Talk:2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Non-notable endorsees

Currently, we are including what is seemingly every single person who can be proved to have endorsed a candidate in this race in the endorsements section. This means that essentially anyone can get put in the endorsements section, and is causing it to become bloated. Since Amash’s entry into the race will presumably cause a lot of people and organisations, non-notable and notable, to endorse him, and as quite a few notable people have endorsed candidates, I propose standardising this page with the Democratic and Republican pages by removing all non-notable entries from the Endorsements section. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I would vote nay. We're not an established party like Democrats and Republicans. Some of the most influential people in the party, like Darryl Perry and Jeff Hewitt, don't have pages. At the end of the day, this is a primary page; names like these are important to us as Libertarians. As far as the general election goes, then you'll see a difference on that page. The average joe isn't going to care what Dave Smith or Todd Hagopian have to say, and therefore the 2020 presidential election page will reflect that. However, we do care about who they endorse. Also, why should we change the rules of this page to essentially suit the needs of one candidate. That would take away from Wikipedia's impartiality, because at the end of the day this is a primary.--Curbon7 (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Keenan Wallace Dunham total

The number of votes for my campaign listed under Candidates is incorrect. The California Primary alone lists 720. Many of the other contests list "other candidates". Not sure if those are correctly tallied. Do you have access to who the "others" votes are for?

-Keenan Wallace Dunham Keenandunham (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the California votes, but no, we do not have access to who the Massachusetts “All others” votes were for unless I’m mistaken. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Post convention primaries?

The nomination is by virtual convention is next week. There are no post nomination primaries. Someone just put them back. So I took them out. Then someone put them back and said we needed a discussion about it. Why?Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Those primaries will take place regardless of the nomination being made. The article is about the primaries. If you look at the 2016 LP primaries page you will see that primaries occurring after the convention appear there as well. --Okcgunner (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okcgunner (talk • contribs)

FYI, the LP primaries are non-binding. Delegates are selected at state conventions, not by primary votes. Most of the state affiliates that participate in primaries do so because thier state requires them to in order for the party to qualify for the general election ballot in November. So the post-convention primaries are likely being held to secure ballot access, they are not for the purpose of appointing convention delegates.Sal2100 (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of Justin Amash

@Devonian Wombat: I saw that you reverted my edit removing Justin Amash. For some reason, my edit summary was cut off. I myself am conflicted about whether to include him. He definitely doesn't meet the criteria at the top of the section:

The following is a list of declared candidates who meet at least one of the following criteria: a) meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines; b) have participated (or have been invited to participate) in at least two Libertarian Party-sponsored debates or c) have received substantial media coverage.

He didn't declare his candidacy, which means he doesn't meet the criteria laid out in the article. And I think it's a stretch to call someone a major candidate if they never even sought the job. I do recognize, though, that he received considerable attention in spite of his decision not to run. Perhaps we should reword the above paragraph or move him to a section on speculative candidates. What are your thoughts? — Tartan357  (Talk) 06:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well he clearly declared his candidacy, if nothing else, the fact that he participated in a debate with a bunch of other candidates shows that he was clearly seeking the nomination before deciding not to. While forming an exploratory committee is not technically declaring a candidacy, for all intents and purposes it is exactly the same as officially declaring. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Devonian Wombat: If he did "clearly declare" his candidacy, then the article should state that. I found a source indicating that he joined the party and considered a campaign, but never declared his candidacy. The purpose of an exploratory committee is to see if a campaign might be viable, and is definitely not "for all intents and purposes exactly the same as officially declaring." The article as it is written currently does recognize that he didn't declare. I'm not categorically opposed to having him in, but if we are to include him, we need to make changes elsewhere so the article doesn't contradict itself by listing candidates who don't meet the inclusion criteria. One way would be to create a separate "Declined to be candidates" section such as that found at 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates. What are your thoughts on how to handle that? — Tartan357  (Talk) 06:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I missed that we have a section for that already. I changed the sentence at the beginning to include the word "recanted," based on the Democratic Party example, which makes including Amash there more appropriate. — Tartan357  (Talk) 07:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
That is not the right thing to do. Candidates who have declined to run do not participate in presidential debates, it is as simple as that. Amash clearly was running, there is no point getting wound up over meaningless terminology that makes no practical difference to what actually happened. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you cite a source stating that he declared? I can't find one. Sorry, I moved him to that section before you responded (I kept all the same information and presentation). Would you like me to change it back and continue the discussion? — Tartan357  (Talk) 07:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
That is not my argument, my argument is that forming an exploratory committee is pretty much the same as just declaring, and having that lavender colouration on his box is really all the distinction we need. Also, with regard to sources, I will admit there is a gap. This Vox Media article [1], for example, treats it as if he is ending a campaign, while this Politico article:[2] seems to treat as if he didn't run. So yeah, you do have a point. Perhaps there a could be a further compromise, we could have a specific section, titled "Formed exploratory committee but did not officially declare candidacy" and put Amash in there? Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I had in mind. It's a unique situation, since his exploratory committee was really long and many people thought he was going to run. The author of that VOX article gave it a poor title; read the first sentence of the article and you'll see what I mean. Here's the information directly from him stating he decided not to run:
"After much reflection, I’ve concluded that circumstances don’t lend themselves to my success as a candidate for president this year, and therefore I will not be a candidate."
I'm going to look into how other articles handled this and get back to you in just a minute. — Tartan357  (Talk) 07:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Devonian Wombat: Okay, I've looked around, and there doesn't appear to be any precedent on Wikipedia for including a candidate who didn't declare their candidacy in the candidates list. Furthermore, the sources all do state that he didn't run (see what I wrote about the VOX article). Because he did receive so much attention, though (including some votes), I'd be willing to put him in the "Declined to be candidates" section without relegating him to a simple bullet point. We can put him right at the top of that section and have the lavender legend indicate that he publicly considered running and/or that many pundits considered it a de facto run. His own quote, "I will not be a candidate," very unambiguously indicates that he never was a candidate, so I don't think we can treat this as a withdrawal. I am more than willing to give him special treatment in the "Declined to be candidates" section, however. I'd be open to just about any phrasing or presentation as long as he's in the "Declined to be candidates" section. — Tartan357  (Talk) 07:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tartan357: actually there is precedent for treating those two groups as equal, see this old revision of the Democratic primaries page:[3] where candidates who had not yet officially declared were included in the main list, albeit the list had an altered title. I still say he should be included in the main list, as it seems to me his "not being a candidate" talk is about the General election, not about the Libertarian primary. If he is not included in the main list, I maintain he should be included in his own "formed exploratory committee but never officially declared candidacy" section, the same way 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates treats Roy Moore. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Devonian Wombat: Let's go with the Roy Moore phrasing/layout. That seems like good precedent for this to me. The Democratic primaries example doesn't count, I think, since there was still a chance that they could enter at the time of that revision (it was indicating possible candidates) - that revision was from March 2019, nearly a year before the Iowa Caucuses. But the 2012 Republican solution is fine by me. — Tartan357  (Talk) 08:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I just created the new subsection. Would you like to do the honors and move him there? — Tartan357  (Talk) 08:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Devonian Wombat: Can we change the entry in the "Campaign" column of his table to "N/A" since there is no campaign to link to? There's only his personal page, which has a couple sentences with all the same information. — Tartan357  (Talk) 08:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It would be better just to remove that column. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Devonian Wombat: Great, let's do that! — Tartan357  (Talk) 08:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Jacob Hornberger needs his logo updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.58.29 (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Tartan357  (Talk) 09:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"Delegate count"

We should not include a delegate count. Delegates were not awarded in the primary. The convention and the primary were two separate events. SecretName101 (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@SecretName101: See my page move and restructuring process proposed in the above section. — Tartan357  (Talk) 03:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Arrangement of candidates

I'm not sure we should be creating separate lists of candidates the way it is currently being done. Especially not since the manner it currently is in refers to the outcome of the convention, which was a separate event from the primary. SecretName101 (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, this stems from the common misconception among readers and editors that the processes are related in the same way they are for the Democratic and Republican primaries. We should move the page to one that appropriately covers the nominating process, which is what readers expect after having seen Republican and Democratic primary pages. — Tartan357  (Talk) 05:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox focus

@Devonian Wombat: I realize the infobox would ideally be for the primaries, and I understand the difference from the convention. It seems to me, though, that if we are to include content from the convention (which was there before my edits), such as the delegate maps, the bolding of Jorgensen's name, and the text at the bottom of the infobox stating Jorgensen won, we need to properly explain that those things resulted from a process seperate from the primaries. I thought about making the infobox just for the primaries (i.e. showing a Hornberger win), but I think that would be confusing for readers. If we're to bold Jorgensen's name and say that she's the nominee at the bottom, then I think we have to embrace a hybrid infobox format so readers are clear on what caused her to win. What are your thoughts on which approach to take? — Tartan357  (Talk) 04:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This sort of confusion is exactly the sort of thing a note after Jorgensen’s name saying “The primaries were non binding, so Jorgensen was able to secure the nomination” would solve. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Devonian Wombat: If you're willing to leave it in its present state, then I think it's good. I put a note on "Preferential poll" at the top explaining this. I assumed you'd be reverting my addition of the delegate votes, as well. — Tartan357  (Talk) 04:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Devonian Wombat: I'm okay with the extra efn on Jorgensen's name, too. Would you be okay with keeping the infobox as it is now and not removing the delegate counts? — Tartan357  (Talk) 04:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Honestly I was conflicted about how to do the candidate ordering and default map display once I'd put the delegate votes in, so I don't feel strongly about those things. — Tartan357  (Talk) 04:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I just took out the convention dates that I added to the top of the infobox, since we're keeping the infobox focused on the primaries. — Tartan357  (Talk) 04:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I think having the delegate votes in is fine enough, it’s only a small part of the infobox and any confusion is probably explained by the note. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The convention and primary were two separate events. I think having delegate votes makes it appear that delegates were awarded in the primary. Therefore, I'd give a hard "no" to that. SecretName101 (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
You also don't need to bold any candidate to indicate that they "won" the primaries. SecretName101 (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@SecretName101: I recognize that they’re separate, but putting Jorgensen as the nominee in the bottom right corner of the infobox implies that it’s related to the primaries. I’d rather remove that entirely and indicate that Hornberger won the primaries (and not show delegates, since they’re unrelated). However, other editors have been insistent on bolding Jorgensen and indicating that she was nominated. If we’re going to do that, we need to indicate to readers how it happened. We also need to restructure the article’s content so it doesn’t imply that she was nominated during the primaries. I think most readers searching for this page are trying to read about how she was nominated, even though the convention page is the correct page for that. I think this is an issue that stems from us treating the Libertarian primaries as if they’re similar to Republican and Democratic ones. I propose we move this and other pages in the series to “2020 Libertarian Party presidential nomination” and make an infobox with convention information only. I tried to make those changes, but they were reverted, and so we need to have a larger discussion about this, I think. The preferential poll that occurred in only handful of states is being given undue weight in the nominating process by the way this article is set up. I think it should be a section under the new page name I’m proposing. It could still have a separate infobox there. Would you be open to the page move and associated changes? If so, I’ll probably start an RfC. I completely agree that the mixing of primaries and convention information is confusing and inappropriate. — Tartan357  (Talk) 03:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Or perhaps we just do away with any "Previous Libertarian Nominee" and "Libertarian Nominee" indicators altogether in the infobox. SecretName101 (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@SecretName101: That is an option, and it wouldn't be incorrect. However, other editors have understandably wanted to acknowledge Jo's nomination. So, I think this is a good opportunity to address the underlying problem with this page: it is set up like a Republican or Democratic primary page. It's not just the infobox; the way the candidates are listed implies the nominee was chosen through the primaries. The body lists processes that have nothing to do with the primaries (balloting round, nomination round, delegate votes). This page is written as if it's about the nominating process, and I think that's what readers are after when they come here. The primaries are a very small part of the nominating process and there's little to say about them; in my opinion, they are not notable on their own. What do you think of my proposal to move this page to "2020 Libertarian Party presidential nomination" or "2020 Libertarian Party presidential nominating process" and associated restructuring, which would address your underlying concern and be clearer to readers? I think I'm going to start an RfC. Please note that you should respect the status quo of the infobox until the discussion is over. — Tartan357  (Talk) 05:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@SecretName101: I have started a page move proposal that I think could help clear up the persistent conflation of the primaries with the nominating process/convention that we're seeing on this page and on the 2016 page. I invite you to add your opinion there. — Tartan357  (Talk) 08:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

South Dakota and Montana

Who won the South Dakota and Montana primaries? The ballot access table said no one qualified to be on the ballot. if those primaries took place update the results. If they didn't the article should also state that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonJH (talk • contribs) 09:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@BrendonJH: Primaries only took place in 12 states. This is not out of the ordinary for the Libertarian Party; only a handful of states held primaries in 2016. You can find a list of the primaries at: Results of the 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries, which is linked to in this article. The map in the infobox is a quick way for readers of this page to see that primaries only took place in 12 states. — Tartan357  (Talk) 20:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for you clarifying this. I do feel like the article should state that those primaries did not occur, as the article just looks unfinished like this. - BrendonJH — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonJH (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 2020 and associated merger proposal

– I propose that 2020 Libertarian National Convention be merged into this page and that this page be moved to "2020 Libertarian Party presidential nomination." I'm proposing the same be done for the 2016 pages, as well. I believe the name and setup of this page are inherently confusing and have been the cause of many of the content disputes discussed on this talk page. Currently, the article is titled "2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries." It is currently formatted in a way that is consistent with Republican and Democratic presidential primary pages. I believe that to be inappropriate and confusing to both editors and readers because Libertarian Party presidential primaries are preferential only. For example, the candidates are divided into sections (Jorgensen as "Nominee," for example), there is a "Results" section that includes delegate votes despite delegates being unrelated to the primaries, and the infobox indicates a Jorgensen win. Removing all information on the convention would be misleading to readers because it could imply that Hornberger was nominated due to him winning the primaries. Limiting convention information to a minimum could also be confusing because it might make the mechanism of Jorgensen's nomination unclear. In the past, delegate information was not included in the infobox because delegates are not assigned by the primaries. However, many editors expressed a desire to indicate in the infobox that Jorgensen was nominated, and the present format is likely necessary to explain how she was nominated despite Hornberger winning the primaries. I believe that we are placing an undue burden on the primaries themselves simply to follow the formatting of the Republican and Democratic Party primary pages. In reality, they are a small part of the nominating process, involving only a handful of states (which was not due to COVID-19; only a handful of states participated in the 2016 primaries, as well). This confusion was less prominent in 2016 due to Johnson winning both the primaries and the nomination, but the header of the infobox on 2016 Libertarian Party presidential primaries – which has changed many times and currently reads "Libertarian Party presidential convention process, 2016" despite the data in the infobox having to do entirely with the non-binding primaries (not the convention) – indicates that the issue is confusing on that page, as well as this one. Information in the article as written seems to reflect the nominating process, and most readers searching for the "2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries" are likely searching for a page documenting how the presidential nominee was chosen.  — Tartan357  (Talk) 00:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose, I think there is a better solution than renaming the article, and that is simply to place a note in all the boxes saying “The Libertarian Primaries did not select delegates to the convention” or something along those lines, which should help clear up most of the confusion. My main concern with the proposed name change is that the title would also cover the Libertarian national convention, since that is part of the presidential nominating process. Generally speaking, even the pages on the major parties include information that is not specifically related to the primaries, such as debates, campaign finance and the like. We could also perhaps rewrite a bunch of text in the article, and make it very clear that the primaries did not select delegates. If we did rename the article, there is a problem in that that would not actually clear up the confusion, someone casually browsing this page would still assume that the primaries awarded delegates even if the article was titled differently, simply because that is what happens in the other parties. Also, there a couple of other things, namely, this article is mostly based around the primaries as of now, the candidate tables feature information about primaries, we have a ballot access table, we have a table for results of the primaries. By comparison, there is almost no information about the state conventions that award delegates, since that information is directly tied to the 2020 Libertarian National Conventions article. Finally, since “Libertarian presidential nominating process” is rather technical, there may be some Common name problems with naming the article that. TLDR: Unless we merge the article on the convention into this article, I think it’s best to keep the article titled as it is now. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Devonian Wombat: I would like to merge the article on the convention into this one, and I would like to rewrite some of the content in this article to reflect the new title. However, the article as written is mostly about the nominating process already. We have a results table that includes delegate votes as the final selection process. Candidates are arranged based on balloting rounds. The infobox states that Jorgenson was nominated. I think we're placing undue weight on the primaries. Having this page set up and titled the way it is strongly implies that the primaries lead to the nomination. But, people would be confused if we simply removed Jorgensen's nomination and all other convention information from the infobox. We need a page that clearly lays out how Jorgensen was nominated, with the campaigns and associated preferential primaries as pieces of that page. I don't think the primaries themselves meet the notability criteria. There would be little left if we removed all the convention information from this page. Yet, it is unacceptable to conflate the convention with the primaries. So, yes, I think we should merge the pages. Also, the proposed new title is "2020 Libertarian Party presidential nomination," not "Libertarian presidential nominating process." "Nomination" is not overly technical. — Tartan357  (Talk) 03:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Devonian Wombat: I've added a merge proposal as suggested and fully agree with that. Please let me know your thoughts on the updated proposal. — Tartan357  (Talk) 04:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I really do not think we are giving the primaries undue weight, a very similar situation would be primaries in the Democratic and Republican parties prior to 1968, where the primaries did not select many delegates for the nomination. Yet, as you can for example see at 1928 Democratic Party presidential primaries and 1928 Democratic National Convention, those articles are kept seperate, even though they have far less information than the pages we are discussing. This is for a good reason, since the convention and the primaries are two seperate events. Also, I disagree completely with your notability assessment, even excluding the fact that the scope of this article is greater than merely primaries, there is clearly enough in the way of sourcing to write an article. Quite simply, I believe that you are inventing a solution to a problem that does not exist. Literally the first paragraph of the article explains that the Libertarian primaries do not select delegates to the national convention. If you don’t mind, I’m kinda burnt out on discussing Libertarians, so I would rather not be asked to comment again. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • oppose I concur with Devonian Wombat. The convention and the primaries are not the same thing at all, particularly this year with the bifurcated convention and all the drama involved in that of which the presidential nomination is only a portion and has already been concluded in the online portion. Okcgunner (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Okcgunner: My whole point is that the convention and the primaries are not the same. Perhaps we should rename this page but not do the merge? The current page name “primaries” does not accurately summarize the article’s contents, since this page contains a lot of information from the convention, and the two appear to be conflated here. — Tartan357  (Talk) 19:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The convention involves a lot more stuff than just the nomination. But yeah, you can break off the nomination stuff into its own article, and just summarize it in the convention article. Gonna go down there (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Gonna go down there: So you would support the page renaming but not the merge? I’d be fine with that. The primaries article as written is about the nomination. — Tartan357  (Talk) 19:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME, and for consistency with the other parties. You may not think that Libertarian primaries are particularly notable, but I know about 600,000 Libertarians that would beg to differ - and I'm one of them. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Rhythmnation2004: This is exactly the kind of confusion I'm talking about. You're confusing the nomination process with the primaries. There are 600,000 Libertarians in the country, which includes all 50 states. Primaries were only held in 12 states. — Tartan357  (Talk) 05:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Just saying, confusion and conflation between the primary and the convention can be more simply avoided if we DON'T CONFLATE THEM IN THE ARTICLES. Hence why I've been arguing we don't include convention delegates or maps related to the convention vote in the infobox of the primaries. SecretName101 (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@SecretName101: Since it's starting to look like nobody wants to move or merge, then I'd agree that we should make changes to the articles to clear up the confusion, mostly by removing convention information from this page. I think we should have an infobox that indicates Jorgensen's nomination, but on the convention page. Then, we can reduce the content of the primaries infobox to include only information from the primaries. What do you think about that? — Tartan357  (Talk) 05:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tartan357: I'd just restore this page's infobox largely to how I had it before you reverted it (maybe with one or two changes). The convention already has an infobox that does indicate who the nominee was. SecretName101 (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@SecretName101: I think there needs to be an infobox indicating how she was nominated, including those maps of the balloting rounds and delegate votes. — Tartan357  (Talk) 06:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tartan357: Not really. The article itself explains that. Wikipedia hasn't done that for other parties' political conventions, even those predating the modern primary system, where conventions would often go on for multiple ballots. SecretName101 (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@SecretName101: Which is part of why I thought the move would be more appropriate. Other parties assign their delegates through the primaries, so the nominee is essentially chosen by the voters. In this case, we have to indicate that Hornberger won the primaries if we strip convention information from this infobox, which would be confusing to readers. — Tartan357  (Talk) 06:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tartan357: That was not always the case though. We have separate articles for primaries and conventions for the major two parties dating back to the 1910s when some states began holding primaries. However, binding primaries or caucuses were never held in most states until the post-1968 reforms (after the McGovern–Fraser Commission, Democrats held the first primaries as we know them today in 1972, and Republicans didn't hold primaries in every state until even later). Also, I suppose the "voting" segment of the Libertarian convention infobox could be expanded to resemble the way the 2016 displays some of the info. SecretName101 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@SecretName101: Okay, I'm fine with that given this information. I do think we should expand the "voting" segment of the convention infobox as you've suggested, and I'm now fine with you beginning to remove convention information from this page. We should make sure this page is truly about the primaries, though, which will mean indicating a Hornberger win by bolding his name in the infobox (as is done for all election infoboxes). We can include an efn in the infobox about Jorgensen's nomination despite her losing the primaries. I'm going to end my merge and move proposals. — Tartan357  (Talk) 06:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Bolding Hornberger as if he won the primary process is a case of wikipedia declaring a winner of a process, which is not proper. Okcgunner (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I've thought about this and I agree. Hornberger was not declared the winner in any official way. I unbolded his name and bolded Jorgensen's instead, as she was nominated. The infobox already states in the bottom right that Jorgensen was nominated, anyway. I thought there wasn't any precedent on Wikipedia for bolding a candidate in an infobox but not placing them first, but that's not the case: 2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses. — Tartan357  (Talk) 23:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"Kim Ruff (politician)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kim Ruff (politician). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 29#Kim Ruff (politician) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Tartan357  (Talk) 19:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_2&oldid=1141472356"