Template talk:2008 Democratic presidential primaries delegate counts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Elections and Referendums (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

3rd/4th Place Color Keys[edit]

Is it still necessary to show the 3rd and 4th Place Color Keys? The lack of shading makes it appear that Gravel is in 4th place, while technically he would be in third (last place) if he is the only candidate remaining, apart from Clinton & Obama.

Should the box be corrected to have only 1st and 2nd place color keys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auasr (talkcontribs)

That's not a bad idea, although we could put the third place color back in Edwards's boxes. I thought it just looked odd to have color in the "withdrawn" section, but would not be opposed to putting the color back. But either way, based on totals, Gravel still is in 4th place. He's just behind someone that is not in the race anymore. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Edwards has not withdrawn from the race, he suspended his campaign. He still has delegates that will go to the national convention and is in 3rd Place. The table should be revised to reflect that. Perhaps add another color?--Sarasf (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)sarasf

Edwards withdrew[edit]

He didn't "suspend" his campaign. "Democrat John Edwards bowed out of the race for the White House on Wednesday, saying it was time to step aside "so that history can blaze its path" in a campaign now left to Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama." " Edwards said that on his way to making his campaign-ending statement, he drove by a highway underpass where several homeless people live." ""John Edwards ended his campaign today in the same way he started it" " As expected, Edwards said he was suspending his campaign rather than ending it, but aides said that was simply legal terminology so that he can continue to receive federal matching funds for his campaign donations." [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talkcontribs) 02:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

He is out of the race. I don't disagree with his grey coloring. The question is, did he release his delegates. According to our two sources on the template, the answer is no. He still has his delegates, even if he is no longer in competition. --Aranae (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, seeing as how our sources say he ended his campaign, I think that we should change the table and articles to reflect that. If there are any objections, we would like to know. SkepticBanner (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I do. Edwards had more delegate than Gravel despite him bowing out. his could possibly be revised by placing Edwards higher in the chart than Gravel, but still marking him as out, and place Gravel as fourth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigvinu (talkcontribs) 23:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actual Vs. Predicted: Unclear[edit]

Can we make the distinction between "Actual" and "Predicted" delegates a little clearer? What do they mean? Is "Predicted" the same as "Projected"? 10:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Projected" delegates means that the delegates haven't been "officially" counted, but since the results are in, the delegates can be counted. For example, Iowa elects its National Convention Delegates through a state convention which hasn't happened yet, but based on the results of the Iowa Caucuses, we already know how many go to who. I don't think it really matters, because it would add up to the same number of delegates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigvinu (talkcontribs) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

2nd: actual vs predicted[edit]

i second putting a distinction between these two columns. it seems like they're the same thing just from different sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Error9900 (talkcontribs) 12:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Pledged delegates.[edit]

It appears that the number given by the New York times includes both pledged and super delegates. I don't think it should be used for a source for that part of the table, or someone should net out the New York Times prediction of super delegates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think they do count superdelegates. Here is a quote: "The New York Times counts only delegates that have been officially selected and are bound by their preferences." [2] It would seem that the counts for actual pledged delegates really are just actual pledged delegates. So there is no superdelegate issue. SkepticBanner (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't the pledged delegates being counted?[edit]

The first column that consists of the pledged delegates isn't being counted in the total. Why exactly is this? The two middle columns from CNN are supdelegates and predicted pledged delegates and the first one is actual pledged delegates, right? Or is there confusion about the sources and what they mean so this is the way it is in the meantime?SkepticBanner (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The first and second columns are really just different counts of the same thing. The first column is from the NY Times and it only counts delegates when the state officially designates the number of delegates that go to the person (well, usually). CNN, on the other hand, divvies out the delegates based on their understanding of each parties delegate rules. In order to keep things consistent, only the columns from CNN (columns 2 and 3) are included in the totals column. --Bobblehead

(rants) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The first column are official delegates (those who have been officially elected by the state) while the 2nd column is the total of the ones that have been elected and the ones we know go to each candidate (One's official, and the other one isn't that's all). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigvinu (talkcontribs) 23:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why were the columns switched?[edit]

A short while ago, the total delegate counts were the superdelagates and the ones directly to the left. Now it is to the far left. Why were they switched? From what I've heard, it's different information regarding the same thing because of differing sources. I'm a bit confused as the template is constantly changing and there isn't always a reason given. SkepticBanner (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It was changed because of vandalism. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for Inclusion in Template[edit]

I suggest this template be restricted to candidates with delegates. Adding candidates without delegates only increases space without offering any improvement to the template itself. This would qualify Obama, Clinton, and Edwards but, as of this time, would not include Mike Gravel. --Barinade2151 (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Gravel's lack of delegates doesn't preclude him from inclusion in this template. He is a national candidate and the point of this template is to track the delegate counts and status of the national candidates. --Bobblehead (rants) 08:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me... so why was he dropped from the template, but the withdrawn candidates were kept? The most useful thing to me seems to be to keep all current candidates (including Gravel), and eliminate all withdrawn candidates without delegates (leaving Edwards). Otherwise, just keep everyone.--Margareta (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There apparently is a disagreement on United States presidential election, 2008 about whether Gravel and Keyes should be included and that disagreement has spilled over onto the template. The only reason why Gravel was left off was to let that disagreement reach consensus. I'm not at all opposed to including Gravel, but then I'm also not opposed to not including Gravel.--Bobblehead (rants) 22:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think when there's disagreement, inclusion would be better than exclusion.--Margareta (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I've listed this on the Republican table comments page too. I think we should keep all of the candidates in the articles, including the "contoversial" ones, but remove all 0 delegate candidates (active or withdrawn) from the tables. No one is viewing the tables alone without the articles, and adding the candidate at a later date when they win delegates wouldn't be a problem. I think it's a fair and reasonable compromise. --Bark (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Except the template is not used only on articles related to candidates that have delegates. It seems odd to me that we would leave a national candidate off the template simply because they have either withdrawn or have not gotten any delegates yet, particularly if the template is used on their campaign's article. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why that bothers you. The template's subject is the allocation of delegates. Not having an entry on the template doesn't mean the candidate isn't in the race. They are. They just haven't won any delegates yet. Adding them after they win delegates is no big deal. The subject of active candidates and candidates without any delegates are apples and oranges. To use the new Republican template as an example, Mitt Romney is no longer an active candidate, but he has to remain in the template because he has delegates showing up to the convention in his name. Romney can't "sell" them or "give them away" to another candidate. He can only "free" them to do whatever the laws of the respective states allow the delegates to do. On the other hand, Alan Keyes hasn't won any delegates yet, but he still has an active campaign. (Unlike others who seemingly want to shut him completely out of the race, I don't. I have no problem recognizing the candidacy.) So the template can appear on "his" page even without his name in it. It doesn't mean he isn't in the race, just as Romney's name appearing in the template doesn't mean he still is.
Now, there seems to be some very heated opinions concerning this, but the thing is we all have to work together and find some common ground. By only having candidates who have won delegates in the template, the issue is cut and dry. "Why isn't so-and-so in the template?" Because he hasn't won any delegates. "Why is so-and-so in the template? They quit!" Because they have won delegates committed to them, and those delegates are showing up to the convention.
Now, I anticipate that the articles pertaining to active candidates will remain contentious, but as far as these two templates go, I think we can firewall them out of the contentions by just sticking with the facts and focusing not on the candidates in the race, but on the delegates themselves and who they're committed to at the two national conventions.--Bark (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)If the purpose of this template were just to track the delegates, then you might have a point, but the purpose is to track the number of delegates that each candidate has and having 0 delegates is just as valid a value as having 1 or more delegates. The criteria for inclusion in this template is the exact same one that is used across all of Wikipedia, if a reliable source is found the includes the candidate and the number of delegates that they have, then they can be included on this template, if a reliable source can not be found, then they should not be included on this template. There really isn't a need to make it any more difficult than that. I'm quite frankly boggled as to why there has been as much fighting over this template as there has been. It's a very simple template that does a good job of displaying the content that it is supposed to be displaying. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say the point of this template is to "track the number of delegates that each candidate has"? The title of the template is 2008_(party)_presidential_primaries_delegate_counts. "Candidate(s)" is no where in the title. My point being, the purpose of this template IS to track the delegates.--Bark (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes.. And zero is a valid delegate count... If a reliable source is found that includes them, there really isn't any reason for us to include any other criteria beyond that. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No it isn't. Zero isn't "a valid delegate count". Zero is nothing. Zilch. Nada. I have zero delegates, and I'm not on the list. As far as you know, I'm on at least one state ballet for President. It's a can of worms. I can recognize you feel you're right, but we need to come to a consensus. Are you trying to reach common ground or justify your position and defeat the opposition? I am in the middle here. I don't hold the one side's opinion or the other. I say to both sides, which seemingly includes you, "Put the swords away. What's the simplest solution?" Like I said before, if someone gets delegates, we edit the template to include them. No big deal. This isn't an article. It's a table that just lists numbers, and zero is implicitly represented by the absence of an entry. Simple, fair, accurate, and easy.--Bark (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Editing templates that are used in article space isn't any different than editing the articles themselves. Anything that is used on this template still must meet Wikipedia's three core content policies. This means that if a reliable source is found that includes their delegate count (even if that count is zero), then it can be included. This is not a difficult concept and is commonly applied across Wikipedia. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Bark, you say you're in the middle, but you're the only one arguing for removal of candidates. You say you're trying to reach a consensus between two sides, where's the other side? Since the purpose of the template is to provide information, I think it is helpful to people who see the template and want to know, for example, whether the "minor" candidates have zero delegates or a few. I don't think it's implicitly implies that absence from the template means zero delegates; it could mean they have too few to have a chance so they've been omitted. Someone would have to dig to find out why they were excluded. The way it is now is transparent. But it seems to matter an awful lot to you that candidates with no delegates be excluded. Why do you feel that's so important?--Margareta (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm so passionate for the removal of Mike Gravel and the other candidates who have dropped out that, as you can plainly see, I've edited the template to remove them . . . wait a minute . . . --Bark (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Why isn't Gravel on this list? --Ray andrew (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Join the discussion one section above. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

NYT source went away?[edit]

Who took the NYT away as a source? Now the table doesn't match up with the source...--Margareta (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I found and fixed it.--Margareta (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Include NY Times column?[edit]

So, what's everyone's opinion on keeping the "Actual pledged delegates" in the template? User:Bmwraghu seems to be of the opinion that it should be removed, but a couple of other editors have been adding it back in.. Well, at least the source and then repurposing the "Estimated pledged delegates" to use the NY Times article, until I add the column back so the template at least adds up properly. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

put off any decision on removing NYT from sources till tommarrow. Due to different allocations of superdelegates, and other numbers, this template has always had multiple sources. NYT takes more time than other sources to adjust their counts, due to the complex rules of each states delegate calculation. The only reason to move to CNN at this hour would be that they currently give BO higher numbers than HC. All sources will reflect new numbers in the morning.-- (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It really doesn't have anything to do with the allocations of superdelegates or the speed in which NY Times updates their pledged delegates, but is about whether or not the column should be included in the template at all. I don't really care if it is included or not, but this removing and re-adding of the column has to stop. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
NYT just dropped almost 200 delegates from each candidates counts. This is due to states where the actual delegates (as in the people who vote) are decided in party caucus (CO for example.) and Mich and FL not having votes counted. -- (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to bring up the removal of NY times again.. It doesn't seem to reflect the "Actual Pledged Delegates anymore". If you look at the details of their results you'll note that they are now include the superdelegates in their totals. Granted, we could subtract the superdelegates from the total, but that would be a bit of original research. Is there anyone that would be opposed to me removing the NY Times column? Or should we just slide it over to column four and rename it? --Bobblehead (rants) 16:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me. You're the expert :-) --Margareta (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Why is MSNBC's count of delegates different than CNN's and NY Times? Even CNN's an NY Times projections are slightly different. The article should explain why this is because it is confusing. (Jmrepetto (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Because the counting of delegates is not an exact science and all of the news organizations "estimate" what each candidate won. This is particularly true in states where the delegates are not actually assigned by the first round of caucuses or elections. As an example, the state I live in there are actually three levels of delegate selections and during each level of selection the percentage of delegates assigned to a candidate can change. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks (Jmrepetto (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC))


Are we gonna have the list in alphabetical order or delegate count order? GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: PLEASE, If anyone changes this template back to 'list via delegate count'? Do such a change for both the 'Democratic' & 'Republican' templates. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the opinion on this matter: Should John Edwards be placed above Mike Gravel even though Edwards is no longer in the race? --Bark (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is that you can list it in any number of ways, but currently it had no real order. Personally, I think it makes most sense to order by the current overall leading candidate - list it by merit and popular support. Color legend is not effective for someone taking a cursory glance. --andersen_hc (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been a month, so I'll propose a cleaning again.[edit]

Again, I'm not trying to censor information, as I'm not advocating removing content from the political articles. With that said, I still think there is a lot of dead weight in this template that a)isn't needed at this point, b)makes it look unsightly, and c)makes it look different from the comparable Republican template. Anyway, I would like to propose we change the template to look something like this: Bark's Proposed Look for Template:2008 Democratic presidential primaries delegate counts

I'm not trying to force this through. If I was, I would just make the actual edits in the real thing, surely starting an edit war. I just honestly think it looks better, and with the articles reflecting the information that would be removed anyway, I don't see how it would be considered censoring. The table would include active candidates and resigned candidates with delegates (Edwards), arranged in alphabetical order.--Bark (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I think it looks better the way it is now. johnpseudo 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the point in removing the withdrawn candidates from the template. Their campaigns didn't become non-notable just because they dropped out and the CNN source includes them, so the template just matches the source. It also matches the article on the Democratic Party primary... --Bobblehead (rants) 19:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(For the record, I didn't remove the inactive Republican candidates on that template, in case anyone relatively new on the two pages is thinking that.) I do find the difference in the psychology of the editors between here and there fascinating.--Bark (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)