Talk:2008 United States presidential election in Massachusetts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is kept as an archive of a merger proposal, the result of which was 'Keep. Rationale: Little, if any, was added to this article since the proposal was floated. It's synonymous with the larger article.

Proposal: Merging Massachusetts Democratic primary, 2008 and Massachusetts Republican primary, 2008 be merged into this article. Process: Please ask other editors to add their opinions. Consensus with more than 5 opinions are necessary within 14 days (by March 10, 2008) to make the merger. Otherwise, no change will happen. Rationale: I believe the primary articles were created in all states and so the Massachusetts ones were made for the sake of consistency across the nation. That is a good goal, I suppose. However, the primaries were not particularly notable in Massachusetts compared to, for example, New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, Texas, Ohio, etc. The "Superdelegate dilemma" which I added to the target article is one notable highlight in the commonwealth. However, that is more about the aftermath of and subsequent to the primary election itself. In short, this (the target article) will look very nice and complete with the primary articles included therein.—Markles 16:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Opinions: The two articles listed are the exact same article right down to the link. Was the second one intended to be something different? (Tjliles2007 (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC))[reply] My mistake. I've corrected that now.—Markles 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ok, now I got it :p I think all states should be combined like that, just makes sense. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC))[reply] I support this proposed merger. Randall311 (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Support - these are small and easily combinable.--Appraiser (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Support Small articles, without any actvity. For the intrepid editors, additional analysis of county, municipal and congressional district variations are desirable. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Support These are two small articles that would be very easy to merge. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 10:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. I think it is a very good idea to keep these articles separate. They each are parts of very different campaigns. Also, these stubs are only three weeks old. Give them some time to ripen. Kingturtle (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] How much "ripening" could possibly happen? I say merge them; and then if something somehow does happen to make them more involved, then split them back.—Markles 13:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] These articles are about completely different political races. Kingturtle (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Not "completely" different. They're both running for the same end goal. All three articles are really just parts of a whole.—Markles 13:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I don't see the harm in keeping them separate. Kingturtle (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment. DON'T US - Jimmy Slade (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. The editors of Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries are currently working on moving material from that article into this one (see the talk page). Additionally, we plan to expand this article (and other primary/caucus articles) to include information about delegate selection and allocation in this election. See the bottom of this page to get an idea of the kind of information we're hoping to include. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oppose There are two reasons to keep these articles separate. 1) Simply for consistencies sake, and more importantly 2) Both Republican and Democratic primaries are notable in their own right, and each article has the potential for major expansion. Joshdboz (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Support no real significant info in either make them one Gang14 (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United States presidential election in Massachusetts, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in 2008 United States presidential election in Massachusetts[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2008 United States presidential election in Massachusetts's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "fec":

From Jonathon Sharkey: "Impaler For President 2012; The". Federal Election Commission. Archived from the original on 2008-09-19.
From 2008 Green Party presidential primaries: "FEDERAL ELECTIONS 2008: ELECTION RESULTS FOR THE U.S. PRESIDENT, THE U.S. SENATE AND THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES". www.fec.gov. Federal Elections Commission. Retrieved April 6, 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]