but with no possible path to victory (Gabbard) still be included in the infobox?

The options are:
A - Remove all withdrawn candidates and candidates with no possible path.
B - Remove withdrawn candidates but keep all candidates still in the race. Possibly with a 5% threshold?
C - Keep as is.
D - Other.

Thanks all! Smith0124 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

(Edit for clarity: Option C, Keep as is, means to include the 7 candidates Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Gabbard. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)) Comment/Question:@Smith0124: Is Option A broken if we head into a contested convention? As we get to the last primaries ALL candidate would have no possible path.--Davemoth (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

• C for sure. Even after a candidate suspends his/her campaign, the delegates still matter. As long as a candidate has delegates, they should be displayed here. Think about it, after the primary is over, should we just list the one winning candidate in the infobox? Of course not. We should display everyone who has delegates. There are only a few, and it is a helpful tool while reading the article and following the election. After all, it doesn't hurt to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.118.241.67 (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• A because the infobox is supposed to be a summary, and the race at this point is between Biden, Sanders, and Warren. The other candidates should just be in the results table. In addition, I believe having a threshold for what candidates to include that doesn't hide important candidates is good to have for when we have a race with a ton of candidates again in the future. We can also add all candidates who got 5% or more of the delegates back to the infobox once the primary is over and we don't need to worry about keeping it up to date. Smith0124 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• D, other. (C, of the given options). This stems down to a disagreement about the purpose of the infobox. In my view it should summarize the entire race, not just the race as it stands at this exact moment. Therefore, any candidate who has been a significant factor in the race should stay. I propose the following criteria for inclusion in this infobox, as opposed to the individual state contest infoboxes. Any candidate who (a) wins a contest or (b) gets 5% of the popular vote or (c) gets 5% of the delegates belongs in the infobox. Dropping out does not mean a candidate should be removed. I'll give a hypothetical, which I discussed above. Imagine a two-candidate race. If one candidate drops out, do we just have the winner sit alone in the infobox before re-adding the runner-up after the convention? That does not make sense. So, according to my criteria, the candidates who would stay are Biden and Bernie (have won states), Bloomberg (won AS), Warren (delegates + popular vote), and Buttigieg (won IA, tied NH). Klobuchar and Gabbard should be removed because they do not have a significant number of delegates and did not win any contests. In particular, Gabbard's single delegate from American Samoa is trivial and I believe including her is giving her WP:UNDUE weight.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Smith0124: Would you mind self-reverting the edit you made to remove three candidates from the infobox? I do not believe there was consensus for it and I believe it should remain for now. That's the entire purpose of this RFC: to discuss whether or not to remove those candidates. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I will. Smith0124 (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• C - Keep as is. It's helpful to see who won delegates, even if some of those candidates suspended their campaigns. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I assume that by "Keep as is" you mean to include Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Gabbard? Because they have now been removed. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    • That's correct. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• D I tend to generally agree with Michelangelo1992. Leave in withdrawn candidates and only include candidates who have a significant number of delegates (maybe 5, or 10). Our job is to summarize the race not list the current candidates. When the story of the 2020 primaries is told in the future, I think Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar will require mention. Furthermore, if a brokered convention happens it may matter which candidates also have delegates, how many, if they try to persuade their delegates to support a remaining candidate, and if so who. As the withdrawn candidates have less than the three "leading" candidate who have remained in the race, they will appear below them in the infobox which works well. I have a preference of limiting the infobox to six candidates. No nock on Gabbard but she only has one delegate, has less than 1% of the vote so far, and is polling between 1-2% nationally. She deserves mention in the article including in the candidates section, debates etc, but I am not sure she deserves a spot in the infobox unless she picks up more delegates, wins a state/contest, or pulls above 5% of the vote.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Withdrawn candidate photos in black and white? - If we are going to keep withdrawn candidates in the infobox would it be appropriate for us to stylize their photos in black and white to further emphasize that they have dropped out of the race? I had the thought after seeing this on a news site. Not sure if that is appropriate but thought it might be something we should consider.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think that's necessary. They're already marked as suspended. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure it is necessary or appropriate either, just thought I would throw it out for discussion. Some editors seem concerned that leaving withdrawn candidates in the infobox would be misleading or not accurately represent the race. Perhaps, if appropriate, black and white images could be a compromise between the A/B and C/D folks that everyone could live with. Maybe not.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• C-I want to go with B but Gabbard ruins it so I'll go with C for now. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Someone in SoCal Area: Then how about option B but with a 5% threshold? Smith0124 (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• D The infobox should contain any candidates who have won delegates, whether they suspended or withdrew their candidacy at some point. Gabbard, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and (possibly) Bloomberg should appear in the infobox. There should be no cutoff percentage or number, other than the limit imposed by the template (which could be extended). An arbitrary cutoff would distort the subject, running foul of WP:NPOV.- MrX 🖋 01:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Aren't you just proposing a different cut off though? Ie. one delegate. There are others running too, including Henry Hewes and Robby Wells. In addition to them, there are others who are only on the ballot in a few states. Should we include them in the infobox too? If not, on what basis? What is the cutoff you are proposing?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

But consider articles such as 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries. Is it a violation of WP:NPOV to exclude Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Carly Fiorina from the infobox? After all, all of them won delegates. I say no, of course not: it is quite clear that their campaigns were not as crucial to the subject as those of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich, all of whom met all three of the criteria winning a contest, getting 5% of the popular vote and getting 5% of the (pledges) delegates. The many candidates who meet none of those criteria simply aren't as crucial as those who have. Asking for candidates to meet only one of those three criteria is plenty inclusive enough. I agree that the 5% number is arbitrary, but the line has to be drawn somewhere; and admitting that some candidates have had a bigger impact on the primaries than others isn't non-neutral: WP:NPOV says right there in the first line that representation should be proportional, and one single delegate or ten is clearly not equal to five hundred. We're not arguing on the personal merits of these candidates or anything; the primaries aren't even over, and although I think I'm very sure as to which candidates will stay on the infobox, I don't know for sure and no one is making suggestions on which candidates personally should be kept long term. It's just an artifact of how large this candidate field was that so many candidates got these tiny numbers of delegates, just as in the 2016 Republican primaries. In a borderline case I'd be willing to hear arguments for inclusion of someone who had, say, 4.9% of the vote/delegates or maybe a string of second place finishes, but frankly 5% of delegates is a very small amount to ask. Cookieo131 (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The Republican template limits the candidates in the template to the top 4 candidates sorted by delegate count. It is not a violation of WP:NOV to exclude candidates since they did not place higher than the 4 top delegate/vote-getters. I say that we should do the same thing that template has done: limit clutter and confusion and redundancy by limiting the candidates to 4 in the infobox, sort these 4 candidates based on delegate/vote totals, and include all active campaigns. Makes no sense to exclude any candidate because of % total or who has made a bigger impact on the race or not.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Precedent is clearly against the "limit to 4" idea: 1972, 1988, and 1992 have 5 candidates; 1976 has 6.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• D; 100% agree with Michelangelo1992 above. This should be about *notable* candidates, not just those in the race or who have won a delegate. So, keep only candidates who have won contests or have considerable numbers of votes and/or delegates (5%).--Wikibojopayne (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• D, in concurrence with comments made by Darryl Kerrigan. I couldn't agree more with what he said. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• D; I agree with everything Michelangelo1992 said. The criteria for inclusion in the infobox should be exactly (a) wins a contest or (b) gets 5% of the popular vote or (c) gets 5% of the delegates. Getting such a tiny fraction of delegates as Klobuchar or Gabbard did/have does not warrant a spot in the infobox; their campaigns are covered elsewhere. Cookieo131 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

After giving some thought, I would also like to include the addendum of including any candidate that received more delegates than another candidate already in the infobox, as I do understand why some would have WP:NPOV concerns if a candidate got, say, 150 delegates but wasn't included in lieu of, say, Buttigieg, who won one state and dropped out at 26 delegates. Cookieo131 (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion in the infobox should simply be 4 candidates based on vote total/delegate total order including all active candidates. Limiting the infobox to arbitrary information such as - (a) wins a contest or (b) gets 5% of the popular vote or (c) gets 5% of the delegates - presents bias and makes us gatekeepers of information. This is wikipedia, not CNN or Fox News.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Precedent is clearly against the "limit to 4" idea: 1972, 1988, and 1992 have 5 candidates; 1976 has 6.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• C If we exclude major candidates (defined by aggregates like 538, 270, and RCP) we run the risk of introducing bias and violating the WP:NPOV we should always strive for.Davemoth (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Is Option A a non-starter if we head into a contested convention we would have no candidates in the info box.Davemoth (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• C per David O. Johnson Koopinator (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• D: Another choice, in line with my earlier comments, and with Darryl Kerrigan and Michelangelo1992 — ultimately, our first duty is to keep those who have won a contest, whether or not they drop out (so yes, keep Buttgieg and Bloomberg); that, of course, allows for the maps, that immediately follow the candidates section in the infobox, to make sense and transmit information (the first goal of Wikipedia per WP:5P1). Secondary to that duty, it would behoove us to continue to include those candidates who, as Cookieo131 notes, win more delegates than those currently within the infobox (say, if Gabbard surges, for instance), or those who pass the 5% threshold in delegates or the popular vote overall. That's the conclusion I've come to over the past few days. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

So if Gabbard wins Hawaii, or an additional candidate (not even a major candidate) wins another contest, we are going to have around 5 or 6 candidates who have won a contest, and nearly 7 or 8 who have won multiple delegates. This gives us a cluttered infobox that's purpose is defeated because all of this information is a few scrolls away in the article. Limiting the infobox to the top 4 candidates (based on votes/delegates) is a much more concise, clean and easily agreeable way to declutter the infobox and present a snapshot of information in an unbiased way. It just so happens that 3 candidates are currently still active. The 4th candidate should be the next vote-getter/delegate-getter.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if Gabbard wins Hawaii, she should be added to the infobox; and, indeed, minor candidates should, if they win a contest, be counted, too. Look at the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries and the 1948 Republican Party presidential primaries: it makes no sense to limit the infobox to just four or so — that fails to take all the winners into account, and a limit to the candidates in the infobox would not be unbiased or neutral by any means. Even if it's cluttered, we can count all the winners within our infobox, no problem. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• A: (But I would be OK with B). The infobox is meant to be a useful tool for a quick overview of the race. Keeping people who are not going to win in there is just clutter. After the race is over the infobox can be changed to include anyone with a delegate (to preserve the historical info), but right now that's not its purpose. Ariel. (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

How do you know who is going to win or not? I agree, we need to remove clutter. Limiting the infobox to 4 candidates, similar to previous elections and primaries (like the 2016 Republican primary) reduces clutter, gives a quick overview of the race, and reduces bias toward candidates. Those that remain in the race, followed by those who have the most votes/delegates.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Just because the Republican 2016 primaries have 4 candidates in the infobox does not mean that they specifically chose to limit it at four, any more than the fact that the Democratic 2016 primaries page chose to specifically limit it to two. Why not include Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee in the 2016 Democratic infobox? It's because they weren't notable enough. Deciding upon notability isn't bias; it's one of the purposes of Wikipedia. See WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:DUE. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee dropped out of the primary race prior to voting taking place. I would agree that WP:NOTEWORTHY was used to remove O'Malley from that infobox, considering he only was in the race and noteworthy for 1 primary. I don't think there was any question as to excluding Chafee and Webb from that infobox though. On that basis, though, I would argue that having an active campaign in this primary makes you notable enough to be included in an infobox. As for the Rep page, according to the talkpage, the decision in 2012 and 2016 was to keep all active candidates and all candidates who have won a contest in both infoboxes. In 2012 and 2016, that limited both to 4 candidates. DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• D Michelangelo1992's idea is fine. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• D - the template should have 4 candidates, like most templates in previous primaries. I see 1992 as the last Democratic Primary with more than 4, and quite frankly I think I could take initiative to narrow the infobox to just 4 candidates. It allows for better readability and condenses information down to the basics. This isn't a full article on every detail of the race, it's an infobox. The template should have all active candidates, no questions asked. Considering that leaves 3 candidates, the 4th position should then go to the next top-vote-getter/delegate-getter. This would mean Sanders/Biden/Gabbard - top 3 sorted by votes, then delegates. Then Warren, since she is #4 in vote totals. Once Biden/Sanders/Gabbard withdraw, the infobox should only be sorted, again, by active candidates (which are sorted by votes, then delegates) then the next 2 positions would be sorted by votes, then delegates. So in this case, today, the infobox would be sorted as follows: Biden, Sanders, Gabbard, Warren if Gabbard drops out tomorrow, the infobox would be sorted as Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg. It's ridiculous to have a vote threshold or a delegate threshold, or a state winning threshold. We aren't gatekeepers here and that presents a bias.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You state “we aren’t gatekeepers” and that having a vote threshold would introduce bias. But isn’t limited the info box to four candidates also an arbitrary threshold? Doesn’t that also introduce bias, especially in a race such as this one, where there were more than four significant candidates? Michelangelo1992 (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This is an infobox that presents a snapshot of the race. Limiting the infobox to only active candidates and/or the top 4 candidates does not introduce bias since we are presenting information as it is. We are excluding candidate #5 regardless if they played a huge part in the race or not. It's not gatekeeping or introducing bias. 4 candidates is an arbitrary threshold that is selected based on readability, fast information, and precedent with previous elections and primaries. Having 5, 6, 7, 8 candidates in an infobox defeats the purpose of having an infobox.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@DoubleTrouble16: you cited "precedent" against having more than 4 candidates in the infobox, but precedent is clearly against your idea: 1972, 1988, and 1992 have 5 candidates; 1976 has 6. We need to judge candidates based on how well they did based on a clear criterion, not based on a made-up threshold of 4 that violates clear precedent.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• A – Just Sanders v. Biden. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

But there is an additional candidate that is still in the race.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources indicate that this is a Sanders v. Biden race. Let's not give undue weight towards Gabbard. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

But wouldn't leaving Gabbard out violate WP:NPOV? David O. Johnson (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not giving undue weight to Gabbard. We are including her in the infobox because previous discussions about infoboxes have historically established that the infobox should include all active candidates and all candidates who have won a contest. The info-box should have Biden, Sanders, Gabbard, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg based on this criteria. I argue that we should limit the number of candidates in an infobox, no matter their notability to 4 candidates because this results in a neat infobox without excessive information or formatting. By doing this, we should thus remove Buttigieg since he has received less delegates and less votes than Bloomberg.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Precedent is clearly against the "limit to 4" idea: 1972, 1988, and 1992 have 5 candidates; 1976 has 6.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

There's more than just one "additional candidate that is still in the race" beyond Sanders and Biden. Tulsi Gabbard no more merits inclusion in the infobox than do Henry Hewes and Robby Wells. Infoboxes should be limited to top 4 candidates as has typically been done in past election articles, except in the rare instances where at least 5 candidates are considered (per reliable sources) to be serious contenders to win. — Red XIV ^(talk) 09:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson: - Yes, it does.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

These infoboxes regularly exclude those who receive less than 5% of the vote. It has become a general rule for elections (which of course may be deviated from). To say that imposing some sort of threshold violates WP:NPOV flies in the face of decisions which have been made on this sort of thing for articles covering US, Canadian, UK and other elections. The reality is that in nearly every election there are candidates who run who receive a small amount of the vote and do not have any meaningful effect on the campaign, coverage, or outcome. We have already created a distinction in this article by speaking of "major" and "minor" candidates (ie Henry Hewes, Robby Wells, Vermin Supreme etc). It looks like Tulsi Gabbard is going to receive one delegate (maybe two), have less than 1% of the popular vote, and not win a contest. The DNC has also said that the debate rules will likely change following Super Tuesday. She is unlikely to be invited to debate going forward. She will not be in the March 15 debate unless she can amass 20% of the delegates by then, which remains quite unlikely. In all of these circumstances, reasonable folks could reach the conclusion that it would be undue to give her the same prominence in the article as Bernie or Biden, or more than Warren or Bloomberg.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• A' TrailBlzr (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• A That is how all the other Wikiepdia articles about previous democratic primaries seem to be organized. I don't see why we have to change it now just because this one is ongoing. We should update as we get new info using the same consistent system used in previous primaries. I definitely don't see the logic of why we would include Buttigieg but remove Gabbard. I understand that he won a state. But Gabbard's home state of Hawaii has not even come up yet. She may win Democrats abroad as well. Is the idea to add her retroactively once she wins? That is not a logical structure for making this decision. So are we for example going to include Bloomberg because he won the irrelevant American Samoa contest? Poyani (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That is not at all how the other Wikipedia articles are organized. They included people regardless of whether they were actively campaigning, based on notability. We would include Buttigieg because he has won a state and we would not include Gabbard because she has not (and add her if she eventually does). Despite the fact that Buttigieg has already dropped out, he has more votes and more delegates than Gabbard, so it makes no sense to include her over him. So does Klobuchar, for that matter. Including "active campaigns" over ones with more delegates simply gives undue attention to people running quixotic campaigns with no chance at winning. By this logic we could eventually end up including Vermin Supreme or someone similar in a presidential infobox if they are "actively" campaigning, in place of someone who actually impacted the race. And yes, Bloomberg should be included not only because he won a contest, but because he got a significant number of votes and delegates. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

According to previous articles and discussions about infoboxes (this being the most extensive discussion I've found) 2008, 2012, 2016 Republican primaries limit the # of candidates to 4 in the infobox. The 2016 Dem primary, the 2012 Dem Primary, and the 2008 Dem Primary had no major discussions about limiting candidates in the infobox. As such, I really think we should establish a limit to the number of candidates so, going forward, we can link back to this discussion. The limit should be 4 candidates. Based on 2012 and 2016 Republican primary discussions on the infobox, the 4 should be limited to active candidates and candidates who have won a contest. We should also come up with a way to sort: based on delegate totals or vote totals. I vote delegate totals, since it seems like that has been what 2016 and 2012 has done. If only 2 candidates are active, only 1 or 2 of them have won contests, we should include 4 candidates based on notability and sorted by vote totals. ie: when Gabbard drops out, Warren and Bloomberg would be included in the infobox. This changes my previous analysis. The infobox should have Biden, Sanders, Gabbard as active candidates and Bloomberg since he won a contest. Should Gabbard drop out without winning a contest, having a delegate and popular vote total less than the top 4 candidates, then the infobox should be changed to Biden, Sanders (as active candidates), Bloomberg as a candidate who won a contest, and Warren as a notable candidate. The sort order would be based on delegate count, followed by vote totals.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Precedent is clearly against the "limit to 4" idea: 1972, 1988, and 1992 have 5 candidates; 1976 has 6.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• D per Michelangelo1992 and past precedent. See the infoboxes for 2004 Democratic Party presidential primaries and 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries as examples of the criteria that were used to determine who gets a spot in these infoboxes. These are not meant to be simple trackers of the current progress of the race, they give a brief overview of the important parts of the race. Wesley Clark did not earn 5% of the national popular vote in the 2004 Democratic Party primaries, yet he is given a spot in the infobox because he won a contest. Likewise, Ron Paul did not win any contests in the 2008 Republican Party primaries, but he is given a spot in the infobox because he got over 5% of the national popular vote. Using these criteria, Pete Buttigieg and Mike Bloomberg should have a permanent spot in the infobox regardless of the popular vote they end up with, Warren should be dropped from the infobox if she drops below 5% of the national popular vote, and Gabbard should be included in the infobox if she wins a contest or rises to more than 5% of the national popular vote. If we want to change these rules, that is fine. But we cannot be inconsistent from one election to another.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

There has not been any discussion about limiting based on % of popular vote, according to what I have looked at. The most extensive discussion about an infobox came from here. The examples you state seem to list the top 4 candidates in the infobox based on delegates and votes. I don't see why we wouldn't use that same logic here. For current events, we should follow the precedent from my link I just sourced, where all active candidates and candidates who have won a contest are included in the infobox. This critera would include the primaries you mentioned as well. Like I explained above, that would also make this infobox have 5 candidates, whereas I believe we should follow precedent and limit infoboxes for elections to 4 candidates to reduce clutter, redundancy, and provide a quick snapshot of information. DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2008 Republican Party presidential primaries#Paul on the info-box is a discussion on the subject from the perspective of a past election. Your idea of including Gabbard in the infobox yet not including candidates who have received significantly more of the vote, or candidates who have actually won contests, is giving loads of undue weight to the candidates who are currently in the running. Wikipedia is not a news source and these templates are only meant to give an overview of the important parts of the race as a whole.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You wrote about "following precedent" but then listed two different (and possibly contradictory) precedents. Personally I do not know that limiting the infobox to 4 candidates is even a precedent. I read the link you provided and it did not specifically speak about limiting the size of the infobox. Has there been past discussion on it? Even if it, consensus can change. It's notable that this has been the largest field in primary history from either party. It makes sense, then, that we might end up with more candidates in this infobox. Reducing clutter is not a good reason to remove notable candidates from the infobox, especially since 6 candidates and 4 candidates both fit on two lines. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Michelangelo1992: you are right, DoubleTrouble16 is wrong. Precedent is clearly against the "limit to 4" idea: 1972, 1988, and 1992 have 5 candidates; 1976 has 6.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• D – in the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries article, the infobox features Romney, Santorum, Paul and Gingrich: the four candidates that won states in that year's primaries. I suggest we do the same and include Biden, Sanders, Bloomberg and Buttigieg in the infobox. Willwal1 (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• D – We should include all candidates who have won a state (Biden, Sanders, Bloomberg & Buttigieg) plus all other candidates who are active and have won any delegates (Gabbard). I would not object to including Warren too given that she won more popular votes than 2 of the candidates that won states. Ultimately, if Gabbard withdraws (or the race ends) without her winning any states or a substantial enough number of delegates to make a difference in the convention, she should be removed from the infobox. But she should be there as long as she is active with delegates. Rlendog (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I should point out that now that the infobox shows all candidates who have won delegates (the 5 I think should be in plus Klobuchar and Warren), I am fine with C for now as well. I do think some trimming will be in order after the contest is over, and less than 7 would be preferable for appearances, but I am ok with the 7 that are in as of now. Rlendog (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• C, Just because someone has dropped out it does not mean that their campaign should not be in the Infobox. Winning delegates is something that should be cataloged in the infobox, regardless of how many they won. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Smith0124, the C option would add back Klobuchar and Gabbard, right? If that's the case, could they be added back to the infobox so other editors can have clarity on the issue? David O. Johnson (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure, I think so. Smith0124 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I addded them back. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• C winning delegates should be the criteria. 148.77.10.25 (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• C, assuming that by "keep as is" you mean keep everyone with delegates. At the very least Klobuchar was definitely a notable contender, and although Gabbard I'd say is only really relevant in the context of the American Samoa primary, we've kept regional candidates who have won in past primaries. pluma♫ ♯ 23:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, Since the template appears to have changed a few times since this post was written, I think a clarification would be useful in the poll description.

• C, keep as is (that is, include everyone who has won at least one delegate). It seems the simplest and fairest approach. The approaches that seek to limit it further raise tricky questions: e.g. if we limit it to those who won a state/territory, that includes Bloomberg but excludes Warren, who won more delegates than him. Is that fair? Keeping all candidates who won delegates (while informing the reader which ones are no longer in the race) is most informative and most neutral. And seven candidates is hardly too many for an infobox, it isn't particularly cluttering the article on my screen. Robofish (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• A for the reasons stated by Smith0124. Mgasparin (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• D Buttigieg is significant in that he won Iowa (delegate count). So Buttigieg and everyone with more delegates than he are significant and should remain. Klobuchar should probably be removed, Gabbard should definitely be removed.--Mrodowicz (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• D Any candidate who gets more than 5% of the popular vote or 5% of pledged delegates should be included in the infobox. Additionally any candidate that has won a contest should be included, even if they do not get 5% in popular vote or pledged delegates. It is worth noting that in previous election articles (2016 R, 2008 D), there have been candidates who have won some delegates but not been included in the delegate count because of how few delegates they won. So, Klobuchar and Gabbard should not be included in the infobox. TheSubmarine (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• D: just have Tulsi because she's better looking than the others.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment/Question: I agree with other editors who have stated that there should be a uniform standard across all similar pages. To that end, is there a broader forum where we should take this discussion? SunCrow (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• B or A. No need for candidates who have dropped out and are no longer seeking the nomination. Omnibus (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a news source. The candidates who have dropped out, but won contests, will be much more notable in the long term than Tulsi Gabbard, assuming she doesn't win any contests or rack up 5% of the vote.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 05:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• A it's a summary.--Facquis (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

So we should be consistent in our summaries from every election cycle and include candidates who won a contest or got >5% of the popular vote then. What makes this different from the 2004 Democratic primaries?--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 12:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• D Remove withdrawn candidates for now, include any candidates still running that have won at least one delegate. Revisit the topic after the primaries are concluded. Domeditrix (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• A or C Either we keep the current way or we go with our traditional way of presenting campaigns. All of the D options remove Tulsi Gabbard for no reasonable reason. We don't know if she is going to gather more votes or delegates, but it appears to be bias to knock her out now with random, arbitrary limits set. She is a significant presence like it or not. And I am not a Gabbard supporter, but she needs to be treated fairly. There is zero reason to move the goalposts on her over and over. Also, with Gabbard still in and Bloomberg and Warren out she could start picking up very significant numbers such as John Kasich did in the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries, who served mostly as a vehicle for disaffected voters to vote for someone other than Trump or Cruz. Gabbard could become the None of the Above candidate in the Biden/Sanders race just like Kasich was.-- CharlesShirley (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• C it is my belief that if a candidate has earned delegates they should be included in the infobox, if after the nomination is decided you would like to simplify it that is fine, but for the duration of the primary all candidates who have received delegates should be in the infobox Edwyth (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• D Remove anyone who has dropped out and show the current list as whatever the current winning order is.... Biden, Sanders, Gabbard. If you're in the race, no matter what your chance of victory, you should be displayed. 73.221.194.79 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)— 73.221.194.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • So do you also want to include candidates like Robby Wells? He also hasn’t been mathematically eliminated from winning yet. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    • It's pretty obvious that 73.221 means only the major candidates; considering they specifically listed the three they felt should be included. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have asked for a close here. Not sure if that is premature or not given the amount of responses received already, and the fast moving nature of this article and topic.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• C – Keep as is, including every candidate who won any delegates. After the race is over, perhaps the infobox should be trimmed to the top 4 candidates to avoid clutter. — JFG ^talk 08:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• C --Boehm (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC) All candidates who won delegates should be mentioned.
• C for now. While primary is ongoing it is better to be more inclusive.--Staberinde (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Additionally I would suggest holding a general RfC for this topic after the primary season has concluded. There should more uniform rules how primary infoboxes are composed at different stages of primary (before, ongoing, finished), so we wouldn't need to have such discussions during an ongoing primary.--Staberinde (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

A general RfC is a great idea. In the meantime, let's remember that based on all the Democratic primaries since 1968, the number of candidates in the infobox can be more than 4: see 1972, 1976, 1988, and 1992. Based on that, Bob Kerrey's 15 delegates in 1992 is the fewest delegates of anyone in an infobox; 15 delegates seems a good threshold for inclusion.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• A (but open to B) — Infobox should be a summary of contents; less will be said about withdrawn candidates (Bloomberg, Warren), and candidates who stand no chance (Gabbard). This is obviously a race between Biden and Sanders -- if not just per the sources, but rather per reality. I've noticed editors mentioning WP:NPOV regarding the removal of Gabbard; I'd argue it is undue (and therefore a violation of NPOV) to keep her in the infobox considering 1. how few delegates she has, 2. she has yet to carry any state/territory, and 3. the fact that she has no likely path to victory or second place. Moreover, I'd advocate following the same standard of the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, where only the two viable candidates were retained (Clinton, Sanders) as opposed to all of them (Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Why can't every candidate who won a contest be included in a summary? Winning a contest is a good indicator of a candidate's importance in the race. Should Howard Dean and Wesley Clark be excluded from the 2004 Democratic Party presidential primaries article since they dropped out earlier than John Kerry and John Edwards?--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 18:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Because that would be undue on the basis that 1) only two candidates are winning an overwhelming number of contests (whereas Bloomberg only won one, Tulsi is still at zero), 2) infobox should be a summary of contents - little will be said about Bloomberg or Gabbard with their lack of contest victories, as opposed to Biden and Sanders, and 3) the sources/literature are not touching Bloomberg as much anymore and aren't mentioning Gabbard when discussing the current race (which they've even designated as one between Biden and Sanders). Re the 2004 article, I'm not quite sure; I thought the most recent primary season in 2016 would be more relevant and consistency should be taken from the newer consensus, as opposed to the older. Nonetheless, I suppose we can leave 2016 and 2004 as is and focus on this article. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are we even talking about who won contests or who is still in the race? What matters is delegates. Winning states doesn't matter--this is not the electoral college. Dropping out doesn't matter if a candidate has won a significant number of delegates. Warren, for instance, despite getting no better than 3rd place in any state, got more delegates than Bloomberg and Pete, who each won a state/territory. I'm not against contest winners being included (I think they should be), but delegates are the significant threshold for relevance. Of course not everyone with one or two delegates should be in the infobox. But everyone who meets a basic delegate criterion, maybe 10 or 20. I don't care how many. But we need to set the threshold at delegates; everything else is a sideshow. It's astonishing this obvious fact is not getting talked about more.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur with you, @Wikibojopayne: I would be open to all candidates with a significant number of delegates to be listed (and a focus on delegates as opposed to states/territories carried), but it would have to be a high number. Because a few delegates here and there is hardly noteworthy. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

So you don't care about internal consistency at all and would prefer to have this article series as a free-for-all which different rules apply to different articles? Martin O'Malley didn't win a significant number of delegates and no states in 2016, so that isn't the best example to cite for excluding candidates who are significantly more notable this time around.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 18:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

We all care about internal consistency. As I noted below, several Democratic primaries had 5 or more candidates listed in the infobox: 1972, 1976, 1988, and 1992. I think the cutoff should be no fewer than 15 delegates, since that's what Bob Kerrey got in 1992, and he's in the infobox. A 15-delegate cutoff would be consistent with past usage and resolve our issue here: Yes Pete, no Amy and no Tulsi.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"significantly more notable this time" = I don't think that applies to Tulsi, and as this campaign goes on, probably won't apply to those who dropped out too. Internal consistency is great, but as you can evidently see the only consistency between these articles is inconsistency. So do I rate what is due/undue as an issue of greater importance, as opposed to 'internal inconsistencies'? yep, any day of the week. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I would argue in regard to WP:NPOV that wiki-editors should be looking to respectable 3rd parties to determine who are major candidates. We are already using (while we wait on this and the other RfC) the poll aggregators of 270, RCP, and 538 to determine for future primaries both the order and 5% threshold. Both 270 and 538 still include Gabbard and I think (could not find a statement) that RCP may have dropped Gabbard out of their aggregate/averages. If any of aggregators (or maybe a majority) are still considering a candidate to be 'major' then we should use that too. An active 'major' candidate should be included in the infobox at least until the convention.--Davemoth (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

C for now. At any rate, is this really a POV issue affecting the whole article that we need to keep a hatnote in place for? There's obviously been a lot of contributors without drawing more attention to the conversation. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

There are still people arguing WP:NPOV should and shouldn't apply. Until a neutral 3rd party closer can evaluate consensus and reconcile with WP:NPOV policy the hatnote should apply. By the way, you do not include an explicit statement on if NPOV comes into play here - does you support for option C (status quo) imply anything about your feelings about NPOV? --Davemoth (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A We do not in 2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries or 2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries show candidates who dropped out early. Samboy (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

No candidate that dropped out eary in either 2008 or 2016 won a state/contest or any significant amount of delegates. That doesn't seem to be an apples to apples comparison. Arguably, if O'Malley had won a State and delegates he would be in the infobox for 2016. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

D - I suggest to either keep Biden, Sanders, Bloomberg & Warren or Biden, Sanders, Bloomberg & Buttigieg. Neither Klobuchar nor Gabbard have made enough of an impact in this race to be listed in the infobox. It should either be the candidates that were around on Super Tuesday or the ones who won contests. ~CJ Melon (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes in principle, but why limit it to 4? Other infoboxes have more: Democratic primaries for 1972, 1988, and 1992 have 5 candidates; 1976 has 6. For 2020, it probably makes most sense to include Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg. They are the top 5 delegate winners and all of them got >500,000 votes. (Also, all except Warren won a state or territory.) So, sorry Klobuchar and Gabbard, but <10 delegates and <500,000 votes is not enough to place.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

D I just want to point out that there is a major difference between suspending and withdrawing when it comes to delegates. My understanding is that if a candidate suspends they still get awarded the delegates and retain them to the convention. If they withdraw, depending on what point they withdraw, especially if it's before delegates are officially allocated, then those delegates that would have been awarded to the now withdrawn candidate instead get allocated to the remaining candidates. This is very important for the delegate count in both uncontested and contested convention scenarios.--CriticalThinking26 (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

My choice would be C, but I would also point out that the problem with A can be fixed by considering a 'path to victory' to include superdelegates; that is, if a candidate has won enough pledged delegates so far and is on the ballot in enough of the remaining contests that if they were to win all the pledged delegates from the rest of the ballots they're on AND then all the superdelagates at a contested convention, then they'd win overall. Then even by the time no candidate has a path to win enough delegates for an uncontested convention, by definition there will still be at least two candidates with a path to victory at a contested one. By that version of option A, Gabbard still has a path even if she doesn't win any pledged delegates on the second Tuesday or in the N Marianas, and will only be truly out of the race if she wins fewer than 92 delegates between now and the 17th inclusive; Biden and Sanders will now both still be 'safe' in terms of my version of option A however many or few delegates they win between now and mid-April; Hewes, Wells and almost all the other minor candidates already had no path to victory in these terms before Iowa even started, just based on the number of ballots they had failed to make it onto. But to reiterate, my first choice would be C, for the reasons others have already said. Adam Dent (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

D - Other. remove all but active candidates. I'm not choosing B because the path is irrelevant as the person is still active. Removing a candidate that is active I think would be disingenuous and unfair. ImUglyButPrettyUgly (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• A - Since Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropped out and endorsed Biden, this has turned into a race between two frontrunners, Biden and Sanders. It would be logical for the infobox to reflect this two-way race. Mimihitam (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• C Someday, possibly soon, this race will be over. At that point it will be nice to have the top candidates in the infobox with the amounts they won for easy viewing. Actually, it might be nice to add Tom Steyer and Andrew Yang even though they didn't get any delegates, they had enough support in the early states to be included (and that would make it nine candidates which would look nicer in a 3x3 box.), so I guess my vote is C or D (add Steyer/Yang) Nablais (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• B with 1 delegate. Obviously this can be switched around after the election, but I think the three remaining candidates should be included for now. Anyone with a delegate and still actively campaigning should be kept. This removes the all the clutter and confusion that comes with keeping all candidates with a delegate. It also means that we don't need to make a bunch of changes in the run up to the convention if it's brokered because we're just keeping literally all the active candidates with delegates. Unless the number of candidates changes, then the infobox won't need to change. All problems solved, and we can go home. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  For clarity, the end result would be: Biden, Sanders, Gabbard. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

That is the temporary result isn't it? Two of the remaining candidates are either going to withdraw or lose the nomination. When they do should they be removed from the infobox? When the primary is over, should some of the withdrawn candidates be added back in? If so, why should we remove them now?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• B without a 5% threshold, until the convention takes place. Until the convention, as I said in an earlier post, delegates of candidates who have dropped out don't matter, since those candidates have dropped out and therefore cannot receive any more valid/worthwhile delegates. Tulsi Gabbard, however, is still in the race, and still has the opportunity to gain a substantial number of delegates. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• C. This is how primaries are done elsewhere on the Wiki, they still have their delegates, they are still getting votes anyway, and there's no reason to remove them. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• ‘’’C’’’. Suspended candidates still have their delegates count and are meaningful to the race, so it only makes sense. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• A, Just leave Biden and Sanders, they are getting all the attention of the press and scholars, we should follow the path of RS.Cinadon36 08:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• A Throughout most of Wiki's election article history the threshold has always been %5 to allow the candidate in the info-box. I know its been debated quite extensively in the past, but there needs to be a threshold... Benjamin.P.L (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• D (I might be arguing for what option C originally meant, but it's too ambiguously worded to endorse.) An encyclopedia article documents the entire primary process as it will be remembered in history, which means including 'any notable campaign (not the same as a notable candidate -- a perennial candidate may be notable as a person but not run a campaign notable in its own right). We can and will debate exactly what `notable' means for a campaign (proposal: repeatedly discussed in detail in nationally-distributed news), but it clearly is broader than just chances to win the nomination. For a voter guide or a forecasting tool, cutting out the non-viable candidates may be appropriate, but that isn't Wikipedia's purpose. eritain (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• D. The 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries infobox seems to exclude some candidates who got at least one delegate. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Results

In the overview of the results, for each state where the final tally is not yet known, there should be a note about that in the box - for instance in the California box, the text under California should be '(count not final)' or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 02:54, March 7, 2020 (UTC)

Or better still (in my opinion), an additional column to state the number of (pledged) delegates 'TBA' for each state. Adam Dent (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard photo

Why is Tulsi the only one not smiling in the picture? There shoukd be better pictures of her than that. 88.83.36.186 (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It was changed to a smiling pic but changed back for whatever reason(I do not know). Her bio has an image of her smiling but perhaps there is some reason that image cannot be used in this article. Of course, we do not have to give in to the patriarchy and demand there be an image of her, or any other woman, be smiling. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I beleive an editor reverted to the old one of her because it is from the campaign and head on as opposed to the side. Other editors have also changed her photo to her congressional one, but I think the preference is for a recent photo, head on, and from the campaign (ie her on the campaign trail, at an event or on the debate stage). Of course, we can only use public domain or creative commons images. If you have a better one feel free to add it. I expect it will have the best chance of staying there if it meets those criteria.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Her mood with having just two delegates. --2601:241:201:DEE0:3C18:674C:E04F:D03A (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I'd caution other editors to refrain from personal commentary or expressing a personal opinion on candidates, as Wikipedia is not a forum for personal soapboxes, and makes it appear as if the editor making those statements lacks personal neutrality. There's a time and a place for discussing personal opinions on candidates, and Wikipedia isn't that place, nor is the talk page the right setting in which to do so. I could be wrong here, but that's my opinion on this. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I had changed the picture to which was from the campaign but it was also changed back to the non-smiling one. I think this one is from the same event even.Davemoth (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davemoth: I think her portrait should be a black background to be consistent with Joe's and Bernie's: A: or B: —Wei4Green • Talk 00:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I'm going to revert it back. Bkatcher (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I also added a comment to the active candidates section to come to the talk page before changing the picture. Looking at the history of that image it appeared in pages in October and the original user often undoes the edit shortly later. I have asked him to visit this page before making other editsDavemoth (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi everybody, as I said to Davemoth, we can use this portrait, but I think we had to crop it, because it’s too different from the others. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It should ideally match the portrait at Template:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, as with the other candidates. I'm trying this image there so you can see "both sides of [her] face", but we'll see if that gets reverted for some yet-to-be-clear reason. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That image legitimately looks terrifying, we should 100% not use it under any circumstances. I am in favour of the old portrait, smiling is less important than a photo being head-on and competently shot. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I like the version that Nick.mon has in place now. It is consistent with the aesthetic of the other images.Davemoth (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

My preference is for either A or B of the dark images from the California Democratic Party State Convention. If there is a better photo from that even when she has a smile folks prefer then great, but I agree that it would be preferable for her image to look similar to Biden and Bernie's.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wei4Green: I see you changed the photo. I don't think there is consensus for using that photo. Many have said here that a similar aesthetic (ie: a smile) is important. I personally think background has zero impact on the aesthetic (and now Klobuchar on the Infobox is the only outlier on that). Can you revert your edit and see if you can find something with a black background and a smile similar to Biden/Sanders? --Davemoth (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davemoth: No, sorry. That portrait is the closest I could find Tulsi with a black background and with a somewhat smile. I could try to find portraits of Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar. —Wei4Green • Talk 15:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davemoth: But the portraits of some of the withdrawn major candidates don't have a smile or a black background. I updated the portrait to File:Tulsi Gabbard (48011616441) (cropped).jpg mostly because her face is facing towards the camera, not away from it. —Wei4Green • Talk 16:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wei4Green: I just spent some time looking for other options and there are a few better ones, but I couldn't determine if there was a copyright. I came to the realization that my main objection comes from the black background. You cannot even tell where her hair starts and stops. A candidate with a dark complexion could almost disappear into the background. Maybe better photos for Biden and/or Sanders need to be found instead -- I will look into that angle when I can. Ideally we should maybe source headshots from the campaign websites (if we can find ones with no copyright or an open license.)--Davemoth (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davemoth: Yeah. I think we may have to discuss about the criteria in Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Portrait standards. I'm pretty busy today, so I think I won't get you back until Saturday. Please feel free to revert or overwrite my edit if there's a consensus on portrait standards. —Wei4Green • Talk 16:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

15% vote threshold for delegates?

Under 'Delegate threshold' it states 'Candidates who get under 15% of the votes get no delegates'. Does the 15% refer to the votes in each state, or what? JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 20:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Votes in each state, as well as votes in each state’s congressional districts. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

What Devonian Wombat says, although it needs a reliable source: There are congressional district delegates, apportioned by that district's popular vote, and the candidate needs 15% of the district vote to even have a chance at being proportionally allocated a district delegate; then there are statewide delegates, apportioned by the statewide popular vote, and the candidate needs 15% of the statewide vote to even have a chance at being proportionally allocated a statewide delegate. (I say "even have a chance" because there are a limited number of delegates, especially per congressional district, so the proportional allocation may leave candidates at the bottom with no seats left to give them.) --Closeapple (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, so the states in which some candidates won multiple delegates though receiving less than 15% of the statewide popular vote (see 'Contest schedule and results') are district delegates, and not statewide delegates? JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 03:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Correct. They won more than 15% of the vote in certain districts. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I see. Thanks all! JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 12:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

On 2020-03-05 @Devonian_Wombat deleted text on current effect of 15% threshold:

• the threshold means that any sector of the party (moderate, radical, centrist, etc.) which produces few candidates, thus not dividing supporters' votes, may win most delegates, without winning a majority of votes.

This current effect of the 15% threshold was a major point in the cited Brookings, The Hill, and FiveThirtyEight articles, and has helped drive the withdrawal of moderate candidates in February-March 2020. Maybe it would be better framed as the converse:

• the threshold means that any sector of the party (moderate, radical, centrist, etc.) which produces many candidates, thus dividing supporters' votes, may win few delegates, though winning a majority of votes.

At the same time Devonian_Wombat deleted text on accuracy of caucus results:

• Caucus rules depend on state parties, and the Iowa party decided it did not have time to correct errors in counts from its caucus.

This issue dominated the beginning of the caucus/primary season, and deserves this brief mention, with most discussion at the linked article. The only reason given for deletion was "removed poorly worded and irrelevant information" Numbersinstitute (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

No, this issue did not dominate the beginning of the caucus / primary season. The references you are using are inappropriate regardless - they don't say anything about this particular primary season, and one of them is a book that was written in 2018, before the primaries even started. Not to mention just a biased and accusatory phrasing that suggests Iowa was somehow "wrong." Matters of election security are well and good, but you can't selectively bring it up on elections you'd like to discredit. The Iowa caucus issues are well-reported on and valid to bring up at 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses; there's no reason to talk about election audits for the primaries as a whole here specifically unless you have some reliable references on THIS TOPIC SPECIFICALLY, lest every single election ever have an "election security" section. SnowFire (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The specific issue which did or did not "dominate" is "accuracy of caucus results." I'm not sure how much evidence would show dominance. Here are a range of articles, which certainly show it was considered nationally significant, and needs mention in this overall article on the 2020 primaries. Most recent wording cited just two local articles with details. More can be cited. Wording doesn't seem critical to me, but factually says what the Iowa party decided (I personally see why they decided that way). If there's a more neutral way to summarize it, great. The most recent wording was: Rules about the accuracy of caucus results depend on state parties, and the Iowa party decided it did not have time to correct errors in counts from its caucus.

• https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/14/us/politics/iowa-caucus-results-mistakes.html
• https://www.npr.org/2020/02/19/807323379/how-nevada-democrats-hope-to-avoid-iowas-tech-errors
• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/21/iowa-caucuses-survey-shows-majority-democrats-confident-fair-primary/4826847002/
• https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a30810883/iowa-caucuses-math-errors/
• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/nbc-news-review-iowa-caucus-vote-finds-potential-errors-inconsistencies-n1132011
• https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mattberman/iowa-caucus-results-2020-problem
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/iowa-caucuses-to-kick-off-democratic-nominating-contest-11580731200
• https://www.thedailybeast.com/all-the-iowa-caucus-results-are-in-but-they-contain-inconsistencies
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/10/iowa-democratic-party-responds-ongoing-errors-caucus-results-with-shrug/

The other text deleted was about accuracy/audits of the primary elections. It does seem relevant to have a brief message to complement the above caucus issue, and counterbalance reports of foreign interference, which definitely do apply to this primary election. Numbersinstitute (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/21/21147801/bernie-sanders-russia-presidential-campaign-trump-election-interference
• https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/485781-majority-of-voters-say-they-believe-there-is-evidence-russia-is-trying-to
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/04/rigged-rhetoric-makes-comeback-after-trumps-comments-sanderss-losses-gives-russia-just-what-it-wants/
• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/23/joe-biden-russians-election-interference/4851853002/
• https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/super-tuesday-russia-interference-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-trump-20200304.html
• https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/03/03/russian-interference-michigan-primary-general-election/4902193002/
• https://thehill.com/homenews/house/484202-clyburn-on-russian-election-meddling-there-is-something-going-wrong
• https://www.npr.org/2020/03/05/812217886/what-to-know-about-the-election-security-situation-after-super-tuesday

Numbersinstitute: Thanks for your response. I agree that what you're describing was a real issue with reliable sources - it's just that this is already covered at 2020_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses#Inconsistencies_in_votes. We don't have any such sources concerning the New Hampshire primary, or the South Carolina primary, or the North Dakota hybrid event, and so on. It's important to be specific here and not just vaguely gesture at election security being a problem in general - imagine if out of 10 separate elections, comments about a lack of election audits were stuck on 2 at random. That would make those 2 look more suspect, no? Even though we're directly assuming that they were picked at random? I don't think "Rules for number of delegates" is the right section to stick this material in, if kept at all, regardless. It seems something better suited for "timeline" - which again, already covers the Iowa issues. I think the NPR article you linked is a good foundation for any sourced material you do feel should be included - note that it specifically talks about "Officials dealt with problems in Texas, California and North Carolina" while also saying that "They followed comparatively smooth primaries in South Carolina and New Hampshire, (and) a comparatively smooth caucus in Nevada". That's useful, relevant information a book written in 2018 can't possibly have. Maybe worth updating the "Timeline" section first? I wouldn't have any objections to that. SnowFire (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Results Table

I noticed something about how the results table is organized. The current order of candidates is:

Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, Gabbard, Buttigieg, Klobuchar

However, there seems to be no reason behind this order of candidates.
A solution would either be an order in which candidates are listed by total number of delegates, which would be:

Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Gabbard

OR an order in which candidates are sorted by when they dropped out (while the remaining candidates are sorted by delegates), which would be:

Biden, Sanders, Gabbard, Warren, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, Buttigieg

Which one works better? ~CJ Melon (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The last one, for the time being. Candidates who have dropped out, especially if they have endorsed a candidate (I notice Elizabeth Warren is between those who are still in the race and those who have made an endorsement in your third option), are largely irrelevant until the convention. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Candidate order should be by delegates, which is all that matters for the nomination.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Per the initial design discussion in talk above: candidates should be listed "in the order of the number of delegates won so far, with the withdrawn candidates at the right-most side". At this point I would wait until after tonight's results to reorder the table.Davemoth (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Gabbard After some reflection, I think this should be ordered based on delegates, as this is likely how we will order them following the DNC Convention.--Davemoth (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Help? Anyone know how to code an image as grayscale?

Not sure this is possible without editing the photo offline and re-uploading it, but if someone knows how to do this please let me know. I have also asked on the template talk page. As many reading this will know, I suggested making the "withdrawn candidates" photos grayscale above as a compromise to the ongoing RfCs. While I do not think it is appropriate for us to change it without reaching some sort of consensus, perhaps seeing a working copy here or in a sandbox might help us work towards a consensus. Anyway, let me know if this is even possible with the coding tools we have available.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

css has a way of displaying pictures in grayscale "img {filter: grayscale(100%);}", not sure if wikipedia formatting supports this TheFIST (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent winner count

Both the infobox for the page and the "contests won" boxes in the Candidates section give Bernie a win for New Hampshire, but not Buttigieg, despite the fact they tied in the state. If we're counting by popular vote, that would mean Bernie should get Iowa too, so obviously we're counting by delegates won. I think to be consistent either we should remove NH from Bernie's win count in both places, or add it to Buttigieg's as well with a note on both that it was a tie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nablais (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You would have to check some of the talk history to be sure, but I think that we were using the winners as noted by the Associated Press or a similar 3rd party site. I tried to check now, but I couldn't get to the APNews website.--Davemoth (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Several news sites carry incorrect "winners," based on incomplete data. Surely the final "winners" must be based on delegates and/or popular vote? -- Netwalker3 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Winner should be by delegate count, unless there’s a tie. Then the winner is the one who had the popular vote. That’s why Pete won Iowa but Bernie won NH. Also, Bernie has been called the winner of NH by various reliable sources and Pete has not. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

In an emotional situation such as a primary, the "various reliable sources" are simply expressing opinions. I would say: go by delegate count only, call a tie a tie, and count 0.5 of "contests won" for those in a tie. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any proof of this? David O. Johnson (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

We WERE using the associated press as a third party souce for this, but they were refusing to call Iowa for Buttigieg because Sanders had an open appeal to the DNC. Since the Iowa Democrats had called it some editors kept changing it in the table. I changed it back once because the table clearly said "according to the AP" but it was changed again so we abandoned the "according to the AP" bit. Now we do not have any real standard. Historically, caucus winners have been called based on SDE (likely because vote totals were not released) and primaries by popular vote. There seemed to be interest in sticking with that although I do not think we ever really established a clear criteria.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Wow. ok. Hopefully they've called Iowa by now and we can go back to the AP? It feels like we should really have a standard. I personally think we should just have the number won (based on delegates since that's what matters) and then if there are ties put them in parentheses. For example: 6 (+1 tie) Nablais (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Participant agreement about closing Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for infoboxes

This is in reference to Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Two_part_RfC_about_inclusion_criteria_for_listing_candidates_in_infoboxes above and to see if the participants can agree to close this RfC.

Note to closer and participants: The last real discussion appears to have ended on March 4th and Darryl Kerrigan asked for a close on March 6th. I am concerned that it may be a long wait to get a closer for this and the 2nd RfC. One of the acceptable methods for ending an RfC is for the RfC Participants to agree to end it. I am not an experienced closer (although I strive to be) and I have participated in this RfC, but I will attempt to neutrally summarize the discussion here and see if we (RfC Participants) can get a consensus on the consensus here and maybe move on (and save an official closer from an unenviable slog through multiple threads in several talk articles). A consensus here may also assist with some of the edit warring that seems to continue to occur both before and after primaries and caucuses.

Participant Summary Table

Participants: Can each participant in the RfC please review and add your thoughts (especially if I interpreted your votes/comments wrong)? important: Please indicate (and sign) if you object to either of the proposed consensus below in the participant table in the last 3 columns.

In this RfC there are 20 Participants with clear votes/comments and 5 where I interpreted their comments as indicated in the below table:

Participant	Part A Response	Part B Response	Object Consensus A	Object Consensus B	Comments
MrX	N	N	Agree	Agree
Darryl Kerrigan	C	C	Agree	Agree	Part A concern about lack of clear definition of "major" and "active" candidates
Arglebargle79	N	N
Jiminyhcricket	N	C
Jjj1238	Y	C
Danish Expert	Y	C
Devonian Wombat	C	C?	Agree	Agree
Gambling8nt	C	C
Wikiditm	C	C
Smith0124	C	C	Object	Agree	Consensus on A is too rough
Davemoth	N	C	Agree	Agree	Considering closing A with no finding and following up with RfC(s) to define Major and Active candidates
Trillfendi	N	Y
David O. Johnson	N	Y	Agree	Agree
Nixinova	Y	Y
Gnerphk	N	C
Mirek2	N	Y
power~enwiki	Y	N
Onetwothreeip	N	C
Staberinde	N	C
MJL	N	Y	Agree	Agree
Michelangelo1992	C	C	Agree*	Agree	No objections to closing A with the caveat that we hold another RFC on the definition of “major/minor candidate”.
The Four Deuces	N	N	Agree	Agree
Jgstokes	N	C	Agree	Agree
2 participants where I tried to interpret comments into a vote:
Naddruf	U	U
WMSR	Y?	N?

Votes key: Y = yes, N = No, C = Conditional, U = Unclear

Analysis and Proposed Consensus

Scope: The initial scope of this as noted by the submitter was that the guideline would apply to the individual primary and caucus articles, as well as this main article.

'Out of Scope:' The following were not presented and did not receive any significant discussion:

• The 2nd Rfc Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Rfc_regarding_the_2020_Democratic_presidential_primaries_infobox_template would apply to only the main article and the Infobox Template. My assumption is that Option C would accept the findings of this RfC as the new status quo to "keep as is" for the main article (while individual primary and caucus articles would follow this RfC.)
• Caucus Result Popular vote calculation/reporting (5% of what numbers?). There was limited discussion by a few participants.
• Different thresholds for inclusion: A few (2 or 3) participants included other thresholds, but there was no significant discussion.

Part A: Prior to a Caucus or Primary A. Prior to a caucus or primary, should candidates only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they are polling at an average of 5% or above on FiveThirtyEight.com?

Yes: 5
... No: 13
Conditional (Y = Use average of aggregates): 6
Unclear: 1

My observation: at this point this applies only to future state/territory primary/caucus infoboxes and to future elections.

Analysis: Consensus edges to the NO vote (13 vs 11), but consensus is based on the merits of the argument, not by counting votes.

Yes and Conditional vote arguments: 5 note (or agree) we need some cutoff and 5% has been used in the past, 1 makes reference to how things have stood this primary season thus far, 1 argues we would be better with no infobox but 5% limits length of infobox, 1 makes arguments about not including non-major candidates, 3 make no argument.

No vote arguments: 4 note potentially influencing the vote and/or unreliability or unavailability of polls (or similar), 1 mentions including all candidates aggregated by 538, 1 notes excluding active candidates would be counter to precedents for prior elections, 3 mentions WP:NPOV and potential influence, 1 argues limiting only if we will have a contested convention, 1 implies sorting by national delegates but make no further argument, 1 suggest no infobox or being as inclusive as possible, 1 makes no argument.

I feel that the merits of the arguments tip the balance further to the NO side of consensus.

Secondary Discussions:
Strong consensus: Use average of aggregates, not just 538. No one opposed this idea.
Rough consensus: Limit to just major candidates (exclude non-serious candidates). Most of the YES voter and several of the NO voters expressed agreement with this.

Part A Proposed Rough Consensus: Prior to a caucus or primary, all major candidates should be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they are listed as Active candidates on the main page for that election.

Note: There is no clear definition of major candidate, so I included that last italic part, but that can be discussed further. It can be removed if it causes disagreement or if others feel this is out of scope.

Part B: After a Caucus or Primary B. After a caucus or primary, should candidates only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they have won delegates in that contest?

YES: 5
NO: 5 (3 want no restrictions; 1 wants only a Pop Vote % threshold instead of delegates; 1 only if a contested convention)
Conditional (Y = delegate or 5% Popular Vote): 14
Unclear: 1

Analysis: With the conditional votes this weighs heavily toward the YES consensus with using the Delegate or 5% Popular threshold.

Part B Proposed Consensus: After a caucus or primary, candidates should only be included in result infoboxes if they have earned a delegate OR 5% Popular Vote in that race.

Conclusion I think there is rough consensus on Part A and strong consensus on Part B. We would appreciate the thoughts of an official closer or any other neutral parties to review and comment. Participants, please indicate if you object to any of these proposed consensus and/or the process used here. Davemoth (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Threaded Discussion Starts Here Davemoth (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davemoth: It looks fine to me. No objections here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

This seems like an excellent judge of consensus, no objections from me. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Object to A - Thank you for the FANTASTIC judge of consensus, this is seriously amazing. Thank you so much for your hard work. That said, I think that the consensus on A is too rough to really be a consensus, as plenty of people could’ve voted yes or no when they really just had conditions, as said in the judge of consensus. The comments are too conflicting to give us a clear answer. However, Part B has a clear consensus as stated. Smith0124 (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this Davemoth. I agree this appears to capture the consensus on both Part A and B. Concerning Part A, I would say though I am concerned we have not defined what "major" and "active candidates" are. Many of those who have commented in the RfC opposed to a "Yes" on Part A, have said there should be no cut off, or made references to all "major" or all "active" candidates being included. As you note above this is not really a defined term. What makes a candidate a "major" candidate? In my view, that is precisely why the 5% threshold has been used before. It is objective and defined. Those arguing that there should be no cutoff have refused to comment on whether candidates like Henry Hewes, Robby Wells, or Vermin Supreme should be included. There has been no discussion of why they should not be included, and what if anything results in them being considered "minor" candidates. We seem to be imposing a cutoff of sorts without honestly defining what the cutoff is exactly. If not >5%, what does "major" candidate mean?

At the time of the New Hampshire primary, Deval Patrick, Michael Bennet, Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer, and Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente III could all make a claim to being "major" candidates. There were a total of 33 candidates on the ballot. Some had withdrawn by the time of the primary. Many had not. Should we have included them all along with Biden, Sanders, Klobuchar, Warren, Buttigieg and Gabbard? That would have easily left us with more than ten people in an infobox that is built for a maximum of nine. Many included would have been polling well below 1% in advance of the primary. Furthermore, if we are going to differ from the 5% threshold generally used elsewhere, what exactly is our reason for doing so?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

This is why I’m opposed to concluding part A. There’s no clear answer. Smith0124 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I will wait for input from more participants before making further comments. Smith0124 I am leaning to suggesting that Part A be closed with no finding with the suggestion that another RfC be submitted to define "major" and "active" as part of the selection (perhaps going back to who the aggregates include.) Davemoth (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no objections. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No objections. - MrX 🖋 02:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the work you did here. No objections to closing A with the caveat that we hold another RFC on the definition of “major/minor candidate”. No objections to closing Part B with the caveat that we should revisit the info box after the conclusion of the primary (perhaps even after the general election) to re-evaluate for notability. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I had heard of the >5% guideline several times before but didn't remember where that was from. Thanks Davemoth for linking to that original RfC or one of them anyway in the discussion on the Republican primary infobox. That is something we may wish to discuss further, I do not think there was reference to where the 5% came from in this RfC or that it was a discussion on the Elections and Referendums project.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I have been digging to try and find the origin of the 5% tradition. There is an even older Vote/RfC that had a smallish group of participants. There will need to be some better guidelines made and I will (eventually) start some on the project page. I will start with Instant Runoff Voting and how that would apply to inclusion -- maybe this can be generic enough to also cover caucuses and reapportioned votes. LOL - maybe I should start with something a little more straightforward... --Davemoth (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment FWIW, you have the correct interpretation of my opinion in the table above, and I have no objection to whatever the consensus decides on this matter. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Missing votes?

@Davemoth: I strongly objectam confused -- the second part of the RfC was not closed by Darryl Kerrigan; they asked for it to be closed - but it wasn't, and still hasn't been closed. As such, it is still active. Any conclusions made by the table you've created in this discussion are therefore inconclusive, as the table does not include the votes of myself, UpdateNerd, Samboy, CJ Melon, CriticalThinking26, Adam Dent, ImUglyButPrettyUgly, Mimihitam, Nablais, MJL, SelfieCity, Titanium Dragon, Chessrat, Cinadon36, Benjamin.P.L, eritain, and Shhhhwwww!!. If the discussion was marked as closed, where we couldn't re-open it -- okay. But that discussion is still open, and was open long enough for another 17 editors to participate in the RfC. Please update your table as the votes of the latter 17 users should be consideredreply to my dotpoint under this. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Davemoth, having re-read and re-read -- I'm now confused. Is this discussion to close part A, which will therefore render part B closed too - or is it to close both together? if the latter, shouldn't the participants/their discussion in Part B be factored into consensus? Or, which might be likely, have I really just word vomited everywhere and confused myself (and anyone reading this) in the process? kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• MelbourneStar At this point I am only looking to get consensus on the First (2 part) RfC Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Two_part_RfC_about_inclusion_criteria_for_listing_candidates_in_infoboxes as activity had died down. At this point it looks like weak consensus for Part A and strong Consensus for part B. I play to wait a few more days before posting more of a conclusion. I think the most vocal participants have each weighed in.

Where you were not a participant in the first RfC I would welcome your (somewhat neutral) review and input on if I have judged and presented the consensus in a reasonable and NPOV manner (or any other input you have.)

The 2nd RfC Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Rfc_regarding_the_2020_Democratic_presidential_primaries_infobox_template has still had activity within the last few days, but I may take a similar process there as well. By my reading this RfC would apply to the Template and main primary article, but not to the individual state/territory articles. The first RfC would apply (IMHO) to choice C (status quo) in the 2nd RfC.

These political RfCs look to be taking several weeks or longer to get an experienced closer. I am both trying to make their job easier and to maybe simplify parts of the process.

I also plan to introduce some RfCs at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums to see if there is consensus on some of these RfCs to include in the general process. I will probably start with a RfC on how to report (and consider for 5% threshold and polling) for instant-runoff voting elections as we have primaries in Maine for Senate and Representative in June that will likely include that (5 candidates in the Democratic Senate Primary, and 3 Parties + Independents in the November General Election)--Davemoth (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries#RfC regarding the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries infobox template

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries#RfC regarding the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries infobox template. feminist (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Portrait standards

All the portraits currently in the infobox is integrated as the 4:3 ratio. That may be one of the standard we could agree on. However, for other standards, we need to come to a consensus.

1. Background (dark/black/doesn't matter); 2. Facial direction (towards the camera/doesn't matter); 3. Smile (must smile/doesn't matter).

My personal preferences are 1. Background should be black for all candidates. If couldn't find a black background for one candidate, then the background could be dark. If still unapplicable, then it doesn't matter; 2. The candidates' face should face towards the camera; 3. Smile doesn't matter. Could be a grin, could be serious. Davemoth, Someone in SoCal Area, Darryl Kerrigan, Jgstokes, Bkatcher, Nick.mon, UpdateNerd, Devonian Wombat, what do you guys think? —Wei4Green • Talk 16:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

My personal preferences:

Aesthetic Similar to other candidates (pose, smile, etc)

Background Contrasting with hair/clothes

Source recent from campaign trail (if available and matches above 2 criteria)

--Davemoth (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with these, in addition to consistent ratio. Taking it to the level of "the background must be a certain color" isn't productive. Just using the best pictures that work, with a little common sense, is the way to go. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

My personal preferences are:

• 4:3 ratio
• Neutral background
• Recent pic, taken from the electoral campaign

-- Nick.mon (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't really care that much. The only two things I think are really important are that it is from the 2020 campaign trail, and it is similar to the other photos. A smile is nice, but a grin or serious look is fine too. I get the inclination where folks get upset if they think an unfaltering photo of their favourite candidate is chosen. But there isn't anything wrong with any of the Tulsi photos that were included in the above discussion. We shouldn't be including photos that are intentionally chosen to make folks look bad (ie clearly unflattering facial expression, or altered to make someone look red/ill). Other than that, we just need to pick a photo and move on. Frankly, all of the photos of Tulsi and as far as I recall all of the iterations of Bernie and Biden photos have been fine. The reality is that sometimes, the perfect photo is not available or public domain. I am happy to live with good ones which are.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I really don't think having standards for portraits is a good idea at all, besides maybe one for the ratio. The constant shuffling of images in a desperate and futile attempt to find the perfect one is more harmful than sticking with one perfectly fine picture, and what image that is should not changed on a whim. Creating arbitrary standards around picture quality just means we will have a constantly shifting picture, which is confusing to readers. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Pledged delegates map

Why has the map showing pledged delegates by candidate in each state been removed? I found it very helpful.68.15.198.210 (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, does anyone know why it's not there anymore?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Louisiana Primary Date Change

Please update timeline to include new date for Louisiana primary. New date is June 20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.120.5 (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I updated the timeline. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Clickable map

There is a problem with the map in the infobox. The first map, showing delegates, is clickable, while the popular vote map is not. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Added the option.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Washington?

Is there still no definitive result from Washington?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it’s a vote by mail state and the AP (and other reliable sources) have not called it yet. It’s a close race and it may be a while for all of the mail-in votes to be counted. And they don’t have to arrive by Election Day; they just have to be postmarked by then. It’s over 90% reporting now, so it should be relatively soon. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI, multiple news outlets are now calling Washington for Biden.[1],[2],[3]. BD2412 T 01:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Change of primary dates

Louisiana and Georgia have changed their primary dates, and the changes have been duly noted here. However, I read this in a Washington Post newsletter today: "Ohio was supposed to hold its primary tomorrow, but its governor just said he wants to cancel in-person voting and extend absentee voting." Some adjustment should be made or note added, if there will be no in-person "election" held tomorrow, and the date by which people can vote by absentee ballot is extended. This is becoming less of a "Super" Tuesday III now almost 1/4 of the delegates (136 out of 577, now reduced to a total of only 441) are being removed from Tuesday itself. WordwizardW (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a judge will decide whether to postpone the Ohio election. [4] David O. Johnson (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

Change undecided Washington State graphic to blue Biden graphic. Wingflop2 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Not all pledged delegates in Washington have been assigned yet. There's still 5 more. 162.221.124.29 (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)