Talk:1980 Republican Party presidential primaries

message: The image :Image:Reaganmicrophone.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      File:Ben Fernandez.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Reaganmicrophone.JPG

message: It say's on Lowell Weicker's page that that he contested this Primary. Is this true? Is there a source for it? RicoRichmond (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowell Weicker 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Jack Kemp - Library of Congress, Congressional Portrait Collection.gif Nominated for Deletion

message: Why is Anderson included in the infobox? There is no wiki policy I can find that says candidates must be included if they receive 5% or 10% of the vote. He garnered some attention early on, but that accumulated to no success and he didn't win a single success. He ended up not even running as a Republican. He should not be in the infobox. MavsFan28 (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 5% is the consensus number.  If you would like to change that number start a discussion on the talk page of WP:USPE. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please point me directly to the part where it says to include candidates in infoboxes if they receive 5% or more of the votes. MavsFan28 (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you did due diligence you'd follow the link I provided above and come upon this discussion. Instead, you decided to edit war.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you may need to look up what due diligence means. Since you kept quoting this "consensus", it would actually be up to you to correctly link me to it....which thankfully, you finally have. I actually have already seen the discussion you refer to though, but it does not apply here. The 5 percent threshold only applies to third party candidates, as that would indicate a successful third party candidacy. I'd argue even then it should be open to conversation, as Nader was very relevant in 2000. But that discussion says nothing on primaries where all of these people run for the same party. Five percent does not apply here and there is no Wikipedia consensus on this. Also, if we look at it case by case, here Anderson may have initially drawn much attention, but did not turn it into success and ultimately did not run as a Republican. In the 08 one Keyes did not draw attention nor did he have any type of success. Even if we were to use an irrelevant guideline that does not apply to the primaries, he only made 5% because he did not drop out when the other candidates did, thus he just received a bunch of obligatory non-Bush votes as the only other candidate on some ballots. He didn't pass 5% on most of the states McCain competed in too anyway. MavsFan28 (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It does apply to primaries. See . --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just a discussion on a specific page. The only actual guideline to follow would be the link you put earlier, but it specifies that its about third party candidacies and not primaries. MavsFan28 (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So then why not start a new discussion on WP:USPE to establish a different criteria for primaries? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I considered it, but I'm not the one claiming there is any policy or consensus when there isn't. I'm fine with deciding things like this article by article. MavsFan28 (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anderson in infobox 

message: When you open the page, the pictures of candidates appears for a second and disappears. Not sure if anyone else experiences this issue. Crazy Jay Fox (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glitch on pictures of candidates 

message: At the bottom of polling>primary race section, Bush's infamous "voodoo" quote is mentioned only this one time in the article:
There is voodoo economics, but it redirects to reaganomics. I believe that to be a gross misnomer. On the other hand, Bush was referring to what later became called reaganomics. Heavy Chaos (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So how's it a misnomer if Bush was referring to Reagan's economic policy? Andre🚐 05:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the words don't say that, and the term doesn't always mean that. Heavy Chaos (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems pretty clear he was referring to Reagan's economic policies aka Reaganomics. Could you elaborate on what else that could mean? Are you saying there's a different meaning of voodoo economics or a different meaning of Reaganomics? Andre🚐 05:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: (Personal attack removed), or are you really suggesting that "voodoo economics" is basically synonymous with reaganomics? The words in the article don't say "reaganomics", and the term "voodoo economics" is just like any other "voodoo x" label, a smear, and is has been used to refer to other non-Reagan related economic things. If you want to hamfist some way of saying "reaganomics" in this sentence, then it might resolve the problem, but I don't see how. The better option is to just unlink, per wp:astonish "A link should not take readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would go." Heavy Chaos (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Voodoo economics was a term used to broadly refer to Reagan's economic policy, specifically the trickle-down tax cuts. What else does it refer to? And it is not a smear and per WP:RNEUTRAL redirects do not need to be neutral. It was a description used by one Republican about another. I oppose unlinking. Andre🚐 07:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do we feel about "voodoo economics" linking to [[Reaganomics]]?