Talk:2016 Green Party presidential primaries

Page views for this article over the last 90 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Map

From now on we will use this map:
File:Green Party presidential primaries results 2016.png
Update this map from now on. Jp16103 02:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jp16103: Yes, but SVG vector files are recommended in place of PNG raster files. See Commons:File types#SVG for more information. SVG files are used for the Democratic and Republican presidential primaries, and practically all other presidential primaries. MB298 (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The map will be updated in a less than a week. I will publish it as a .svg. I will leave it as PNG for now. Jp16103 23:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: The map's up to date. Also, please do not upload a separate file. Just use the one I created. MB298 (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no need. Delete your duplicate map. Jp16103 00:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jp16103: SVG maps are favored over png maps in nearly all cases. In case you don't know how to edit these types of files, see Wikipedia:SVG help. MB298 (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Everything is settled. Map is .SVG. I usually am the quickest when it comes to updating the map. I'll continue to do so in the future. Jp16103 02:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jp16103: I would recommend using File:Green Party presidential primaries results, 2016.svg, because it is derived from File:Blank US Map.svg, and has code that is actually readable. MB298 (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

GPUS Recognized Candidates

This article says the Green Party has officially recognized all five of these candidates. However, the website of the GPUS says they have only recognized Kreml and Stein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:580:2D78:881C:6128:4C8E:6CEC (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The candidates featured are on the ballots in any state. As far as I understand that list is not up to date on the GPUSA website. Jp16103 02:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is the list. http://gpus.org/committees/presidential-campaign-support/2016-candidates-seeking-gpus-nomination/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.151.206.140 (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Green Party Youth Caucus

The Green Party Youth Caucus held and online vote which awarded 2 delegates to Jill Stein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardog3000 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Vermont

I contacted the GP of Vermont, and I was informed that they will not be holding a primary or convention. Jp16103 15:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Fix the page

The contents bar is huge, and the page should not be that long. Someone needs to do something with the individual state primary sections. This isn't the Libertarian Party, where there's only 6 states participating. This page is a mess. Ghoul flesh (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Louisiana

"The 2016 annual convention for the Green Party of Louisiana will be held Saturday, July 30th, at Xavier University of Louisiana in New Orleans."

-lagreens.org

This should be changed because there is not source as of now — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganZombieOfTime (talk • contribs) 21:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Map colors

I uploaded a new version of the map with colors shuffled a little bit. Specifically I used black to indicate states awaiting results and light grey for states with no contests. You can see this map here vs. the current one. My upload was reverted under the reason that it is an "unnecessary change". Let me attempt to explain why the color scheme I've chosen is more appropriate.

1. Black is a strong color and any state colored in black will stand out. Therefore, I find it inappropriate to highlight states that are not taking part in the primaries. We should instead use strong colors for states that are actually relevant to the primaries.
2. All past primaries maps for the Democratic and Republican primaries use light grey for states without contests. Consistency would have us do the same for this map.

Are there any objections to using this map? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 08:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I object, I feel the opposite about black. Since it is such a strong/negative looking color, it is easier to assume and understand that the state is not holding a primary or caucus. Since the default color is grey, it would only make sense that a darker shade of grey is for states awaiting primary results. Also, this discussion should be on the commons page for the photo, not here. Jp16103 20:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is here so that more people can see it and because it affects this page and this page only. Look at all the other primaries' maps, or indeed almost all maps on Wikipedia. Grey means no data almost universally. Once all the contests are over, one would expect to see a map with some states colored according to the winner, and the rest of them a pale shade of grey to indicate no data. Black attracts way too much attention. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 21:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thats the point, the since there are so many states not holding primaries it only makes sense to have them shaded a different tone than the other states. Again, this is a solution to a problem that doesnt exist. Besides, the colors on your map arent that different and are hard to distinguish. I have no objections to editing the map, I just do not like the tones that you have chosen. Black works better vs the grey. Jp16103 22:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

But my proposal does color these states differently: with light grey. You still haven't addressed why the Green Party's primaries map should use a different color for "no data" than the one used on virtually every other map on Wikipedia. Which color do you find hard to distinguish? The only change I made was to use a slightly lighter shade of grey   than the one you used  . Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I find it difficult to distinguish between the two grays. Also to answer your question, I think a different color should be used because it is unusual in the modern era to not hold primaries in every state. One could easily think that blank states just havent held primaries yet, when in fact they will not be holding primaries at all. So in a way, there is data, the data for those states is that they are not holding a presidential primary. Jp16103 23:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I invite you to look at all the primary pages before 1968 to see that light grey is not a source of confusion. Moreover, states that will hold primaries in the future are already colored differently--that was actually a great choice that you made when creating this map. And even if that isn't clear enough, there already is a legend that clears any confusion readers might have. As for the shades of grey, I'm not attached to my choice. If you find   hard to distinguish from  , let's keep the current  . Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections as long as the gray is darker. Jp16103 11:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Green seems like a poor choice of color for any candidate, since the color is strongly associated with the party itself. You'll notice that articles about Democratic primaries generally avoid assigning blue to candidates. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Facebook Links

The page is heavily reliant on green parties on Facebook, so should sources from Facebook be allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganZombieOfTime (talk • contribs) 00:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

An official Facebook page is a self-published primary source. See WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Presumptive Nominee

Just want to remind everyone that Jill is NOT the presumptive nominee at this moment. She does not have the delegates needed and the convention is still 3 months away. To call her the presumptive without her reaching teh needed delegate counts is a violation of WP Crystal. Jp16103 12:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Here you will find a list of sources that call her presumptive nominee. I agree she hasn't gotten half the delegates, and I reverted until recently all the edits that named her presumptive nominee. But now that we have multiple references, we must follow them. It is not up to us to decide whom to call presumptive, and it not WP:CRYSTAL since it is referenced to reliable sources. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No, thats not how it works. The GREEN PARTY or GP officials must call her the presumptive nominee. The GOP primary page waited until the GOP chair called Trump the presumptive to include it in the article. As of now, she is NOT the presumptive nominee. She does not have the delegates, the votes, or the majority of support of the green party. Any sources on the topic are misleading, and are inaccurate, unless the party or a major party official calls Jill the presumptive nominee, she is not. Part of the confusion with the sources is that Jill has been calling herself the nominee since she announced her candidacy, so all major media outlets have been reporting this false information. The Green Party has not named her the presumptive nominee, and until then she is not. Jp16103 02:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Of the two officially recognized candidates, one of them has endorsed Jill Stein, and the other candidate is Jill Stein. As was done when all of Trump's opponents suspended, he became presumptive without having necessary delegates. Additionally, being "officially recognized" by the party is a requirement to be nominated. Calibrador (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This isn't even a competitive race. 22 states to 1. Why argue over semantics? Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as Stein is on the brink of clinching a majority of the pledge delegates, the presumptive label appears even more appropriate. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Doesnt matter, Jill has won as of today. Jp16103 23:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Number of delegates

on another trivial note, anyone know why the number of total delegates at the bottom of the schedule table and the number of total delegates don't match. Should a note be placed in the schedule somewhere explain the discrepency?....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

A giant spreadsheet

I have been working on this for a while. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18qGNjklwSai2_1t99a7f2FE9mgrHn1nlT9K7XFaEkys/edit?usp=sharing — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganZombieOfTime (talk • contribs) 16:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Just a heads up, do not include anything related to "presumptive nominee", etc. in the infobox. It can be mentioned in the article just not the infobox. Jp16103 23:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Illinois

"On February 19, the Illinois Green Party released election results for its privately-administered presidential primary. Only party members could vote, and they could either vote on-line or by postal mail."

According to this, there were no "select caucus locations" for the illinois primary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.206.45 (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

never mind, it says the locations on the ballot. 65.96.206.45 (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green 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/20160208192626/http://www.gp.org/2016_presidential_candidates to http://www.gp.org/2016_presidential_candidates

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)