The result was merge. Clear consensus to merge the articles. Supporters mentioned WP:POVFORK, that the parent article is moderately sized and can accomodate the extra text, and WP:NPOV concerns for the child article. Opposers mentioned WP:CSECTION, WP:UNDUE, and precedent for this practice in other articles. The oppose points are reasonable, so please be careful of things like WP:CSECTION and WP:UNDUE when performing the merge. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I find that there is consensus to adopt the nickname criteria laid out at the top of this RFC. A few folks suggested slight changes or differences, but overall there is significant support for the original criteria. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I find that there is consensus to split the Democratic primary section into its own article. The other two options of splitting both sections, or splitting no sections, were not as strongly supported. Some comments did not contain bolded votes, but made their preferences clear, so those preferences were taken into consideration. I do not find the "don't split" arguments convincing enough to override the majority. WP:LENGTH states When an article is too large, consider breaking it into smaller articles, spinning part of it out into a new article, or merging part of it into another existing article. When an article is too small, it may be merged with one or more other existing articles. Such editorial decisions require consensus., which in my opinion implies the most important criteria for a split decision is a talk page discussion resulting in consensus, not necessarily readable prose size. While WP:SIZERULE does not recommend splitting an article with little readable prose, stating Length alone does not justify division, I do not see an absolute prohibition against it. I also note WP:SPLITLIST, which seems to allow for splitting large lists, tables, and other material. WP:COAT arguments will not be examined in detail since that is just an essay. I also note that the example of precedent given, 2010 United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, is a featured article. I hope this close is satisfactory, and that this article improves once large lists such as that endorsement section are moved out. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I find that there is consensus to keep the phrasing as 46th and current. The count was around 20 to 12. I see no policy-based arguments strong enough to override the majority. I note the mention of MOS:CURRENT, but I feel the rebuttal to this was reasonable. I note that there is precedent for using "and current" in other American president articles, back when they were currently president. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Supporters mentioned that it would be helpful to new editors, which lowers the learning curve and improves their experience, and that the option to turn it on is hard to find. Opposers were concerned about slowness, accessibility, and difficulty turning it off. Arguments are relatively equal, and many editors supported implementing this change, so I find that there is clear consensus to turn on syntax highlighting by default for new accounts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus, defaulting to the status quo (not splitting). There was about equal support for splitting and not splitting. Arguments were equally compelling. There's consensus that the article is too big, and editors differ in their preferred method for fixing this: splitting or condensing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
