Talk:2016 Republican Party presidential primaries

Pictogram needing improvement: I didn't know who was running when I saw the election results by area

Hi Wikipedians, I really like the map of the US showing which candidate won the county-by-county primaries, since I feel it reveals a lot about our country (or at least, the Republicans). But alas! Who was running and who had "dropped out" when North Dakota held their primaries? What about California? Without visualizing both the timeline graph and the county map in my brain at the same time, I don't get a good picture of what blue means for each and every county in my home state of California. Can somebody find a brilliant way to communicate this in one image, or at least in two side-by-side images? Thanks, 208.76.28.70 (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160502101304/http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/indiana-governor-to-endorse-cruz-for-president-media/ar-BBsqgZ9?ocid=ansmsnnews11 to http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/indiana-governor-to-endorse-cruz-for-president-media/ar-BBsqgZ9?ocid=ansmsnnews11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Delegate count

This article says Ted Cruz won the support of 551 delegates. Politico and the Wall Street Journal say he won 559 delegates, and the RNC says he won 544. Perplexing. Does anyone have a clue which one is correct? SunCrow (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Needs more sources

The article includes a good deal of unsourced material and has been tagged accordingly. SunCrow (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow I undid your revert because the citations discussing about the GOP's procedures/processes are there: 15, 195, and possibly some others. I also think that we should not remove a large section of a prominent Wikipedia page that has probably been on there for over 2-3 years without a lot of reason to do so besides "remove unsourced". Surely the hundreds, if not thousands of editors prior to this incident agreed or did not find fault with the Processes section. Aviartm (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm, thank you for letting me know about your edit. I have tagged the "Process" section as needing more sources. Multiple paragraphs are completely unsourced. In your edit summary, you said that the sources for this material were listed in other places in the article. They should be added as inline citations here as well. (With respect, I disagree with you that unsourced material that has been in an article for a long time should not be removed without justification. Per WP:VERIFY, any unsourced material in a Wikipedia article can be challenged or removed. Whether or not other editors find fault with that unsourced material is beside the point.) SunCrow (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow Great! Thank you for adding the template to the section. I agree that the citations should be located where material is mentioned from it within an article. And I understand what you mean with your last point but something that descriptive, surely it is reputable and verifiable somewhere. And as mentioned, looking at the citations that I mentioned, it appears that some of the Processes are there, if not a majority or all. Aviartm (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Carson and Bush recently added to infobox, should be taken down

Carson and Bush were added to the infobox here only recently, a few days ago. The only apparent reason for this sudden change relates to the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries talk page, where several people, including @Cookieo131: and @Shhhhwwww!!:, argued from Wiki-precedent that only candidates who won at least one contest or 5% of the popular vote were included in the infobox (here, just Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich). So, apparently to advance their argument than *any* candidate with a few delegates should be in a presidential primary infobox, some folks added two candidates who did not meet the 5%/win contest threshold here. I suggest that these two less-significant candidates be removed from the infobox and precedent restored until some uniform standard can be agreed upon.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that they should be removed. The standard should be 5% popular vote, 5% of delegate, or winning any contest. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the template for a presidential primary infobox actually uses the old 2016 primary box, the one with just four candidates. Agreed on the removal of Carson and Bush by the way. GrapevinePoly (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Closes races section desperately inaccessible

The close races section is flagrantly against MOS:COLOR and is inaccessible for colorblind readers, and for other readers as well. There is no need to use color in this way to convey the winners of each race. :3 F4U (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I added the winners. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)