Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums

Daylight Saving Time now in most of the country
For the April 14th debate, I believe the start time should be expressed as "E.D.T." instead of "E.S.T." (standard time). Doesn't Brooklyn observe daylight saving time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.110.118 (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

DAYLIGHT time, not Standard time
The April 14th debate DID turn out to be held during Eastern DAYLIGHT Time (E.D.T), not "E.S.T." as initially documented in the chart of debate times and places. The debate table should be corrected by someone more knowledgeable than me about "editing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.110.118 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Separate article unneccesary
There is no reason to have separate article for every single debate held when they can be covered in one main article perfectly fine. I do not wish to delete any content so AFD is not the appropriate place to bring these pages. This article was split without any consensus, so User:PanchS should provide one that these subarticles should exist separately, rather than in a single page that is more convenient and easily readable, not me. Reywas92Talk 19:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Single article or split each debate
On March 20,  created  individual  articles  for  every  Democratic  Party  presidential  debate,. On May 4, blanked those new pages and. On May 19,. To quench an edit war, I am hereby opening an RfC: should the individual debates have their own articles? Please !vote with Merge or Split below and express your rationale. — JFG talk 12:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Opinions

 * Merge – A single article reflects better the continuity of the issues debated between candidates. Also, individual articles are very short and unlikely to expand now that these campaign events are behind us. — JFG talk 12:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per the reasons described by . –Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge. I don't think every single debate is notable enough to merit its own article. As said, these articles are very short and it would be beneficial to have all the info in one place. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge. This article is not all that large.  It doesn't need to be split. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge Common sense would be that all nine debates between candidates fit as news events in the context of the whole, not notable by themselves. A single article can cover this content perfectly well. PanchoS also created debate articles from Republican Party presidential debates and forums, 2016, duplicating the content of the main article though not removing it; those pages should be merged as well. Reywas92Talk 18:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per all above. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  12:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge No need for all these duplicate content forks. It actually makes it harder for the reader. AusLondonder (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Leaked debate questions
No mention in the article in the controversies section yet? - "The Friday before the debate, at about 5 p.m, the producer, Danelle Garcia, called her: CNN had picked one of her questions." East Village Magazine - "... [Mikki] Ward and [LeeAnne] Walters identified Garcia — a producer for Anderson Cooper — as the employee with whom they communicated ahead of the debate. ..." Right Wing site Daily Caller--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)