Template talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Template talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 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. Abjikl?m (t?lk) 10:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016

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)

• If the calendar is now accurate then I'd say it should be re-added. Prcc27? (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

src: www.latimes.com

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. Abjikl?m (t?lk) 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)

I'm on board with that :) Abjikl?m (t?lk) 20:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, let's go with all 5. --Nizolan ^(talk) 20:16, 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. Abjikl?m (t?lk) 19:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

src: media.npr.org

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)

src: cbswashington.files.wordpress.com

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. Abjikl?m (t?lk) 02:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

src: www.deseretnews.com

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)

I removed it. It wasn't used for anything. Abjikl?m (t?lk) 15:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

src: theintercept.imgix.net

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. Abjikl?m (t?lk) 14:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

src: www.gannett-cdn.com

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. Abjikl?m (t?lk) 18:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

src: fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com

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)

src: i2.wp.com

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

?o??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)

src: www.slate.com

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)

 Done (a while back) --Nizolan ^(talk) 01:30, 19 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.

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)

Any reason as to: why? Why Wikipedians always has to differ themselves with everybody else?? There's a valid article, this article, just like any other articles, writing the same story, that Trump had clinched the nomination, while, here, on Wikipedia, the delegates stands around 1,100. What's wrong with you people? The Washington Post doesn't look valid enough for you?SquidHomme (talk) 22:55, 29 May 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. Abjikl?m (t?lk) 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)

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. Abjikl?m (t?lk) 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)

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 o 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.

Wikipedia judges sources by their reliability, of which "accuracy" is only one part, and it doesn't seem to me that anyone has brought up a reason why the RNC is not the most reliable source about its own primaries. --Nizolan ^(talk) 21:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

• http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker

Politico's feed is taken from AP, as stated above. Many news sources feature AP's chart because AP is a news wire service. I do think TGP is a reliable source, but the RNC itself is more reliable in this case; I explained why in my detailed reply above. --Nizolan ^(talk) 13:00, 10 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

See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016&diff=714552684&oldid=714542356

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)

Oh, okay. But all discussions pertaining to the template should be discussed on this talk page, not that one. Prcc27? (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Delegate count source RfC

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)

Not done; the current source gives 755. If the problem is with the source, then please participate in the discussion immediately above. --Nizolan ^(talk) 18:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

North Dakota

I'm pretty sure Cruz won North Dakota. Can the map be changed? Ghoul flesh (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done No one won North Dakota since there was no presidential primary or caucus in that state. And the delegates elected by convention had to be uncommitted according to the bylaws of the state party. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Campaign Suspended"

I don't think it is necessary to include that Cruz, Rubio, and (after he officially announces) Kasich have suspended their campaigns. Shortly it won't matter anyway, as once there is a nominee at the convention that information will all be cleared out. The presumptive nominee note next to Trump's name should be sufficient. =) khfan93 (t) (c) 18:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe the opposite. We shouldn't be declaring Trump the "presumptive nominee" when he hasn't even received a majority of delegates, especially if Kasich is still in the race (didn't he drop out though?). The "canpaign suspended" should be sufficient enough and the readers can draw their own conclusions on their own without us jumping the gun and possibly violating WP:Crystal. AFAIK, the template from last election didn't use the term "presumptive nominee" at all. Prcc27? (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Calling Trump the presumptive nominee is not crystalline guesswork: this was declared by the RNC Chairman himself yesterday evening. -- JFG ^talk 19:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Will be presumptive nominee" ? is presumptive nominee. Therefore WP:Crystal still applies. Prcc27? (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27: He will most likely officially announce his suspension in his press conference in a hour and a half. CCamp2013 (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Ahkay. Then for now we should not add "campaign suspended" yet. Prcc27? (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Numbering states

It says that 47 states have been decided & yet the map shows only 45 states being colored (not including North Dakota, of course). Why is that? GoodDay (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

After Oregon was updated today, I count 46 states/territories shaded for a specific candidate. The difference between 47 and 46 is American Samoa, which is in a similar situation to North Dakota (and now Guam, for that matter). For each of these contests, one could count them as uncommitted (hard delegate count) or wins for Cruz/Trump (soft delegate count). Alas, Wikipedia's articles/templates/maps are not yet consistent on this, but will be once the national convention occurs. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Pictures width

What about having the first two pictures of the President and of Cruz dimensioned x161px instead of x150px, for having the same space between them and beetween the pictures of Rubio and Kasich depicted below? --Foghe (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Source of article : Wikipedia