Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Daylight Saving Time now in most of the country

For the April 14th debate, I believe the start time should be expressed as "E.D.T." instead of "E.S.T." (standard time). Doesn't Brooklyn observe daylight saving time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.110.118 (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DAYLIGHT time, not Standard time

The April 14th debate DID turn out to be held during Eastern DAYLIGHT Time (E.D.T), not "E.S.T." as initially documented in the chart of debate times and places. The debate table should be corrected by someone more knowledgeable than me about "editing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.110.118 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article unneccesary

There is no reason to have separate article for every single debate held when they can be covered in one main article perfectly fine. I do not wish to delete any content so AFD is not the appropriate place to bring these pages. This article was split without any consensus, so User:PanchS should provide one that these subarticles should exist separately, rather than in a single page that is more convenient and easily readable, not me. Reywas92^Talk 19:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Single article or split each debate

Closing unanimous discussion, I have merged these articles back to the main and redirected the equivalent Republican debates as well. Reywas92^Talk 06:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On March 20,

!vote with Merge or Split below and express your rationale. — JFG ^talk 12:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Opinions

Merge – A single article reflects better the continuity of the issues debated between candidates. Also, individual articles are very short and unlikely to expand now that these campaign events are behind us. — JFG ^talk 12:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the reasons described by JFG. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I don't think every single debate is notable enough to merit its own article. As
tɐlk) 23:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge. This article is not all that large. It doesn't need to be split. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Common sense would be that all nine debates between candidates fit as news events in the context of the whole, not notable by themselves. A single article can cover this content perfectly well. PanchoS also created debate articles from
Republican Party presidential debates and forums, 2016, duplicating the content of the main article though not removing it; those pages should be merged as well. Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per all above. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for all these duplicate content forks. It actually makes it harder for the reader. AusLondonder (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leaked debate questions No mention in the article in the controversies section yet?
- "The Friday before the debate, at about 5 p.m, the producer, Danelle Garcia, called her: CNN had picked one of her questions." East Village Magazine
- "... [Mikki] Ward and [LeeAnne] Walters identified Garcia — a producer for Anderson Cooper — as the employee with whom they communicated ahead of the debate. ..." Right Wing site Daily Caller--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]