Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 12

RfC on infobox inclusion criteria for candidates
With this RfC, I’m hoping we can resolve the issue of infobox inclusion criteria, which remain hotly debated for this and other primary elections, such as the Republican primaries. Multiple RfCs on this page were closed inconclusively. With no consensus, editors continue to boldly change included candidates on this and related pages for individual contests. Now that the primaries are nearing their conclusion, I believe there is more information with which to compare this year’s elections to past ones, and a consequently higher chance of closing an RfC conclusively. The most recent discussion on this page occurred at. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 08:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments struck to indicate limited scope. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 21:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Which of the following criteria should be used to determine which candidates are to be included in [the] infobox es on United States presidential primary election pages, including those for ongoing elections ?
 * Part of question struck to indicate limited scope. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 21:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * A: The candidate has won pledged delegates.
 * B: The candidate has received greater than 5% of the popular vote.
 * C: The candidate has won a contest. (Applicable to main pages only)
 * D: The candidate has satisfied B or C or received greater than 5% of the pledged delegates. (We’ll need to add a parameter to the infobox template to show delegate percentages.)
 * Striking sockpuppet proposed option not supported by any other editors. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 03:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

— Tartan357   ( Talk ) 08:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that this question is about the main page only, rather than individual contest pages. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 20:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey
A - since delegates are what's required for nomination. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So do you support including all seven candidates that have won any delegates? Are Gabbard's two delegates or Klobuchar's seven significant when we have 3,979 awarded in this contest?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * These articles are about primaries & caucuses, not general elections. So yes, delegates take priority over popular votes. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you want an infobox containing at least seven people on the main page?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You seriously want Gabbard in the infobox? She was a spoiler candidate who got little media attention, only reason she got the two delegates from American Samoa is because that’s where she’s from and she got like 20 votes. I don’t get it. Smith0124 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * She's won delegates, unless ya'll want to wait until we see how the delegates actually vote, at their respective national conventions. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A, if a candidate has won delegates, than that is automatically pertinent information worthy of inclusion in the infobox. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone gets less than 5% of the vote it isn't considered notable enough to go in the infobox. 2 delegates (Gabbard's total) out of 3,979 is 0.0005%. Is getting 0.0005% of delegates really notable? Smith0124 (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A and B: I have previously offered my opinion that the infobox should feature those who have had significant coverage of electoral victories. By that criteria, I'd exclude any who did not win any delegates, as well as those who only won a handful of delegates. But when it comes right down to it, with Biden having now clinched the nomination according to most sources, for myself, I am far less concerned than I would have been weeks or months ago about the extent of the criteria for inclusion in the infobox. Just my two cents here, for what they may be worth to anyone. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's worth a lot to me, especially since I haven't seen your opinion around here before. The goal of this RfC is to establish a consensus for other US presidential primary election infoboxes, as well. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 07:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Tartan357, although I have had around 14 years of editing experience here on Wikipedia, I'm a relatively new contributor to pages about political matters, races, and candidates. In a lot of ways, I'm still learning the ropes when it comes to things like this. But I have observed a lot of the back-and-forth conversations over time about the infobox for this page, and if my comments, such as they are, can be helpful in crafting policy relative to current and future usage of infoboxes going forward, I'm happy to weigh in regarding such matters. FWIW, I appreciate you taking the initiative to try and resolve this question more effectively. As a relative newcomer to pages of this sort, I hope that when I do weigh in, my comments can be useful. If you need further clarification about my viewpoint on this or any other issue, I'd be happy to provide it. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. Would you be willing to switch to just option A? It looks like there's a lot of support for that. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 03:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My one reservation about that idea is that neither major political party in the United States, insofar as I am aware, has ever nominated a candidate who won single- or double-digit delegates. The delegate count can be found elsewhere in this article. Do we really need to bog the infobox down with every candidate that won a delegate, no matter how remote their chances to secure the nomination might be? --Jgstokes (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A — In line with what said, having at least one delegate is what qualifies a candidate for representation at the national convention. Adding criteria devised by Wikipedia editors beyond that for the national summary would not be neutral. Humanengr (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

A — Based on the same reasoning used by and. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 07:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone gets less than 5% of the vote it isn't considered notable enough to go in the infobox. 2 delegates (Gabbard's total) out of 3,979 is 0.0005%. Is getting 0.0005% of delegates really notable? I hope this is a less hostile way of putting it. Smith0124 (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a much better way to put it. I think it is notable because delegates are what matters at the convention. More importantly, my opinion is informed by the need for an inclusion criterion that is both definitive and simple. I would be just as happy with C, which would keep Gabbard and Klobuchar out. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 04:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think option A is overly simple and lets spoiler candidates that got little coverage be included in what is supposed to be a summary. All the options are simple and Option D is inclusive while also setting a bar that is not only widely used but accurately represents significance. Smith0124 (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On which pages is D already in use? — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While I disagree that 199 delegates is the right cutoff (it is far too high in my view), Smith is correct that for main pages winning one delegate (out of thousands) has not been seen as enough to include a candidate in the infobox. Of course, the infobox is meant to be a fair summary of the election (identify the main candidates, and show who won and who fell a little short, and who even if they didn't win had a big impact on the race).  If you look back on the past Democratic contests pages, you will see that candidates who have won delegates are regularly omitted from the infobox.  In 2012, Keith Russell Judd, Randall Terry, Jim Rogers all "won" delegates, who then faithlessly voted for Obama at the convention.  None of them are in the infobox.  In 2004, candidate Dennis Kucinich received 40 and Al Sharpton received 26.  While their delegates seem to have been faithful, neither is in the infobox.  In 2000, candidate Lyndon LaRouche recieved 7 delegates and is ommited from the info box.  Same for the Republicans, in 2016, many candidates recieved some delegates but were ommitted from the infobox: Ben Carson (7), Jeb Bush (4), Rand Paul (2), Carly Fiorina (1) and Mike Huckabee (1).  It just makes sense to exclude candidates that only recieve a few delegates.  If 20 people ran for the Democrats in 2024 and all of them won at least one (just one) delegate would we include all 20 in the infobox?  I beleive someone told me before that the infobox template itself is only formated to allow something like 9 or 12 candidates.  Anyway, food for thought.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm open to it. I'm leaning towards switching my vote to option C, which would also thin the number of candidates in the way you want. I would like to see some examples of Smith's specific option D being the consensus on other pages, though, since he's said it is "widely used." Would you be willing to support option C? — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 00:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am open to something like B+C, that is after all pretty close to my proposal. The problem with C alone is that it would pull Warren out of the infobox despite her having more delegates than Bloomberg or Buttigieg.  I will leave it to Smith to answer your question for him.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A seems popular and is the most inclusive, so I'm going to stick with my initial position of supporting it. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 03:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 5% of the votes, wins a contest, or wins a "significant" amount of delegates - I had previously proposed this option which was somewhat lost in the shuffle which occurred during the initial days of this RfC, when unfortunately a indef blocked editor was quite active here. A version of that comment is below.  I think what is a "significant" number of delegates changes as the race unfolds (and more delegates are issued).  Having two delegates may be significant when only a dozen or so states have voted.  It is less significant when all 3,979 delegates are awarded.  As the infobox's job is to act as a summary of the race I think including everyone who has won any amount of delegates at the end, is WP:UNDUE and not a good summary of the race.  It is also a bit overly cumbersome.  All of this said, I agree that the most prudent thing to do now may be to apply the  consensus (a delegate or 5% of the vote) to the main page, notwithstanding the inconclusive second RfC, which is also at least somewhat tainted by sockpuppetry.  My expectation is that if Tulsi Gabbard is added back to the infobox either at the time of the convention or shortly afterwards other editors are likely to challenge whether her two delegates (out of about 4,000) warrant inclusion, but I agree that for the time being applying the SpinningSpark consensus is prudent.  We can deal with reassessing this when or if editors propose we do so.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: FWIW, I concur with the latest option suggested by Darryl Kerrigan here. I would have no problem whatsoever with the parameters of his latest suggestion, which would, in fact, satisfy any previous concerns I expressed on this matter in the recent past. Seems like the best option to me of anything that has so far been suggested. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly opposed to A It makes no sense to include someone who got less than 1% of the pledged delegates; 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries doesn't list everyone who got delegates in the infobox; 2004_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries doesn't list everyone who got delegates in the infobox; 2000 Democratic Party presidential primaries doesn't list everyone who got delegates in the infobox; 1988 Democratic Party presidential primaries doesn't list everyone who got delegates in the infobox; 1984 Democratic Party presidential primaries doesn't list everyone who got delegates in the infobox; 1980 Democratic Party presidential primaries doesn't list everyone who got delegates in the infobox; I think you get my point. Criterion A here, when we use it in no other similar article is non-neutral and should not be used here. Personally, I think anyone who couldn't win 1% of delegates shouldn't be in the infobox, so that would be anyone with fewer than 39 delegates. But since B is simpler (I guess) and leads to pretty much the same outcome, I am also fine with that. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A and Comment: Of these listed options, A makes the most sense. However, I'd like to note that if A was the standard even the two delegates "Uncommitted" got in Kentucky would meet that standard. U-dble (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * C: In accordance with our former standards, only those who win a race should be listed: it keeps the clutter off of the main page, too. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 13:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean when you suggest C is [i]n accordance with our former standards. For past elections we have included candidates who have failed to win a race but received over 5% of the vote, or who have won a significant number of delegates.  Have a look at 2000 Democratic Party presidential primaries or 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries as examples.  There are many others out there.  Using C as the guideline would be a departure from our usual standards, not in keeping with it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment @, thank you for placing the hat note on this RfC re the disruptive sockpuppet. I add the following note to provide fuller context. Humanengr (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Note to closer: This RfC should be evaluated in view of Part B of the original RfC which asked, 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?. The closer wrote Participants rejected the proposal in part B as written. The voting was 7 for yes and 11 for no. However, a large number of voters (11) qualified their response by suggesting the criterion should be 5% of popular vote or a delegate. In my judgement (although this is too messy to be completely certain) there is consensus for part B with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote. There were 22 votes in toto.
 * From that it can be seen that 7 said that all candidates who earned ‘a delegate’ should be included; 7 + 11 = 18 said that all candidates who earned -either- a delegate or 5% of the popular vote should be included.
 * As I wrote in more detail below, after all the votes in that original RfC were cast (but before it was closed), the sock started another RfC to distract from and mischaracterize the original RfC. That and other efforts by the sock sowed further confusion and eventually led to a perceived need for the current RfC. The sock’s motive, clearly indicated in the stricken comments above in this Survey section, was to exclude Gabbard after she earned her delegates, satisfying the criterion clearly established by 18 of 22 votes. Humanengr (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
Proposing other option - The candidate has won a contest, received >5% of the popular vote or received a significant number of delegates (say 40 out of 3,979). We have a long standing consensus to include candidates that receive >5% of the vote. We have also long included candidates who win a primary/caucus (this is also helpful given the map in the infobox). In any event, I do not think we should have more than six candidates in the infobox. I think Gabbard receiving 2 delegates and less than 1% of the vote is not significant and she should not be included. I also think Klobuchar has also done little to warrant inclusion (her 7 delegates and 1.63% of the vote at this stage), but am fine keeping whomever is sixth in delegates in the infobox. I am also okay leaving her out. If she is selected as the democratic vice-presidential nominee that would be a factor in her favour. If not, I am fine with leaving her in or out. Hope this fourth RfC on this issue will lay this to rest, it is beyond frustrating that we are still holding RfCs on this issue.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to considering a higher (or lower) threshold for number of delegates as has proposed.  I am not sure 5% of delegates (ie 199 delegates) is the right number to set, but I agree some level of "significant" delegates is an appropriate non-exclusive qualifier.  I expect a lower number of delegates might still signal that a candidate or their ideas had a significant effect on the race and thus should be included.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wouldn’t we need to add a parameter to the infobox for delegate percentages? — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 20:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No. 5% is 199.  We already have a delegate number in the infobox.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposing version of Darryl's option (now listed as D)  that makes the most sense and how infoboxs in the past have done it. I assume it’s won a contest OR received >5% of votes OR >5% of delegates. Smith0124 (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking sockpuppet comment. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 03:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify what you’re proposing? I don’t understand what you mean by “except.” Thanks. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 19:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That was a typo, I changed it to “instead of”. Significant number is too vague, so I say we set the threshold at 5% just like with the votes. Smith0124 (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking sockpuppet comment. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 03:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a definitive enough criterion to me, and I’d support it. I specifically didn’t include a “significant number” option because it is too vague. changed my question after responses had started coming in, which I’ve reverted. I don’t have a preference beyond wanting A, B, C, or a combination of them, as you’re suggesting. The previous discussions seem to have narrowed us to those choices. My only concern is that we don’t always list delegate percentages in the infoboxes, so that may be unnecessarily complicated to implement at this point. —  Tartan357   ( Talk ) 19:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I added my edit to Darryl’s option D as the new option D. Smith0124 (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking sockpuppet comment. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 03:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please make it an option E instead? I think Darryl has made it pretty clear that he doesn’t want his proposal messed with. And please add it here, instead of changing the original question. Thanks. As for the content of your proposal, would you be willing to remove the last criterion? I only ask since we don’t currently have delegate percentages in the infoboxes. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 20:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it should be an option at the top because I believe it’s what most people want. The current options are meant to be mixed and matched, not taken on their own. The Rfc as it is in insufficient. GoodDay clearly would want choice A anyway. Smith0124 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking sockpuppet comment. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 03:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I chose those three options because they were the most popular in previous discussion. I don’t see evidence that “it’s what most people want.” We have to narrow the options at this point if we’re ever going to get anywhere. That means all of us compromising somewhat, including you and . — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 20:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2 out of 3 people have already chosen a different option. These options are bad, and so far you’ve compromised nothing. We need that option D and you need to pick between a significant number of delegates or >5% of delegates because that’s the only difference and this isn’t your personal Rfc. Otherwise you aren’t letting us choose our preferred option and this whole thing won’t work. As Darryl said the current options weren’t meant to be mutually exclusive. If you believe in your three options so much then you’d let the fourth option go up assuming people wouldn’t choose it. Smith0124 (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking sockpuppet comment. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 03:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If yas want to add an option D, then fine. It won't change my position, anyways. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Both of you, please rein it in. I’m doing my best here. We had a discussion about this a while back and I compromised with you on removing Gabbard. You suggested I open my own RfC, which I’ve done in the most neutral, concise way I can. I’m remaining civil. You are not. Darryl, you speak of the “need to bat people down hard” and complain about the lack of a consensus; yet, you are unwilling to engage in a constructive discussion. Smith, you’ve behaved hostilely towards myself and GoodDay. Both of you seem intent on dragging this on indefinitely without making any compromises. Start your own RfCs if you hate mine so much. But give other editors a chance to respond without being shouted down. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 21:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I sincerely apologize for being hostile. You are right. I still believe that the option D is sufficient because it’s something we want added. Our voices should be heard too, if multiple people want it as an option right off the bat I think it’s fair to add it.
 * Striking sockpuppet comment. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 03:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I’m still unclear on what option D is and just want to make sure that any other options added are going to be unambiguous in their application. I don’t have a preference myself. I will add options that are clear. I never intended the options to be mutually exclusive. I’ve clarified that further. The original phrasing was “which of the following criteria should be used.” I expected people to respond with combinations of A, B, and/or C. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 21:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * option D for me is ”Candidate has won a contest, OR won more than 5% of the vote, OR won more than 5% of the delegates.” Smith0124 (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking sockpuppet comment. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 03:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m fine with adding that if we can change the infobox to display what percentage of delegates was won. The calculations may not be so obvious to some people who may not understand the difference between pledged and unpledged delegates, and I think it would be unreasonable to organize candidates in the infobox based on information that is not in the infobox. It could be a perfectly reasonable addition, though. The template is currently protected, so an RfC may be needed there to add the parameter. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 21:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m fine with that, though I will say that unlike votes where we don’t know what the total will be until afterward, we already know how many delegates there are (3,979) and it’s already at the top of the infobox so it’s much easier for people to just plug the numbers into a calculator. Smith0124 (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking sockpuppet comment. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 03:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I’m adding an option D with that condition. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 21:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you so much. Smith0124 (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking sockpuppet comment. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 03:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

So has taken upon themselves to remove my option and alter my vote. I have changed this back. One of the issues with the last close was that the closer didn't want to try to wade through what "OTHER" meant. Lets try to be specific and avoid a fifth RfC. Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn’t remove your vote. You rephrased my question for me, which is entirely inappropriate in an RfC. You added an option other than the ones I presented into the original question. I happen to believe that vague criteria such as “significant number of delegates” are why the previous RfCs failed. You can comment however you like, but I’m the editor asking the question. If you have a problem with the way the question is formatted, then you can ask me about that or start your own RfC. I know from reviewing previous RfCs that you have strong opinions about this, and I truly mean you no disrespect and think that your opinion is very important as someone who has definitely contributed far more than me to the discussion already. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 19:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not inappropriate at all. You have pigeonholed the answers in a way that is inconsistent with how we have dealt with elections in the past.  How would you like me to reject your framing?  Would you like me to start a fifth RfC phrasing the question in a less restrictive and misleading way?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s not inappropriate to add a new option, but it is inappropriate to make edits out of chronological order on the page. You changed the question after had already responded to it. I proposed those three options because they were the ones that I’d seen proposed in the past. I apologize for offending you – that was truly not my intent. Can you clarify for me what you find misleading about the question? —  Tartan357   ( Talk ) 19:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I think not having it at as an option at the top is going to be a problem, but it is your RfC. Worse case, I guess we just have to do a fifth RfC.  Sorry for my shortness.  I am frustrated that we are still talking about this at this stage.  It is a significant failure of Wikipedia that we can't get our act together in any sort of timely way.  People rely on us for timely complete information.  If we can't deliver that, what are we doing?  The fact that we re-litigate this every election (usually multiple times per election) and don't sort it out until long after the election is over is a significant failing.  Our processes are not serving us well.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for apologizing and acknowledging that it is my RfC. I can see how long you’ve been engaged in discussion over this, and that it must be frustrating. I sought to limit the options to the most popular ones to prevent a repeat of the past inconclusive discussions. Our processes may be taking a while, but what would you propose as an alternative to reach a consensus? They are the established processes, and there isn’t a consensus. This sounds like an issue that you would want to take up with the RfC process in general. With all due respect, it seems that you want editors to go with your way simply because you’ve lost patience. But why should they go with yours over anyone else’s? That’s why we discuss and strive to reach a consensus through that discussion. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 20:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We need general rules that exist before elections, and we need to bat people down hard when they do not abide but the guidelines we have long established. In the case of this issue, past elections include all candidates that win a contest or receive over 5%, but not all candidates who win any amount of delegates.  We need to abide by that standard.  If people want to deviate from it the WP:ONUS should be on them to establish another consensus, not the other-way around.  I agree with  that these options are not stand alone, in the past it has been win a contest OR >5% OR some number of delegates (amounts have varied).  It is problematic to frame the options as mutually exclusive.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I am more than a little frustrated and hostile about this process now. Depite reaching a consensus on the sub-pages that consensus is not being respected. Beyond frustrating. I do not think we should tolerate that. I appreciate you trying to bring this to a close, but I think we are repeating some of the errors that lead us to no consensus in the RfC about the main page. Option C would remove Warren from the infobox despite her having more votes than Bloomberg and Budidegeg. That is a problem. Option B would remove Budidegeg and potentially Bloomberg despite the fact that they won contests. That is also a problem. Option A would leave candidates in that won 2-7 delegates our of nearly 4000, and leave the infobox overly bloated. I also see that as a problem. I don't disagree with your framing to be difficult. I do so because I don't think it properly frames the options and the sentiment coming out of our history of elections, the last two RfCs or the participant discussion. I hope you view that explanation as intended: constructively.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * To clarify, the options were not meant to be mutually exclusive. I’m new to this discussion, and I haven’t been able to find this consensus that you’re referring to. With all due respect, if you recognize that you are taking out your frustration with the process on me, then perhaps you should simply take a break from working on this topic. You seem to think your hostility is justified. Hostility is never justified on Wikipedia, and I’ve done nothing to provoke you. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 21:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hostility is very much required on Wikipedia when editors refuse to follow consensus. When editors refuse to abide by consensus, edit war or engage in vandalism. Good editors should have no tolerance for that.  I believe you mean well, I simply needed to point out the problems with the RfC in the manner it was framed.  You also have the misfortune of beginning this RfC after the garbage of the above one began.  That one should be withdrawn immediately, it is bad faith, ignoring consensus and attempting to preserve edits against consensus.  The fact that we are tolerating it is a stain on the organization.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * Civility is the fourth of Wikipedia’s five pillars; it’s ridiculous to claim that hostility is “required” in light of that. There is no evidence that the editors in the other RfC acted in bad faith. You should assume good faith. The preceding RfCs involved many editors discussing their opinions in all seriousness. They were not “garbage” simply because they were inconclusive. You repeatedly claim that everyone here is violating an existing consensus, yet you refuse to link to the consensus. Can you please do so? — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 22:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you read any of my comments above you will see I have repeatedly quoted and linked the consensus.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * I can’t find it. Can you please just link to it again here? — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 22:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * After the long RfC and participant discussion on sub-pages, the only consensus we did reach was consensus for part B (a delegate) with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote per 's closing comments. Despite this one editor has taken it upon himself to "veto" that consensus and remove candidates who have "withdrawn" from multiple sub-pages despite the fact that they received over 5% of the vote (sometimes 10%).  That editor has then started the above RfC to re-litigate the matter, but insists that his edits must remain as the "status quo" while the RfC remains open.  Despite being told to put down the stick by multiple editors, he has opposed a close.  This is the sort of behaviour that we must not tolerate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You yourself have repeatedly acknowledged that RfC as inconclusive, calling it “garbage.” You said a consensus was reached on a subpage. Where is that? I haven’t removed candidates from subpages, and I compromised with you previously by agreeing to remove Gabbard from the infobox. You yourself invited me to open an RfC, and I haven’t opposed a close – no close has even been proposed. I haven’t been told to “put down the stick by multiple editors.” Only you, and I still have no idea what you’re even trying to achieve. I thought you didn’t like the previous RfCs. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 22:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have called the RfC that Smith created above "garbage" because it is an attempt to relitigate the last RfC, and to freeze his "status quo" in place on multiple sub-pages. I am not referring to issues on the main page.  I am referring to discussions that occurred on Smith's talk page, the DC page, ANI and the RfC directly above this one.  Unfortunately, all of this is confusing because the first RfC (two parts) was about the sub-pages. The second was about the main page.  And the participant discussion was an attempt to narrow the issues for closure of the first RfC (both parts).  I know the first RfC is long but there where two parts: Part A (what to do before sub-page primary/caucus had occurred) and Part B (what to do for sub-pages after the contest had occurred).   found no consensus for Part A (before a primary/caucus occurs).  But he found consensus to impose a standard of >5% or a delegate for the sub-pages (for after they have occurred).  Smith has refused to follow that and argued that well, did we discuss withdrawn candidates? despite that being mentioned in that RfC and us nonetheless reaching consensus on B.  In the Infobox (Part II) discussion we are talking about the main page.  The second RfC had no consensus.  We did however have consensus for the the sub-pages (at least after the primary/caucus occurs).  I hope that provides some clarity to this convoluted, overly drawn out process.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, but it doesn’t. This discussion isn’t about withdrawn candidates or subpages. And you haven’t explained the accusations you’ve made against me. I left you a message on your talk page; I think we should take this discussion there. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 23:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming that all disputees are satisfied with the Rfc, now? GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe so. Smith0124 (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking sockpuppet comment. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 03:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Same here. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 07:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Option D is used on every previous Democratic presidential primary page. Every single one, except for 2012 where they needed to satisfy that 2017 Rfc and put a second candidate. So yes, it’s been the standard. I think if we were to do a B+C option we might as well pick D as they are essentially the same, just with the additional 5% threshold for delegates which seeks reasonable as if they didn’t satisfy B or C they should have to satisfy a higher delegate threshold. The 5% delegate threshold is essentially a safety net, as you pretty much gave to satisfy B or C to satisfy that, it’s there just in case there’s a weird case or something so it’s worth having. Smith0124 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

As wrote in his summary of the Two-part RfC, "[That RfC] would apply to the individual primary and caucus articles, as well as this main article." Commenters praised the summarizer for his efforts and none objected.

A close reading of the votes on that first RfC finds there were 15 votes in favor of "either 5% of the popular vote or a delegate"*, 4 votes for "delegate only", 2 for "5% of the popular vote only", and 1 for "top 6 by delegate count". There was nearly unanimous agreement — 19 votes out of 22 — to include all candidates who had a delegate.

At a minimum, those votes should be added to those here in favor of Option A.

Given the overwhelming vote in the first RfC, I am restoring the infobox to include all candidates who won 'a delegate -or- more than 5% of the popular vote'. Humanengr (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That RfC was closed by a neutral closer,, who deemed it inconclusive. And we now have a new RfC ongoing, so the infobox should not be changed yet. That being said, I see the previous support for what is now option A in that old RfC. Note that option A is not to include those who won "a delegate or more than 5% of the popular vote." The only criterion for option A is that the candidate won a delegate. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 03:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The RfC that was closed as "impossible to determine consensus" was the one started by Smith0124. It was *not* the one I am referring to — the earlier Two-part RfC — for which the closer said of Part B: "In my judgement (although this is too messy to be completely certain) there is consensus for part B with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote." I'm glad that you also see support for what is now option A in that old RfC. I can detail that support for you that shows that fully 20 supported including any who 'won a delegate' — as I said, a) 15 as *either* 'a delegate' *or* '5% of the popular vote', b) 4 indicating 'a delegate' was sufficient in and of itself, and c) 1 the same as (a) but limited to 6 candidates. That's 20 out of 22 who find that 'a delegate' is sufficient, the same as your Option A. My analysis solidified the closer's judgment. I hope that resolves your concerns. Humanengr (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for clarifying. It seems like most people support A, but I'm going to request a neutral close because of how controversial this has been. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 08:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the initial days of the first RfC (started by Davemoth MrX ) it is correct that he said he intended it to apply to both the main article and the sub-articles. At that time, despite attempts to direct all discussions to one place, multiple discussion were opening on the main page and template page about this, and a short-time later Smith created the second RfC (not to be confused with "the third" which he also created).  The second RfC ran roughly the same time as the first (created by Davemoth MrX ).  While he said that his initial intention was that his RfC deal with both the main page and sub-pages, I believe this changed before it was closed.  Perhaps,  MrX himself can clarify that?  In any event, the participant discussion seems to me to accord with my understanding that "at some point" it was largely accepted that we needed a different standard for the main article and sub-pages (or at least it needed to be settled in different discussions):
 * Given this understanding which existed as the RfCs were running, I think the closer should be focusing on the second RfC (started by Smith), not the first one (started by Davemoth MrX ) when closing this RfC. Unfortunately, multiple RfCs and discussions have made closing this much harder.  Jeeze in linking this I found another "RfC" Smith opened on the topic which was archived without being closed, and which I had forgot about.  What a mess.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Given this understanding which existed as the RfCs were running, I think the closer should be focusing on the second RfC (started by Smith), not the first one (started by Davemoth MrX ) when closing this RfC. Unfortunately, multiple RfCs and discussions have made closing this much harder.  Jeeze in linking this I found another "RfC" Smith opened on the topic which was archived without being closed, and which I had forgot about.  What a mess.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Given this understanding which existed as the RfCs were running, I think the closer should be focusing on the second RfC (started by Smith), not the first one (started by Davemoth MrX ) when closing this RfC. Unfortunately, multiple RfCs and discussions have made closing this much harder.  Jeeze in linking this I found another "RfC" Smith opened on the topic which was archived without being closed, and which I had forgot about.  What a mess.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Given this understanding which existed as the RfCs were running, I think the closer should be focusing on the second RfC (started by Smith), not the first one (started by Davemoth MrX ) when closing this RfC. Unfortunately, multiple RfCs and discussions have made closing this much harder.  Jeeze in linking this I found another "RfC" Smith opened on the topic which was archived without being closed, and which I had forgot about.  What a mess.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Re your "In the initial days of the first RfC (started by Davemoth) it is correct that he said he intended it to apply to both the main article and the sub-articles." [emphasis added]:
 * 1) That first RfC was not created by Davemoth; it was created by MrX.
 * 2) Davemoth wrote what you quote ("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.") on March 10 — 6 days after the last vote was cast in that first RfC. That's not 'initial days'.

Re your "The second RfC ran roughly the same time as the first (created by Davemoth)." [emphasis added]: That is similarly wrong and misleading. The 2nd RfC did not begin until March 4 (one day after it was reported that Gabbard earned her first delegate) by Smith — a sockpuppet of a banned user — with the unsupported premise "Previously, there was an Rfc about state pages". 'Roughly the same time' — you mean that the votes in one occurred entirely before the votes in the other?

Re your "While he said that his initial intention was that his RfC deal with both the main page and sub-pages, I believe this changed before it was closed." [emphasis added]: What are you claiming was changed? by whom? when?

Re your "In any event, the participant discussion seems to me to accord with my understanding that 'at some point' it was largely accepted that we needed a different standard for the main article and sub-pages (or at least it needed to be settled in different discussions)" [emphasis added]: "At some point' — when? 'Largely accepted' — by whom? What specifically do you see in the 'participant discussion' you linked that 'accords with' your understanding?

Re your "Given this understanding which existed as the RfCs were running, I think the closer should be focusing on the second RfC (started by Smith), not the first one (started by Davemoth) when closing this RfC." You have provided no support for the first boldface text. You have expressed preference (in the second boldface) to use an RfC created by a user whose later RfC was closed by as "This isn't a good faith RfC: it's disruptive sockpuppetry. I am unilaterally delisting and closing it."? By a sockpuppet of a banned user? An RfC with an unsupported premise?

Re your "Unfortunately, multiple RfCs and discussions have made closing this much harder.": I count two RfC's by a sockpuppet of a banned user. As for discussions, I see one opened by you that begins with Well, since the RfC concerning the infobox here has now been closed without any consensus. and which ignores the 1st RfC.

Re your "Jeeze in linking this I found another "RfC" Smith opened on the topic which was archived without being closed, and which I had forgot about.": More fully, the one that was closed as "This isn't a good faith RfC; it's disruptive sockpuppetry.".

Re your "What a mess.": Agree.

Humanengr (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct that MrX started the first RfC. Not sure, why I started thinking it was Davemoth.  In fairness, as I have pointed out this conversation took place over multiple pages and RfCs, with users starting new conversations and RfCs before the previous one had closed.  While the last comment of the first RfC was on March 10, it continued to run at least until the end of the 30 days, as you know a formal close came months after it was opened.  I will see whether I can locate some of the specific discussions by which we seem to have agreed the first RfC was limited to the sub-pages.  In fairness to MrX, I am not sure if he ever agreed to that (but he did vote to support the participant discussion which seemed to recognize a limited scope).  I did quote a relevant portion of that participant discussion for you above, specifically under the Analysis and Proposed Consensus, Scope section Davemoth wrote The 2nd Rfc would apply to only the main article and the Infobox Template. My assumption is that Option C [Keep as is] 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..  If memory serves Davemoth didn't just propose that out of the blue then, there were other discussions that the first RfC would deal with the sub-pages and the second with the main page.  Sorry, I can't do better then "at some point" until I spend some time, digging up the actual discussions. Shifting gears, concerning my comment that from the Infobox (Part II) discussion that Well, since the RfC concerning the infobox here has now been closed without any consensus...  referred to the RfC about the main page infobox and the second RfC (which at least some editors and in the participant discussion was agreed was the one that applied to the main article), which was clearly closed with "impossible to determine consensus".  Your quote of me from the Infobox (Part II) discussion was solely about the main page infobox (not the sub-pages).  Now, the fact that Smith started the second RfC and many editors seem to have accepted that the MrX RfC was limited to the sub-pages, means that ignoring the second RfC which explicitly applied to the main page is problematic.  Reasonable folks, could as you have done, suggest that the first RfC should also apply to the main page, but I don't think that permits us to completely ignore the comments and votes in the second which was clearly about this page.  Furthermore, as a technical point the consensus that was reached in Part B of the MrX RfC only applies after the primary is over, so reasonable folks could disagree whether having a "presumptive" nominee means it is over, or it needs to actually be over.  Anyway, thank you for correcting me about MrX.  I will see if I can locate some of the specific discussions that gave rise to the acceptance in the participant discussion that there was one RfC for the sub-articles and one for the main page.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

, I am concerned about ignoring the votes of others in the second RfC, that said it was mostly a scratch. The most prudent thing may be to just do what you suggest: apply A to the main page (or A plus 5% per SpinningSpark's close). Archive all of these RfCs, participant discussions and other discussions and if really necessary someone can start fresh with a new RfC clearly around the time of the convention (if they really want to). While that is not my favoured option, there is value in wiping the slate clean and starting fresh. For what it is worth, if you go to my note comment at 22:51 on 4 March 2020 in the first/MrX RfC, you can see that there seems to have been some edit warring happening, and I told folks to discuss it in the RfC. Then I note shortly below I note that Smith is talking about starting a second RfC (about the template, the infobox used on the main page). That discussion seems to be this one that occured on the talk page for the infobox template. That seems to be the origin of the second RfC. Despite the fact that MrX's RfC was happening, there were several discussions that kept popping up on the template page, for example here and here. There were also some happening here including this one. Smith's behaviour was disruptive, but there were many folks popping up on the template page and here calling for removal of certain candidates specifically on for the main page. Anyway, that seems to be the backdrop, not sure that helps us though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you Darryl. Yes, let's return to Option A. I do think that honors the first RfC and judiciously avoids contamination by the actions of a sockpuppet. Would you care to make the change?


 * Also agree re ""Archive all of these RfCs, participant discussions and other discussions". And thank you for providing the links to that other background. Humanengr (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would rather leave it for someone else to do. I have been along for this whole long ride, which makes it easier for me to put things in a bit of context, when my memory doesn't fail me.  That said, I have also been rather close to this one.  As I am the one that had the most significant conflict with Smith, it is probably best for everyone if someone else does the honours.   may also be right that a formal close is the best way to go.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Oddball opinion here: any of the following should qualify: "5% of vote", "won a contest", or "more than half of voteshare of someone else who qualifies". In the 2008 primaries, Edwards, while winning delegates in the beginning, was largely irrelevant and unmentioned. Whereas, in a race with more candidates like 2020, candidates who ended up doing just as badly are more relevant. It would make no sense to not include Buttigieg, given that he won Iowa - and by the same token Kloubuchar, who did a bit more than half as well as him in the popular vote - and therefore, Gabbard should be included too. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 07:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Running Mates
There should be a row for running mates in the table and the infobox: Biden's running mate is Kamala Harris and Sanders' running mate was (apparently) Nina Turner. Should they be listed in the table and infobox?
 * No, that doesn't make sense. Biden had no running mate before the convention, and Sanders never had a running mate. I don't know if Sanders said he would have selected Turner, but either way, none of this had any impact on the primaries. — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Bernie Sanders never announced he would've selected Nina Turner, and it seems quite unlikely that he would have. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2020
Change 'the 2018 midterm elections' to "the 2020 democratic primaries". It's disingenuous to say the democratic party, or in this case senate democrats for some reason, moved to the left between 2016 and 2018 then imply that's the reason why they won the 2018 primaries in the house (instead of democrats supporting preexisting conditions and opposing 'tax cuts for the rich' which actual were cited as the reason most people said they voted democrat). Also a lot of, if not the majority of, the leftward lurch in the democratic party happened between 2018 and 2020 so I don't know why it be portrayed as something that happened between 2016 and 2018 then presumably stagnated. NiftyMouse (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Question on other minor candidates
What is the policy on candidates that have made the ballot in at least one state but aren't already up there? In New Hampshire, there were several dozen candidates in both primaries. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To start with, they are listed at 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates. Currently only candidates with Wikipedia articles are listed on this page. — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, didn't see that. There were far more candidates than what is listed in that section. I'll start adding when I get a chance. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Take down some of the candidates on the infobox?
It's usually natural to only put candidates that garnered 5% of the vote on the infobox, so I'm wondering if we should remove anyone who didn't make it above the 5% line. Does anyone else have thoughts on the matter? Cavejohnson13 (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Didn't realize it was mentioned above, but the topic seemed old and can someone else clarify if we are going to list all the same candidates? Thanks! Cavejohnson13 (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the standard being used is any candidate who received a pledged delegate based on primary results. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove Gabbard and possibly Klobuchar. They have been included because the standard that was decided was to include anyone that received 5% or a delegate .  Personally, I think receiving 2 of 3,979 delegates is nowhere near enough to be included in the infobox.  Perhaps now is the time to change that and remove some candidates to make this a bit more workable.  I would leave the top five in though Buttigieg only got 2.5% but he also "won a state" depending on who you ask, and he was doing well at the beginning.  Winning a contest and 20 delegates probably counts for something.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Buttigieg was not a significantly more impactful candidate than Klobuchar so I disagree with any criteria that includes him but not her.
 * The current infobox is fine. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , infoboxes with seven candidates in them are quite rare and frankly, they are discouraged. An infobox is supposed to be a summary. The line has to be drawn somewhere. I don't see any compelling reason to include Gabbard.  Including Klobuchar is also questionable but, an infobox of six (that takes up only two rows) is far preferable to an infobox of seven (that takes up three rows).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I know what infoboxes are for. In this case I think the benefits of including Gabbard are more than the drawbacks of a larger infobox (see my comment in the above discussion). She wasn't significantly less significant than Klobuchar, who wasn't significantly less significant than Buttigieg, who obviously should be included. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Tom Steyer didn't do "significantly" worse than Gabbard. If you only exclude candidates that did "significantly worse" than the candidate placing directly before them, we would have everyone in the infobox.  We just wouldn't exclude anyone.  And as I say, you need to draw the line somewhere, preferably before including seven candidates (or eight).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Steyer didn't get any delegates. Though I do think the criteria we use at that article are reasonable too. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So what? 2 of 3,979 delegates (only from your native territory) is about as notable as 0 of 3,979 delegates. Steyer received 0.7% of the vote (compared to the 0.74% received by Gabbard).  And Gabbard was never polling above 5% whereas Steyer led in polls in some states and was an actual contender before dropping out.  But all of this is besides the point, neither of them should be in the infobox, but your "the candidate ahead didn't do significantly better" criteria is nonsense.  It is also a lousy argument to include either Klobuchar or Gabbard.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So what? 2 of 3,979 delegates (only from your native territory) is about as notable as 0 of 3,979 delegates. Steyer received 0.7% of the vote (compared to the 0.74% received by Gabbard).  And Gabbard was never polling above 5% whereas Steyer led in polls in some states and was an actual contender before dropping out.  But all of this is besides the point, neither of them should be in the infobox, but your "the candidate ahead didn't do significantly better" criteria is nonsense.  It is also a lousy argument to include either Klobuchar or Gabbard.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Photograph of Deval Patrick
I have found a superior photograph of Patrick taken the same day as the one we are currently using. File:Deval Patrick (25234550596) (1).jpg. I propose we utilize this one instead. Any thoughts? SecretName101 (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Justification for removal of T. Gabbard and A. Klobuchar from the infobox
The conversation on this topic has fizzled out previous times this was brought up. However, now the primary is long over, so now we're writing of history.

The removal of the two candidates for a past primary is justified based off of the established precedent. For example, in the page for the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries, five candidates who received between 1 and 9 delegates (B. Carson, J. Bush, R. Paul, M. Huckabee, and C. Fiorina) are not included. That doesn't mean that their campaigns or themselves weren't significant, they just didn't cross the threshold for inclusion in the infobox.

The standard on every other presidential primary page has been either (a) 5% of popular vote (b) 5% of delegates (c) 1 contest win, or (d) the only significant opposition (e.g. Bill Weld in the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries). Gabbard and Klobuchar do not reach any 4 of the criteria, and therefore should be removed from the infobox now that the primary is over. PS, I was a Gabbard supporter, so miss me with any accusation of bias; I'm just being consistent with the previously established standards. Curbon7 (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , there's a closed discussion above that decided who should be included. That discussion took place after most of the results had already come in. ―  Tartan357  Talk 04:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that this primary is being treated completely differently from every other presidential primary simply makes no sense. There should be consistent standards on how to handle the infoboxes. Not doing it ad hoc. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is a consistent consensus used on other primary articles, then I agree this article should use the same consensus. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Split Request
I request that the content in the "Timeline" section be split into a new article Timeline of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 20:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Re-Thinking the Candidates Section
I have an idea on how to improve the candidate section: User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 17:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the information displayed now should be in a collapsible, infobox-style view.
 * There should be 1-2 paragraphs of prose about the campaigns in this article.
 * "Major Candidates" should be those candidates who appeared in at least one party-organized debate. Those candidates who received at least 1 pledged delegate should be listed first.
 * I've started this process with the "Nominee" section. I'll expand this over the coming days. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 20:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Discrepancies between home states and candidate's residences
I'm editing Joe Sestak's home state to be Virginia, where he appears to have lived during the entire campaign. Additionally, his campaign's filings for the New Hampshire primary seems to confirm Virginia residency.

What I am more conflicted on and currently not changing is Marianne Williamson's residency. She moved to Iowa during the campaign, as Chris Dodd did in 2008. In the NH ballot registration I have previously linked, she also gives her home state as Iowa but uses a commercial address in California. I have no clue if she still resides there.

I am pretty conflicted about what is best to do regarding this second case. There is also no precedent, as the 2008 primary page excludes home states entirely. I am curious if anyone else who cares enough to read three paragraphs about extremely minor details on a dead page has any input. U-dble (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"Michael E. Arth 2020 presidential campaign" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Michael E. Arth 2020 presidential campaign and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay 💬 18:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute
Article states "After Biden won South Carolina, and one day before the Super Tuesday primaries, several moderate candidates dropped out of the race and endorsed Biden in what was viewed as a consolidation of the party's moderate wing; this has also been characterized as an active effort by the establishment of the Democratic Party in a last minute effort to prevent Sanders, who was clearly on track to win at least a plurality, if not a majority, of the necessary delegates required to clinch the nomination. Many have speculated that, had the other moderates not dropped out, Sanders would have gained an insurmountable lead on Super Tuesday; this speculation is backed by polling data in all of the Super Tuesday states before the moderates consolidated, which saw Sanders leading in a majority of the states."

This is clear editorializing, and the editor who wrote this opines based on the relevant facts of the article they cite. It is true that moderate candidates dropping out and endorsing Biden was a consolidation of the party's moderate candidates. However, the idea that Sanders would have gained an insurmountable lead, that there was some quid pro quo by the establishment to stop Sanders (see: "an active effort by the establishment of the Democratic Party in a last minute effort to prevent Sanders"), or that Bernie "was clearly on track to win at least a plurality, if not a majority, of the necessary delegates required to clinch the nomination" is very, very speculative. It also presents the moderate consolidation as an evil establishment conspiracy rather than a simple ideological consolidation (in which other moderate candidates viewed Biden as "electable" and wanted Democratic unity going into the general).

Readers deserve factual articles, not just speculation that represents the opinions of one Wikipedia editor. Cannibalcrayon (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)