WikiProject Elections and Referendums | (Rated Template-class) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
WikiProject Politics | (Rated Template-class) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents
- 1 Map
- 2 Calender
- 3 How many people in the box?
- 4 NH delegate results
- 5 Template talk:Infobox election#"Delegate count"
- 6 Notelist
- 7 New type for {{Infobox election}}
- 8 Proposal for an WP:Editnotice
- 9 Updates to delegate count, etc.
- 10 Mark Rubio as withdrawn
- 11 Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016
- 12 Enter ONLY the "Hard" delegates not soft pledged or soft total
- 13 "Hard count"
- 14 Rubio in the template
- 15 Please don't use https://www.gop.com/convention-facts/
- 16 A Proposal
- 17 Please stop changing the delegate count to a false number
- 18 Need to update delegate count
- 19 New map
- 20 Delegate count source RfC
- 21 Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2016
Map
I don't think the map can be for popular vote and delegate winner because isn't possible to win the popular vote and not win the most delegates..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's possible, but as long as both categories coincide it's useless to duplicate the map. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 10:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Calender
The Calender is wrong is several places in March. Have not checked the other months. So please does anyone have the possibility to update it? Have removed it right now since it is giving wrong info.Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Also, I don't think there's a primary or caucus on June 14th either so June is wrong as well. 😬💁 Prcc27 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- I just attempted an update. How is it now? --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
How many people in the box?
This may not remain an issue for very long, but since there appears to be a slow-motion edit war over how many people this infobox needs, I thought it'd be worth raising this here explicitly. How many columns do we need in this box? Whether this has become a "two-man race", a "three-man race", etc., is a live political issue, so this is a bit tricky, but in my view, given that numerically Kasich and Carson are clearly a tier below the front three candidates (single-digit vote figures while Trump/Cruz/Rubio are >20%) and the general consensus in secondary sources that they're no longer in serious contention, there's a convincing case that the infobox should now be restricted to Trump/Cruz/Rubio. I can see arguments for 4 people or all 5 though. (Paging User:Spartan7W, User:LiveFreeC16, User:Prcc27, User:Jack Bornholm, User:Abjiklam.) —Nizolan (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Given that only 5 major candidates remain, I don't see the reason to exclude any one of them. However, when the primaries are over, I agree we should limit the number of people in the infobox. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I personally agree with the top 4, but previously added the other active candidate (Carson). LiveFreeC16 (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- My main concern with 4 is that it seems like Kasich and Carson have fairly similar levels of support so far and I'm not sure how to justify excluding one of them if the other is on the infobox. —Nizolan (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- We can add Carson then and when he drops out after tomorrow or next Tuesday remove him and keep the top 4. ;) LiveFreeC16 (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- My main concern with 4 is that it seems like Kasich and Carson have fairly similar levels of support so far and I'm not sure how to justify excluding one of them if the other is on the infobox. —Nizolan (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I personally agree with the top 4, but previously added the other active candidate (Carson). LiveFreeC16 (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
4 Spartan7W § 20:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Any reason? —Nizolan (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- We are not voting here; wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY. If no arguments are put forward to back up a position it does little to further the discussion and building a consensus. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
NH delegate results
We should add a delegate for Trump and take one away from Rubio per the actual results in NH. [1] Prcc27💋 (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Template talk:Infobox election#"Delegate count"
I invite all those interested to comment on a suggestion I made on Template talk:Infobox election#"Delegate count" regarding delegate count. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 02:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Notelist
Does anyone know the purpose of {{notelist}} at the bottom of this template? I read the documentation and am still unsure. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
New type for {{Infobox election}}
I've made a proposal over at Template talk:Infobox election#New type for primaries for the creation of a new type
of elections to be called primary
. This proposal directly affects this template. Please come and comment. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Proposal for an WP:Editnotice
I made a proposal over here to add an editnotice to this page and others. Please join the discussion if you have any comments or suggestions. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Updates to delegate count, etc.
I was about to update the delegate count to reflect the 356/272/118/30 count for Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Kasich, but I noticed that there was also a spot for popular vote and percentages. So, being kinda tired, I figured I'd 'punt' and simply mention that this template was not as updated as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
Also, good job on keeping the trolls at bay for their recent vandalism. Maybe 'semi-protection' is in order?96.59.168.151 (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Mark Rubio as withdrawn
@Steel1943: @Ssrprotege: @Spartan7W: As we all know, Marco Rubio has dropped out of the race. However, there has been some conflict over whether he should be marked as withdrawn. I propose he should be marked in italics, while the three candidates that are still in the race should be left in non-italics. If Trump, Cruz, or Kasich drops out they should then be marked in italics, and left that way until the end of primaries or convention. It may be confusing and/or contradicting to readers who read only the infobox. MB298 (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think it'd be a good idea to italicize his name and his numbers in the infobox for as long as the primaries are ongoing, so that readers during the primaries won't be confused, as a way of signifying his absence from the race. Philip Terry Graham 02:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would be okay if some of the existing text were coded/highlighted in some fashion with a legend at the end of the template that doesn't hinder the text's readability (such as shrinking the text or striking the text out) until the Republican primary is over. However, I'm completely opposed to adding any text. Steel1943 (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- @MB298: How would this be any different than Template:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012? Just for the record, since Rubio won at least one state, and his color is on the map I see more harm than good in removing him for those who want to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's correct the infoboxes are for candidates who have won delegates as can be seen from past races.
- Template:Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012
- Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008
- Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2000
- Republican Party presidential primaries, 1996
▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 14:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Would bolding the remaining candidates' information be better? It's a relatively minor change, but it still shows the current candidates effectively, with the info still clearly visible. Is it too similar to italics? - The True Alchemist (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016
Please update Missouri on the map. 2602:306:3AC4:8CD0:74E9:7041:D484:E9C9 (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Enter ONLY the "Hard" delegates not soft pledged or soft total
because Hard count is the official/formal count certified by the state government. Divinnity (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
"Hard count"
User:Divinnity would like the template to only reference the hard count because it is the "official/formal count" as cited by TGP. I have reverted this first and foremost because the reasoning is fairly unequivocally wrong. TGP itself states:
The Green Papers "hard count", when posted, is (in order of preference) either (a) a state's or party's official breakdown of its delegation, (b) our initial soft count, or (c) the best sources' breakdown of the delegation (even where it differs from our soft count). We will choose (c) when our initial soft count is based upon incomplete information.
— [2]
As you can see, the official results are only one component of the hard count. TGP will post a "hard count" for state results well before any official results are released.
There is also no particular reason why we should only be adopting the hard count. Guam is a good example. In Guam, delegates were elected without a corresponding presidential preference, so no "hard count" was released. Nonetheless, we know from reliable sources—and the main article states—that one of the elected delegates supports Cruz. This is reflected in TGP's soft count. I do not see any good reason why this information should be excluded, given that the media reporting of the Guam results all said that one Cruz delegate was elected.. —Nizolan (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Rubio in the template
The consensus was discussed in another place. Shouldnt have been but it was. Please see Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#Rubio - infobox Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Please don't use https://www.gop.com/convention-facts/
Hello I an new and just joined. I noticed that the delegate count was inaccurate even though a few days ago it was accurate. When I attempted to edit, I found that you people are using this site https://www.gop.com/convention-facts/ because it is "official". However, I believe you people have not closely scrutinised it. A note just below the candidate delegate projection clearly reads that it is an "unofficial estimate pending certified total votes". This site is inaccurate, it's projection is not based on the "results". I don't think the website should be used. Lolitician (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, all projections, even the one you prefer to be reflected on this template, are unofficial. That's the nature of 56 primary/caucus contests with varying procedures over a 5 month period. It's not a question of accuracy. All of the sources can add numbers together accurately, there are just different interpretations on which numbers to add together and they are all unofficial until July. So the question is, which unofficial count is best, the one at an unofficial source or the one at an official source? I honestly don't know. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Did you read it said "estimate" Spiffy. Don't rely on estimates. And the actual answer for your question is: the accurate unofficial one. Lolitician (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll say it a different way. All delegate projections are unofficial estimates. We have to rely on unofficial estimates. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
How do you say that? Do you have any proof for your claims Spiffy? Lolitician (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Spiffy is right. The delegates don't vote until the convention. That is why all the numbers you find everywhere are just projections aka estimates. Everything could change at the convention. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- To the extent the RNC's own estimates are unofficial, every other estimate is more so... —Nizolan (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think we should continue using the RNC own unofficial estimate. Is it a little slower than many medias estimates and is it more careful about assigning delegates to the different candidates than many news outlets? Yes it is. I find that a good thing and dont understand why new media estimates should be more correct than the RNCs estimate. Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- To the extent the RNC's own estimates are unofficial, every other estimate is more so... —Nizolan (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Lolitician: and welcome to Wikipedia. On both Republican and Democratic sides, it's hard to keep track of current results in a consistent manner, due to the convoluted voting process and conflicting reports from various sources. There have been editing debates since the start of the election cycle and the official GOP site (which appeared recently) was chosen as the least problematic source. There was a notice in the page source precisely to avoid repeated changes by enthusiastic new users. You are welcome to open a new debate here about which sources should be used and why, but do not just jump in and try to impose your view by edit-warring. Thank you. — JFG talk 21:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
A Proposal
I have a proposal. Since all of the projections at all websites are just estimates due to which none of them can be considered accurate, how about we simply include the tallies of all the different websites in the box? I don't it's good practice to include only one website's numbers, even if the website is official (however the estimate on it is unofficial). Lolitician (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- This template is designed to offer a quick summary of the state of the race. Multiple estimates would be confusing to readers. I'd rather place a note explaining which source(s) are used and which votes are counted. We did this on the Democratic side and it worked wonders. — JFG talk 21:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't object to adding a note. The RNC estimate should be the one here though, IMO, because the state parties and the RNC (which is made up of state representatives) are ultimately the people who are actually allocating the delegates. —Nizolan (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- It makes sense to use the RNC estimates, unless we find out that they are completely wrong which I don't think is the case. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Restored sourced estimates: GOP for activate candidates and TGP for withdrawn candidates and popular vote tally. Added detailed explanatory note for readers and VISIBLE WARNING for editors. Also got the template semi-protected. That should calm things down for a while. — JFG talk 23:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- It makes sense to use the RNC estimates, unless we find out that they are completely wrong which I don't think is the case. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't object to adding a note. The RNC estimate should be the one here though, IMO, because the state parties and the RNC (which is made up of state representatives) are ultimately the people who are actually allocating the delegates. —Nizolan (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
There is not much room for this in the box. But maybe you could take your proposal to the main article in the series. Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 It would be fine if you had some suggestions to what sources you want to use. We did something along those lines in 2012 in the similar article and I was surprised that most media outlet you would elsewhere find original and reliable either just used the A.P. numbers or choice whatever would look best for the candidate they supported. Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Please stop changing the delegate count to a false number
I really don't care if the source is the official GOP website, it's not accurate information. I just edited it yesterday, referring to a politico page which has the correct number of delegates, and it is reverted back to the inaccurate delegate count. AGAIN. It is important for this article to have accurate information, so please have the correct delegate count. I'm pretty sure everywhere else has the correct number except the GOP's own website. Ghoul flesh (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Ghoul
- OK, and why is it not accurate information? Just stating that it isn't doesn't help your case here. —Nizolan (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Every single delegate count at this point is a projection and an estimate, since the delegates will actually vote in July. Terms like "inaccurate" and "false" and "correct" are misplaced. Reliable sources can use different assumptions and interpretations when combining the results of 56 separate primaries and caucuses, most of which have varying rules and procedures. What is your reasoning for preferring Politico over anything else? --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I never said I prefer Politico. It was just a site that held the accurate amount of delegates. You could search the delegate count in Google right now, and it gives you the same count. Ghoul flesh (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Ghoul
- Google and Politico have the same count because they use the same source, AP. That still leaves unanswered the question of why AP should be viewed as more "accurate" than the RNC itself, which, like I stated in the section above, is made up of the people who are actually allocating the delegates. —Nizolan (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree, use the Fox news or CNN delegate leaderboard. BlackSti00 (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BlackSti00: I don't want to come off as blugeony here, but Wikipedia's not a democracy—you should explain why you want to use those sources rather than just stating that you don't like it. —Nizolan (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
The GOP official website is pretty inaccurate. Although they provide numbers, they do not provide an accurate breakdown of delegates by state as to why they got that total. The green papers pledged and unpledged summary page lists a detailed breakdown of every state and how many delegates went to whom. They break it down by hard vs soft (pledged vs unpledged) as well. This almost exactly matches the associated press count except for a few differences, such as the AP not giving Trump an extra 12 from Missouri because the GOP state convention did not officially delegate them yet, even though the rules of the state say he would have them by the vote count. The AP also does not give Trump an extra 1 delegate in Georgia and in Illinois but the green papers does because the rules say he would have won that district. The green papers website also lists the rules of each state, which have corresponded with the official delegates. In fact, there are maps in lower areas of this very article which also reflect the green papers calculations in Missouri, Georgia and Illinois. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepy Karpis (talk • contribs) 18:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Creepy Karpis: I think everybody here agrees that The Green Papers is a good source, so is AP and so is the GOP; we have had these debates on which source to choose repeatedly. The issue here is not whether source A has more accurate numbers than source B; rather we need to explain which source has been chosen for which purpose and stick to it. Readers will rightly think that Wikipedia is edited by a bunch of lunatics if the delegate counts keep changing 10 times a day, even in a rather quiet period between primaries like now, when things should be settled. Yesterday I took the trouble of explaining in the article text itself why even well-informed sources publish different counts. Other editors have weighed in and improved those details with gusto and fairness. Today you and others changed the counts *and* the sources arbitrarily, just because of your personal opinion. This is not the way Wikipedia operates. You also do not use TGP consistently: they count right now 758 pledged delegates for Trump and 505 for Cruz but you chose to add the unpledged ones yielding 759 for Trump and 520 for Cruz. If you want to do that, first debate it, get a consensus from editors then add explanations for the readers and help us all keep things consistent, otherwise you are just pushing your POV. I shall now revert your recent changes and keep the previously-established consensus: GOP site for delegates, TGP for votes. If you wish to get the consensus changed, start an RfC. — JFG talk 20:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, the pledged/unpledged issue is yet another thing we need to be consistent on. Like I've mentioned before, I'm personally inclined to add the unpledged delegates as well, but it looks like the consensus is against including them and I'm happy to abide by that. We need to settle and be consistent one way or another.
-
- On the source: It's worth noting here as well that the GOP's own count is relatively recent: the reason there are these different counts from AP and CNN is that the GOP didn't start publishing its own tally until the end of March. While the point about AP's mathematical breakdown is a fair one, the fact is that the various GOP organisations are managing these primaries and allocating the delegates. The desire to change the source seems to continually fall back on "accuracy" despite several people explaining why talking about "accuracy" is misguided. An "accurate" overview of the rules might not lead to the most accurate description of how the delegations actually end up: New Hampshire is an obvious case where the state party's official allocation ended up being different from AP and TGP's projections. The state parties don't necessarily abide by what their own rules seem to suggest. The state parties can ultimately do what they like.
The provided reference (https://www.gop.com/official-2016-gop-delegate-count/) for delegates has some big problems:
- 1. It is not updated regularly.
- 2. It does not contain any details about these delegates numbers! For example from which states and in which extends these numbers come from?
- 3. The source itself mentioned it contains unofficial results.
Then can someone explains me what is the advantage of using this source in Wikipedia while we have many better options like Politico, GreenPapers, CNN and Fox News? That all of them update the delegate table daily and also contain detailed delegate number for each state. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 21:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- All results are unofficial and the total doesn't need to be updated every day since primaries aren't happening every day. It was updated a day or so after Wisconsin. #2 is a legitimate concern but doesn't really speak to the source's accuracy or reliability. —Nizolan (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Then by these problem, could you please explain me the advantage of using this source in Wikipedia compared to the other mentioned ones? Is there any popular News Agency or political website at all that use this delegate numbers as they main source? If yes, please give me their names? Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 22:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you think GreenPapers is not a reliable source, my suggestion is using delegates count from Politico website which is the main delegate count source for many New agency like Fox News and also many popular political websites like RealClearPpolitics. Here is the link from Politico website. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 22:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Then by these problem, could you please explain me the advantage of using this source in Wikipedia compared to the other mentioned ones? Is there any popular News Agency or political website at all that use this delegate numbers as they main source? If yes, please give me their names? Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 22:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@Lolitician, Abjiklam, Jack Bornholm, Ghoul flesh, Spiffy sperry, BlackSti00, and JFG: @Koorosh1234: Please note that I have opened a formal RfC below on this issue, where you are welcome to contribute. (Apologies if I missed anyone out.) —Nizolan (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Need to update delegate count
Trump listed at 755, should be 743.
Cruz listed at 491, should be 532.
Cf: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/ and http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker which have these figures, but other trackers (like NT Times) disagree - seek feedback
Cf: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0 (742, 516, 171, 143)
Cf: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html (which does not have totals).
Thank you for any help here.96.59.130.96 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @96.59.130.96: Check the citation given in the template for the source, and see above for ongoing discussion. —Nizolan (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
New map
I already proposed this on the Democratic template talk but shouldn't we add a map for delegate wins? With regards to delegates, Trump and Kasich tied in VT and Trump and Cruz tied in LA. Prcc27🎂 (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I support adding a separate delegate map, but I think this has been discussed on the main page with no consensus—might want to check the archives there. —Nizolan (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Delegate count source RfC
Should the source for the delegate counts displayed on the infobox for the Republican presidential primaries be the estimate of the Republican National Committee (RNC), or of the Associated Press (AP), CNN, or The Green Papers (TGP)? —Nizolan (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- RNC. I have already explained my reasoning above, but to summarize: the RNC is ultimately responsible for managing this election, and it's made up of leadership members of the state parties who are responsible for judging and certifying delegate allocations. By default, this would seem to make them the most reliable source. Although AP and especially TGP provide detailed analyses of the breakdown and technical reasons for their figures, state parties can and have made allocations that seem to contradict this technical analysis. The state parties are the best source for their own figures, and the RNC's estimate is based most immediately on the state parties' information.
- I've opted to open an RfC because, despite the apparent consensus of a core of committed editors, the source continues to be switched frequently. Outside input is thus probably a good idea, though it may have to take place on an accelerated timescale. —Nizolan (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Include counts of all of them. Lolitician (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I dont think that is possible at all in this template, there is only room for one number. In the article Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 different estimates are shown in a table. Jack Bornholm (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- RNC: It's safe to say that the official numbers would come from the RNC. Prcc27🎂 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- RNC Take it from the horse's mouth (or was it an elephant?). Hopefully less controversial now that we prominently display some other popular estimates... — JFG talk 02:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- RNC: Some arguments have been that it is not updated fast enough. I would say that is a argument for not against. The media outlets are rushing to be the first with the news, declaring winners and giving out delegates often when less than 20% of votes have been counted in a primary. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news media. The GOP website communicate directly with the state parties and they are seem cautious in their estimates. Good thing for a source in a encyclopedia. Jack Bornholm (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- All except RNC, or more precisely: all except favouring the RNC blog post.
Note that I'm personally not favoring Cruz over Trump or whatever. But I'd like to point out that the RNC figures are not an official tracker, they're not even a tracker at all. As Koorosh1234 pointed out above, https://www.gop.com/official-2016-gop-delegate-count/ is a one-time blog post by the communications department. As stated on the blog post, while current estimates may be published from time to time, the blog post is not updated and therefore can't be expected to be up-to-date at any point of time. It doesn't even give a breakdown per state, so can't be checked for correctness or up-to-dateness. Therefore, the post is useless for descibing a dynamic process, and is consequentially not widely covered in mainstream media.
IMHO, the ranges between lowest and highest estimation should be given, thereby signalling that these predictions, not mathematics. --PanchoS (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @PanchoS: I'm not sure where you got the idea that it's not updated, but that's incorrect. The tracker is updated, and the date on it changes accordingly—hence why it was being used before April 6, the current date at the link. It is linked from this page. I don't think Koorosh said that it's a "one-time blog post" either. —Nizolan (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Nizolan: Well, it is expicitly a blog post that however doesn't specify what the given date refers to, nor are any past updates mentioned in an updates appendix. Editors obviously couldn't decide whether it's a static page or a blog post, or more likely didn't care. Adding all other problems with this estimate, it clearly can't be considered a particularly reliable source, at least not more reliable than other sources that are carefully published, do have a clear update policy, and do specify per-state breakdowns. --PanchoS (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @PanchoS: I'm not sure where you got the idea that it's not updated, but that's incorrect. The tracker is updated, and the date on it changes accordingly—hence why it was being used before April 6, the current date at the link. It is linked from this page. I don't think Koorosh said that it's a "one-time blog post" either. —Nizolan (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- AP Associated Press is the most used source for the delegates counts in many famous News Agencies and political websites. RNC delegate count page (https://www.gop.com/official-2016-gop-delegate-count/) is clearly a blog (as it mentioned in the top of the page) and not a part of official RNC website. And the meaning of blog is clear, that it managed by supporters and not the officials! However, if you think a blog is a reliable source for Wikipedia, I do not have anything more to say!!! Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 14:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Same number other place at same website Some are understandable concerned this is from a blog. Coming from a blog it could indicate that it was not the RNCs estimate. Maybe we could switch to a slightly other and much more official place on the offical GOP website. [Convention Facts] has a scoreboard with the exact same numbers and they are updated at the exact same time as the blog. And it is a very very official place. Interestingly this officel RNC part of the website leads to the blog if you want full information of the scoreboard. But of course the blog entry also say that it is the RNC that will put these numbers on the blog as things develop. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- This delegate estimate page is indeed managed by the RNC as part of their official gop.com site, and it just got an update following the weekend conventions. The fact they call it "blog" or publish it with some blogging software doesn't make it less reliable. Besides, it's URL is www.gop.com/official-2016-gop-delegate-count, showing the publisher's intent to designate this as the official count. — JFG talk 03:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not RNC per PonchoS. Brought by a bot. In order of preference: AP, TGP, CNN. AP is used by many news organizations. TGP is probably a little more comprehensive but not as widely used in my experience. CNN is good, but I don't think they're as widely used as the other two. Wugapodes (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not RNC Summoned by bot per PonchoS. Insufficiently competent to judge which alternative should be used. Pincrete (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2016
Donald Trump has 758 Delegates not 755 please edit
213.152.161.181 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)