Talk:2016 Idaho Democratic presidential caucuses

No need to mention candidate activities
This article should be made to focus on results ONLY and what happened on the day of the caucus. I don't see this on other articles that are similar, so why on this one. People don't need to know that Michelle Kwan campaigned for Hilary. People don't need to know that Bernie Sanders drew 7,000 supporters. People don't need to know about the Republican primaries elsewhere on the day or something like that. These are irrelevant details. This is an article that should focus on results and events of the caucus only, not candidate activities. If you want to do something like that, please include it in all articles similar to this one. It's all or nothing. Nike4564 (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

A complete election article usually covers background, campaign, polls, events on election day, results, possibly controversies, aftermath and consequences, in other words: everything notable that is connected to the election. If some of these are missing here or there, this is probably why these are still stub articles. If WP:RS report Kwan campaigning for Clinton, or Sanders drawing 7.000 supporters, then these facts are obviously notable, and nowhere else they're appropriate to add but here at the most specific articles on these primaries. Secondly, within a single article, there obviously has to be some balance, but across articles there is no "all or nothing" policy and can't be. Finally, I'm again reminding you that this is not about material I added, so please stop mischaracterizing it as such. Thanks. --PanchoS (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "should be made to focus on results ONLY and what happened on the day of the caucus" – Who says they should, just because?
 * Let's be clear here. Firstly, you accuse me of starting an edit war in the description box. You might disagree, but it's hard to see that you would've been directing this accusation onto both of us but me. None of the other users reacted upon my edits at first, only you did. You knew I would've probably have been provoked by your edits. So technically in that sense, YOU started it. If I'm correct, the user who put the material there didn't even bother undoing my edits! Yes, he edited after you undid my edits, but if he really cared, I'm pretty sure he would have checked frequently on this article! Also, I am not saying that you added the material, but if you keep on undoing my edits, than who should I be speaking to then? You keep on putting it back in, so it's hard to say you're not "responsible" for this material now. Finally, it doesn't matter if this material is "sourced", 'notable" or not. I can put random sourced info onto an article that wouldn't make sense (At least I get what you're trying to tell me). You say that a complete election article covers everything in your statement. However, I see rarely anything that you listed in your other articles! So why start with this one all of a sudden? Articles like this have always included results only and what happened on the day. It's pretty "standard" now for these types of articles, so I don't know why you are doing something different now. Anyways, it's pretty obvious there will be no end if it keeps going like this. I'm open to a compromise right now. If you have any suggestions, I will happily see what you have to offer. Sorry if I offended you in any way, but I just had to come across clearly and hope you understand. So yes, if you have any suggestions fell free to leave them here! Thanks. Nike4564 (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)