Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 10
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Trump photo
Since the above discussion about the Trump photo has been kind of confusing (my bad), I think it may be better to proceed with a formal vote, like we did for Clinton. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
-
A
-
B
-
C
-
D
-
E
-
F
-
G
-
H
-
I
-
J
-
K
- By order of preference : F, G, E, D and C. A is fine, but much too "grumpy". H is, technically, a good photo but it makes him look kind of creepy and is therefore, IMHO, unfit for an infobox. I is funny, but the cropped version makes him look like a Martian. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I prefer A, with C, G, and K being close seconds. --Proud User (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- F, looking to the camera, I also think it matches with the proposed Clinton photo, TexasMan34 (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- F looks at the camera and isn't leaning over to the side.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- If people prefer F, there is a photo from the exact same event where the subject is smiling. It was used on the subject's Wikipedia page for several years as the main infobox photo. Calibrador (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Great ! I added the photo, and changed my vote accordingly. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- E is a horrible photoshop of B and F and G are 5 years old (too old for use here). D is just too stupid and A as i have said a dozen times, is a thumbnail...none are good enough for use here...Lets be reasonable here, his best ever image was taken last year and the photographer who took it was hounded off the wiki by someone..--Stemoc 09:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- A, this one looks the most professional while at the same time not looking too intimidating as in option F. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- A, Just leave the current photo as is. How many discussions does there need to be on this? TL565 (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- A, per TL565 --Majora (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- D --so endearing. Writegeist (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- My gut wanted that picture but too many people would complain. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- B and D are perfect. A is too grumpy.—SquidHomme (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- My gut wanted that picture but too many people would complain. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- A, C, F in order of preference based in lighting, head to frame ratio, and facial expression. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- F, face forward, full face captured, looking at the camera with a neutral expression. This is the best available image of Trump.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
*A is still, and always has been, the better photo. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Based on what? --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- J is my first preference, A is my second. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Alright, so this is the problem with these threads every single time someone starts one. A list of photos comes up, people "vote" (even though consensus is not a vote), then more photos are added, and soon we have a mess. There are photos people have never seen before, people are forced to strike and revote again and again, or worse people are not even looking at this page once they vote and missing options creating a false consensus. This is how consensus is not made. By having dozens of options and constantly changing the number of items that people have to look at. The correct way to do this would be to have an open period for image submission and then a separate period of !voting where no further images can be added. The photos that don't get any traction should be summarily, SNOW, removed and anyone that did !vote for them should be pinged to pick a new one. Constantly doing what is happening here is going to lead to nowhere. --Majora (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I hope, however, you're not offended when others disagree with that opinion... -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- An opinion is useless if not backed with a rationale.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Is that Plato? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep A – I also agree that any renewed proposal to change the picture should go through a formal process as suggested by Majora. — JFG talk 11:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- A is the best recent photo of Trump, keep the Trump photo the way it is.Angelgfg12345 (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2016
This United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To whom it may concern:
Under an earlier section where it explains President Obama's term expires on January 20, 2017 at 12 noon, please add eastern standard time (EST) to that time mark. As terms end at noon (EST) which is the timezone in Washington, DC. This is in accordance to the 20th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Thank you kindly.
75.129.128.246 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Done--JayJasper (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Clinton image (voting)
I think we're having a little bit of problems with the Clinton photo, to avoid all of this let's choose now and for all which image should be on the infobox
-
A
-
B
-
C
-
D
-
E
Please vote and leave your opinion, make your voice be heard. TexasMan34 (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- By order or preference : A, B, E. C is a bit flat and I find D somewhat unflattering (at least for an infobox). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support A as it is a high-quality portrait made available by Clinton's campaign. Isn't that exactly what we want? --Proud User (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I like the one on the left better. Earthscent (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I vote A, she's looking directly to the camera, and is in a better resolution, etc. Angelgfg12345 (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- If the Clinton campaign has made available a pic for us to use, why hesitate to use it? Don't make it complicated. Definitely A.—SquidHomme (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Notes: First of all everyone here needs to be aware that voting and "making your voice heard" is not what
- Support A: Per Angelgfg12345.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I believe this voting is meant to reach consensus. Which way should we go through to reach consensus if not through voting. The A pic is used by CNN and Bloomberg in showing their polling results. So I think it's ok to assume something even though it's not true.—SquidHomme (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @SquidHomme: More so to satisfy my own curiosity, but would you be able to provide a link for the CNN and Bloomberg utilisation of Photo A by any chance? Sleepingstar (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Sleepingstar: Actually it's on TV. It is shown when CNN covers the polls results after the Democratic Convention. I'm sorry I can't provide a proof here but I will try to search if anyone has the recording of the coverage.—SquidHomme (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- @SquidHomme: More so to satisfy my own curiosity, but would you be able to provide a link for the CNN and Bloomberg utilisation of Photo A by any chance? Sleepingstar (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose A Not a fan of A, as the eye line makes it look strange as a standalone crop. Calibrador (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think A is best because she is facing completely forward. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- B - In all honestly it looks like Hillary is on something (hope the stuff is good) in that picture. Can we please have more options to choose from like for Trump? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
To my criteria, A and D are the best. TexasMan34 (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- They're all ok, but C is a bit flat. Lacks contrast. A and D are best for contrast and composition, though B is decent too. Weak preference for bolded choice. E is just a rather ugly image due to capturing her speaking mid word. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- A, face forward, full face captured, pleasant expression. This is the best available recent photo of Clinton.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Both A and B are great options, with good contrast and head/body ratios. A has the advantage of her facing forwards, whereas B her head is slightly turned. I would ever so slightly favour A. Sleepingstar (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- B - The best of the bunch IMO. Yes she's not looking forward, but the quality of the photo is great. Also, Clinton's facial expression in A looks like she's made of wax. It just seems way too forced. Nations United (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- B, per Nations United TL565 (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
For Third Parties, should we include Write-In Access for the Purposes of Organization and the Infobox
Alright so as filing periods are closing I figured now would be the best time to raise this issue. Back in 2012 we debated and agreed that for the purposes of organizing the third party candidates on the basis of electors available to them, as well as for positioning in the Info-box, that we would count verifiable Write-In access the same as standard ballot access. In adopting this rule, Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party made it into the infobox though on the Third-Tier, as it was felt the First-Tier was to be reserved for candidates with access in all fifty states; conversely the Second-Tier was reserved for candidates with actual ballot access in enough states up to 270 Electors. The problem here though is that while having Write-In access does mean you aren't visibly on the ballot, so long as the correct papers are filed voters can still vote for that candidate, and technically they can still receive electors in such States. So I suppose the question is, do we extend this rule again? Or do we only cover for visible ballot access for our purposes? --Ariostos (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- In the infobox, write-in counts too. --Proud User (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- I see no reason not to continue with the agreed-upon inclusion rules used in 2012.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- If a candidate has a state-recognized slate of electors, and those electors can actually be voted for with the votes being counted, then that candidate ought to be considered to have access in that state. That includes formally recognized write-in candidacies, but not informal ones. I also support the three-tier distinction discussed above, though it seems unlikely to come up this year. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay then. Going off the basic information here (I don't have the time presently to go exploring each of the SOS Elections pages), all of the candidates would be guaranteed Write-In access in Oregon, Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island, for (58) Electoral votes. The rest, barring those nine which do not have Write-Ins, require some sort of filing that should be accessible. --Ariostos (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, we should probably provide some sort of list of links for people to check on Ballot Access and Write-Ins of the various SOS websites, for now and the future, because I just tried looking for the candidate filings in California and Texas and I can't find a darn thing anywhere. --Ariostos (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I too endorse the previous consensus. FWIW, Texas requires all write-in candidates to file a slate of electors: [1]. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Propose removing voter demographics section
The voter demographics section is poorly written and adds no valuable information. I propose removing it unless/until it can be fixed. Thoughts? Instaurare (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support- The concept that the white population percentage is diminishing is not hard to understand and an entire section is not needed to explain it. There was also some anti-Trump POV in the section which, although now properly removed, leaves only two lame sentences and a chart, all of which could easily be worked in elsewhere. Display name 99 (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- This section needs to be expanded, but definitely not deleted. --Proud User (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Then please work on doing so. Instaurare (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Display name 99. Before I removed the anti-Trump pro-Clinton/Obama propaganda, it was nothing but a POV tool to lead readers by the hand via political commentary. As it is, the section's a waste of space and the content can be interspersed elsewhere. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Many editors have pointed out that the "Voter demographics" section was written from a tone that was alleged to slightly favor Clinton. The content of that section, although written from an alleged pro-Clinton tone, was compatible with
- I don't think anyone alleges that it slightly favored Clinton, though. And yes, the demographic section in its current form should be removed. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Unless someone opts to further expand the section in an objective manner, it is of no benefit to the article. --Ariostos (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Battleground States section
I have issues with the section generally, but my biggest problem is with this extremely problematic paragraph in particular:
"Left-leaning states in the Rust Belt could become more conservative... Wages have dropped for many of these citizens during the Obama administration.[182] However, they now represent a large portion of the American populace, and were a major factor in Trump's eventual nomination."
First of all, the single source used here does not appear to say anywhere that wages have fallen during the Obama administration (and according to DOL data, that would be an inaccurate claim anyway). Furthermore, there's no source for the additional claim that blue-collar workers in the "Rust Belt" now make up a large portion of the American population. Not only is it incorrect and unsubstantiated, it doesn't even make any logical sense, considering the obvious fact that the "Rust" part of that phrase refers to the decrease of manufacturing jobs and the outmigration of those workers anyway over the course of the last few decades. How would these particular people "now represent a large portion" of the overall population when they have decreased in size relative to other subgroups? And finally, there's this additional claim that Trump's nomination was majorly influenced by Rust Belt blue collar workers. While that last part jibes with certain media frames of this election cycle, where are the data to support the claim? Some journalists have speculated about that, sure, and feel free to link out to those assertions.
But ultimately, I'd advise a major cleanup of this section. With false references to decreasing wages and unsubstantiated implications about left-leaning states like Wisconsin or Pennsylvania trending toward the Republican presidential candidate, it reads too strongly like a narrative somebody on the Trump campaign would want to promote rather than an objective analysis of the situation.
Geogrphr (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2016
This United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
While the Constitution Party technically has enough ballot access to reach 270 electoral votes, they by no means "have been featured in major national polls". Stein is missing in many polls, and I have yet to see Castle in one. This should be removed or cited. 2601:805:8000:9A7D:1D13:363C:896C:1BB9 (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- By consensus we no longer use major national polls as a bar of measurement in determining whether they are displayed in the infobox in the period preceding the election, but rather their access to the required number of electoral votes. The reasoning is that many polls, at least four years ago, did not typically include Third Party candidates, and so there was no real effective way to determine whether a candidate's support was above or below the threshold within inserting our own opinions. Ballot Access as a whole is more objective, treating all parties equally, and after the election those that don't make or come close to the (5%) cut will be removed. --Ariostos (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: as contrary to consensus as explained above. - Arjayay (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, the problem isn't whether or not to include Castle (I understand the consensus view). The problem is that the way the lede is worded, it claims that he is one of three third-party candidates who have been featured in major national polls. And that claim is wholly inaccurate. Castle shouldn't be removed, obviously, but that claim needs some reworking. Grandpallama (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Which some quick editor has already addressed, so never mind! Grandpallama (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: as contrary to consensus as explained above. - Arjayay (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Ariostos, I agree completely with your diagnosis here, but was the rule for 2016 that whichever candidates get at least one electoral vote would be kept in (or added into) the infobox? Thanks for clarifying. 24.114.65.5 (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- If a candidate is voted for by an elector who is pledged to them, then yes they would also make it in, even if they have less then (5%) of the vote. Storm Thurmond and his '48 Presidential campaign is an example of this in practice. --Ariostos (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Darrel Castle ejected from ballot in Ohio
Ohio has determined that Darrel Castle does not have sufficient valid signatures to be on the ballot in that state, any references to his ballot access in ohio should be removed (ie: maps, body of the text, ect) [[2]]XavierGreen (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Any editor who is looking after this should probably clarify the way Ohio is listed for the Johnson/Weld ticket as well. The Libertarian Party has qualified for ballot access in Ohio, but the Secretary of Sate there does not want to allow them to list Johnson and Weld as their ticket, so Johnson and Weld qualified as independents. There is still a pending federal lawsuit about this issue, but it's entirely possible that Ohio will have two state LP members listed as the Libertarian ticket, separately from Johnson and Weld. The current listing for that ticket doesn't make the distinction. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- I remain perplexed how someone can turn in over (8,000) signatures and have just under (5,000) of them ruled invalid, as has happened with Darrell Castle. I've changed the map, but am still surprised by the result. As for Ohio, the Secretary of State has already decided that substitution can be done, so there are no problems presently in getting either Johnson or Weld on the ticket there. I suppose though that does raise the same question in what we should do with Idaho in the case of the Constitution Party, which rebelled and nominated its own Presidential ticket, necessitating Castle to fight for an Independent listing there that is technically ongoing. There is a chance that the Oregon Constitution Party could buck the Party as well. --Ariostos (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've just noticed that the article counts Rocky De La Fuente as having Reform Party access in New York, but the Reform Party of New York is running a Trump/Pence "fusion" ticket as allowed by state law there (I looked for a good source for this, but I can't find anything official). In any case where a single state party is bucking the national party slate, the article needs to be careful to distinguish between party access and candidate access. As to exactly how it should be written up, I couldn't say. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- De la Fuente filed for access to New York via petition rather than using the Reform Party line.XavierGreen (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Filing for access is not the same as securing access. New York should be removed from De La Fuente's column for the reasons the IP states above as should Mississippi which is not bound to follow the national Reform Party. See [3] --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Confirmed by this other Ballot Access News article: "The leader of the [New York] Reform Party has promised the Republican Party to always nominate the Republican presidential nominee." Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Follow-up: Rocky's independent petition in New York has been found valid. See [4]. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Filing for access is not the same as securing access. New York should be removed from De La Fuente's column for the reasons the IP states above as should Mississippi which is not bound to follow the national Reform Party. See [3] --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- De la Fuente filed for access to New York via petition rather than using the Reform Party line.XavierGreen (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Gary Johnson image
I don't like the current Johnson infobox image and I'm not sure why it was changed. I think the old one was better, because it was consistent with the other three candidate images. The current one is from a photoshoot. Could we change it back please? Ghoul flesh talk 00:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
-
Original image
-
Current image
-
Proposed image 1
-
Proposed image 2
- I agree with the photoshoot photo looking out of place with the other images, a more casual photo should be used instead, but not the one you posted to the right. Calibrador (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- we use the best picture, not one that looks better to YOU...--Stemoc 05:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- You realize you are
- we use the best picture, not one that looks better to YOU...--Stemoc 05:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Leave the Johnson image the way it is. Why replace a free-to-use, high-quality official portrait with an image randomly taken when Johnson was in the middle of a sentence. There is also a well-supported proposal to replace Clinton's current photo with a higher-quality portrait made available by Hillary for Iowa. If that proposal passes, Johnson's portrait will be in good company when it comes to quality and consistency. --Proud User (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Come on. Johnson's image looks so out of place, it's ridiculous. Can we please reach a consensus? I'm pretty sure whoever changed it in the first place did not do so with consensus. Ghoul flesh talk 15:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think that the current image is fine, I don't like the proposed one as he is looking downwards. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Ghoul flesh: It will not look as much out of place if the proposed Clinton photo passes (which right now, it looks like it will). --Proud User (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- so Ghoul flesh, you are basically saying "Remove the nice image because it looks too nice alongside those 2 crappy ones"? be glad that the Johnson campaign decided to release their images on a free licence, the Hillary and Trump campaign refused to (why would they, their policies say nothing about things being free) ..Most of hillary's recent official images are no longer free and Donald trump looks like a 'smuggy idiot' in every pic taken of him, we can't really help it..Wikipedia is about using the best image available, not the poorest available so that it can match with other poor images..--Stemoc 17:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Come on. Johnson's image looks so out of place, it's ridiculous. Can we please reach a consensus? I'm pretty sure whoever changed it in the first place did not do so with consensus. Ghoul flesh talk 15:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
--Proud User (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly the current Johnson image looks like a passport photo or a highschool yearbook photo, which, in contrast to another candidates' photos, makes him like an amateur-ish candidate.—SquidHomme (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Again, from my understanding, the current Johnson image was never even approved of. It was just changed randomly. I think most of us can see that it looks out of place alongside the other photos. Including next to that Hillary photo. Johnson would still be the only one looking directly into the camera, and with a blank background. Ghoul flesh talk 18:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
New image that fits well with the other photos, as it is a non-posed shot, as the others aren't, has a smile, which is preferred, is recent, which is preferred, and is mostly straight on without the subject looking directly at the camera. When it is added to the infobox it looks better than it does in this gallery format, and more so matches the other photos than any of the other proposed photos. Calibrador (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support The current infobox photo. The pose and smile in the photo Skidmore keeps trying to add is horrible, in my opinion. The more staid image is preferable until something more casual can be found that doesn't have a weird smile and sideways glancing pose. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Voted Yes. The current photo looks like a mugshot which is not fit within the infobox.—SquidHomme (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support the middle image in the list of photos at the top of this thread, which is marked "current image" but - as of the time this comment is being posted - has been replaced in the infobox by the one marked "new image" proposed by Calibrador. I agree with Winkelvi's assessment of the latter photo.--Newbreeder (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I have restored the middle image above until a consensus can be reached. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support The image seems to fit best with the other three. I vote yes. Ghoul flesh • talk 23:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Okay sorry, could you say which image? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Proposed image 2. Ghoul flesh • talk 18:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Okay sorry, could you say which image? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Pictures of Stein/Johnson
Do we need pictures of Stein and Johnson below Trump & Clinton? Seems kinda like a waste of space. Those two are going to be getting electoral votes, and will receive a very small portion of the national vote. The pages for past elections don't include those candidates, so why should this one when the two 3rd party candidates are not relevant, and will not be relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:345:8300:2C7:64E9:F0C3:6FAA:CC60 (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree, I think that if you want to put a candidate at least should be getting 6% at the polls, I think Gary Johnson has a chance but Jill stein is irrelevant, she doesn't even get 3% at the polls. (I said this without the intention to offend any Stain supporters). TexasMan34 (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Read what it says above:
“ | It has been agreed by previous consensus that political parties with access to at least 270 electoral college votes are to be included in the infobox. They will be ordered by the number of electoral votes they have earned in the previous election, and for the included parties that has not earned an electoral college vote in the previous election, they will be ordered by the number of electoral college votes they have access to. | ” |
- Also, if any candidate received less than 5% of the vote in the election and received no electoral votes, we will remove those candidates from the infobox. This will most likely mean the Green And Libertarian Parties will not be in the infobox after election day. Also, see the 1992 presidential elections for third party candidates who are featured in the infobox. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- 1990'sguy, Gary Johnson is receiving more than 5% in most polls, and so if these results are reliable indicators then he will probably still be in the infobox after election day. However, even if Jill Stein only gets 3 or 4% of the popular vote, she will still have done very well for a candidate not a member of the Democratic or Republican parties, and thus should not necessary be eliminated. Display name 99 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Display name 99, these are good points, but to the best of my knowledge, receiving 5% of the popular vote is the consensus cutoff for being displayed in an infobox on a Wikipedia election article. Receiving 3-4% of the popular vote is a big achievement in modern American elections for a third party, but I don't see why we should change the standards just for this case. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- The longstanding concensus is that that any candidate that a) received any number of pledged electoral votes (votes awarded by faithless electors don't count); and/or received 5% or more of the popular vote is be included in the infobox post-election. See this discussion and this one for explanation and rationale.--JayJasper (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- 1990'sguy and JayJasper, thank you for the explanation. It appears likely that 3 candidates will be featured in the infobox following the election. Display name 99 (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- The longstanding concensus is that that any candidate that a) received any number of pledged electoral votes (votes awarded by faithless electors don't count); and/or received 5% or more of the popular vote is be included in the infobox post-election. See this discussion and this one for explanation and rationale.--JayJasper (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Display name 99, these are good points, but to the best of my knowledge, receiving 5% of the popular vote is the consensus cutoff for being displayed in an infobox on a Wikipedia election article. Receiving 3-4% of the popular vote is a big achievement in modern American elections for a third party, but I don't see why we should change the standards just for this case. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- 1990'sguy, Gary Johnson is receiving more than 5% in most polls, and so if these results are reliable indicators then he will probably still be in the infobox after election day. However, even if Jill Stein only gets 3 or 4% of the popular vote, she will still have done very well for a candidate not a member of the Democratic or Republican parties, and thus should not necessary be eliminated. Display name 99 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also, if any candidate received less than 5% of the vote in the election and received no electoral votes, we will remove those candidates from the infobox. This will most likely mean the Green And Libertarian Parties will not be in the infobox after election day. Also, see the
Vice Presidential selection articles <merge suggestions>
I suggest merging the following articles into this one:
- United States vice presidential election, 2016 (archive)
- Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2016
- Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2016
These should not be deleted as there is some useful information. However, these articles are not independent. They are all subsets of the same event and news story. Too much of them is speculation.—GoldRingChip 13:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
See
- Support Excessive meaningless speculation without context. There should just be a couple paragraphs here or the campaign articles discussing the selection process and confirmed shortlists. Reywas92Talk 22:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't agree with the statement that the articles are not independent; both major parties select their vice presidential candidates independently, and given the huge amount of media coverage of these selections, both selections are independently noteworthy (even if neither became vice president, I would argue). The speculation is from reliable sources, which is fine, per
Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2016
This United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lynn Khan qualified for the Iowa ballot putting her at 47 Electoral votes. Iowa needs to added to her State list and electoral votes updated.
See source 120
Independent candidate, Richard Duncan, qualified for the Ohio ballot putting him at 18 electoral votes. He needs to be added to the list because that was his first state. See source 117
Lynn Kahn is qualified for the New York Ballot, and should be added.
Guidestone94 (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I'm not sure where or what sections you'd like modified. Also, your last item requires a reliable source. --
Should Wikipedia say whether candidates make a lot of false statements?
You are invited to participate in Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
WaunaKeegan11's edits
I just had to redo the entire third party candidate section from this edit here: [5]. So I want to ask @WaunaKeegan11:, what are you doing? You have been placing states in the wrong sections such as here: [6], and here: [7]. I have been going by this source: [8] for the green party, and this source: [9] for the constitution party. If you move states to other categories can you please provide some sources? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Darrell Castle Ballot Access in New Hampshire and Vermont
The Constitution Party's Ballot Access web page http://www.constitutionparty.com/get-involved/election-central/ballot-access/ currently has New Hampshire and Vermont shown as being in progress for write-in access on their map, yet the text list below that map on the very same page shows New Hampshire and Vermont as already having write-in access. Which should the article and our map favor, their map or their list? VladJ92 (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Third parties without 270 electoral votes
Is there a reason why all of a sudden a bunch of minor parties are now being significantly highlighted with their own photo section, map, etc. despite not having the 270 electoral vote criteria that was the previously agreed upon threshold for highlighting such candidates? If a candidate does not meet the requirements of being Constitutionally eligible (35 years old, American citizen, etc.), and does not have ballot access to achieve at least 270 electoral votes, they should be kept in the list format that was present in this article not too long ago. The Green Party and Libertarian Party, as well as potentially the Constitution Party, should be the only third parties with a section like the major party candidates until any of these other parties meet the criteria I mentioned that has long been agreed upon. Calibrador (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with this. I find Rocky De La Fuente to be an interesting fellow, but that's not the standard for a longer listing; access to 270 electoral votes is. A secondary point about this is that the recently-added images are not of very good quality, especially the image of Gloria La Riva's podium. That's reason enough to advise against using the images on its own. Darrell Castle seems to qualify again at this point, so his longer section is not an issue. The other two candidates should not have expanded sections. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- As the change was undiscussed originally, I went ahead and reverted it back to the list format. Calibrador (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
New Trump photos
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.
I was at the immigration policy speech yesterday, and have uploaded several dozen photos of Donald Trump. I uploaded one that I thought would work as an infobox image, but would welcome users to look through the others, particularly the ones of him smiling. The link to do that is here. Calibrador (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging some users involved with past discussions Ghoul_flesh, SquidHomme, Jean-Jacques Georges, TexasMan34, ShadowDragon343. Calibrador (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Not bad at all, maybe if you take the microphone out, will be better, this is perfect, HD, smiling, what else do you want in a photo? TexasMan34 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- As the microphone is not obscuring his face, (and the fact that the current photo also has a microphone) I don't think there's really an issue with it. Calibrador (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I Oppose this image, the microphone is an issue and I don't like the smirk. Can we please focus on more constructive things here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- There's no issue with the microphone being in the photo, and a smile is preferred over a frown. Calibrador (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I Oppose this image, the microphone is an issue and I don't like the smirk. Can we please focus on more constructive things here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Side note, please be sure to also go to the link I provided at the beginning of this section. There are several other smiling photos that don't have a microphone in the photo if it were to be cropped. Calibrador (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually it is a constructive issue the current image needs to be updated badly, it has him leaning over and it is from last year. Here is one I propose, no microphone or anyone else behind him. Just Trump lightly smiling and standing upright!!! ShadowDragon343 (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)- Thanks for adding the second photo ShadowDragon343. Calibrador (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- There is something very odd about that smile, its looks very 'forced' ..compared to his image we are currently using, it looks off....I prefer an image like these but with his mouth slightly open..maybe its botox or something but i'm sure his lips were fuller before--Stemoc 03:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The first photo's smile looks very natural, and is vastly superior to the smile in the current photo being used. Oh wait... Calibrador (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- There is something very odd about that smile, its looks very 'forced' ..compared to his image we are currently using, it looks off....I prefer an image like these but with his mouth slightly open..maybe its botox or something but i'm sure his lips were fuller before--Stemoc 03:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Personally I prefer Gage Skidmore's offerings—they cleverly give the man the appearance of a smug buffoon. But the existing photograph already has consensus. Also Knowledgekid87 hit the nail on the head; there are far more important issues to address in the article. A pointless distraction, this thread is a waste of time. Unfortunately it's also par for the course at political talk pages during presidential campaigns. Writegeist (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- You realize by simply complaining rather than contributing to a substantive conversation you are contributing to what you are complaining about. Also the article states in a note to obtain consensus on the talk page in regards to changing the image. That's what I've attempted to do. Calibrador (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Trying to inveigle a photograph into the article that portrays a serious Republican candidate for President of the United States as a smug buffoon ill-befits WP and shamelessly insults the supporters who (one need only refer to his Facebook page) regard him as (a) the only possible savior of the nation and also as (b) a man who has been looking wonderfully presidential in his latest appearances. This is not the place to pursue an anti-Trump agenda. Writegeist (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- You realize by simply complaining rather than contributing to a substantive conversation you are contributing to what you are complaining about. Also the article states in a note to obtain consensus on the talk page in regards to changing the image. That's what I've attempted to do. Calibrador (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Personally I prefer Gage Skidmore's offerings—they cleverly give the man the appearance of a smug buffoon. But the existing photograph already has consensus. Also Knowledgekid87 hit the nail on the head; there are far more important issues to address in the article. A pointless distraction, this thread is a waste of time. Unfortunately it's also par for the course at political talk pages during presidential campaigns. Writegeist (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I honestly think that the first photo would be perfect TexasMan34 (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
538 members of the Electoral College 270 electoral votes needed to win | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Opinion polls | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The electoral map for the 2016 election, based on apportionment following the 2010 census | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it looks fantastic.
Don't know about Trump but this photo https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/29270335682/in/album-72157673261299025/ looks good for Pence. TL565 (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be a good replacement for the photo that's currently on this article. Calibrador (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Anythingyouwant, personally I am in favor of any image which he has a smile, but I think the first photo above may be the superior one, as he is looking forward more rather than down. Granted it is a minor detail, but any of them would be better than the current one. Calibrador (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe, but which photo looks more like him? Which one captures The Donald?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant That one doesn't have good shading, TexasMan34 He has his head turned a bit and the microphone is in the way which is why I prefer the second one.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Calibrador : all the photos are fine, but that one, IMHO, is by far the best. However, I think it may also replace the current one in the Donald Trump page's infobox. So, on this page, we may use that one, or that one. that one. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant That one doesn't have good shading, TexasMan34 He has his head turned a bit and the microphone is in the way which is why I prefer the second one.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, good work User:Proud User. I think that's the best one yet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- He is looking down too much in that one, I like the one's where he is looking forward, as well as the flags in the background. Calibrador (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, he's not smiling in that one, right? It looks like a glum passport photo. Only my opinion, of course.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The first photo was the one I was referring to mostly. To me that one looks sort of like a proud father or something like that. Calibrador (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, he's not smiling in that one, right? It looks like a glum passport photo. Only my opinion, of course.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- He is looking down too much in that one, I like the one's where he is looking forward, as well as the flags in the background. Calibrador (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, good work User:Proud User. I think that's the best one yet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Anythingyouwant that that the photo on the left submitted by Proud User is the best Trump pic so far. He is smiling and (slightly) looking forward.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that he is slightly looking down is not a problem IMHO. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed, looking down a little is no problem, it adds spontaneity. The first one just doesn't look as much like him as the Proud User pic; he also looks kind of dazed or day-dreaming in the first one, IMHO. And teeth add a lot to a smile.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- You can't hardly see his eyes, and the lighting is not as good as it is center stage. Calibrador (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The only good thing in my opinion is the showing of teeth, but that doesn't outweigh the first photo. Calibrador (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- And the microphone?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The only good thing in my opinion is the showing of teeth, but that doesn't outweigh the first photo. Calibrador (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that he is slightly looking down is not a problem IMHO. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Anythingyouwant that that the photo on the left submitted by Proud User is the best Trump pic so far. He is smiling and (slightly) looking forward.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- [10].Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The criticisms about the new photo look like nitpicking to me. The "smiling" photo is much better, more flattering and more neutral than the current "grumpy" one. As for that one, I think it should be used in the infobox of the Donald Trump article.
- As for the photo with Clinton in green, I think it's also better than the current one. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Pr we could go generic: [11]. Green is off-color and should not be used. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The color looks fine to me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's not the question is it? OR. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus is required to make any sort of change on this article, this discussion is attempting that. Calibrador (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know why this discussion still lingering here for months, I'm surprised. Why can't users here with so much time, brain and energy, solve a simple picture issues? We should stop bragging and start compromising and listening to others' opinions. Anyway, this one has the smile, looking at the camera, and clapping. It's perfect. Also, what green is off-color? I don't get it. Is that because of green usually represents islam?—SquidHomme (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus is required to make any sort of change on this article, this discussion is attempting that. Calibrador (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's not the question is it? OR. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The color looks fine to me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Pr we could go generic: [11]. Green is off-color and should not be used. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- [10].Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
√ Muted US-flag field (same field used in the third photo at "About Donald J. Trump").
√ No microphone.
√ No smirking, smug, dazed, or glum expression.
√ Eyes relatively open, not squinting into the lights.
√ No forced, taut-lipped smile.
thumb|√ Presidential-aspirant pose (uncannily like Obama 2006).
In the Phoenix AZ photo submitted by Proud User, Trump looks more like the gloating victor in a takeover battle. But it does meet the other standards I listed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- In that photo, you cannot get a clear, undistracted view of Trump's face. Fails priority one in my opinion. --Proud User (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like I was reverted. Can we please get a consensus so that this old photo can finally be taken down? To me it is quite clear the first photo is the best one. The one Proud User posted is not focused correctly. The others are too squinty, or look like a passport photo (the second photo) as someone mentioned. These little nitpicks about whether it's a smirk and the presence of a microphone, which is also present in the current photo, is keeping a high quality, recent, and much more visually pleasing photo from being added. Calibrador (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support the current photo already in the infobox. It still works fine. The recent suggestions for photos show him with a smirk, as others have noted, and are not better than what we already have. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please realize there is a reason this frowning photo is consistently brought up here. Most everyone who has commented here has been in favor of replacing this so-called better photo, and your reason for being opposed to changing it is against all odds. The first photo is more than a year newer, is straight on, he is standing straight up rather than hunched over, and whether it is a smirk or smile is nitpicking. Calibrador (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's my opinion, I'm entitled to it, and will continue to express it. That's what consensus building is made of. I note you pinged (canvassed only specific, pro-Gage-photo editors under the guise of pinging sundry editors who have commented on your images previously. I also note you changed the Trump article infobox photo with less than a day's worth of discussion toward consensus. Providing your own images is fine and good. Forcing your byline images into articles without consensus and selectively canvassing isn't. You've been warned about this before. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Looking back at the last discussion, it seems you thought this very low quality photo of an open mouthed Trump, screen captured from a video, was the best photo of Trump yet. Your opinion is a very unpopular one. Calibrador (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- That previous opinion was based on an editor feeling we should have a photo of Trump with a flag in the background. The one I opted for in that discussion was the best of the others offered, considering that specific criteria. Consensus isn't meant to be a popularity contest for which editor is better liked, as you are suggesting, it's about what's best for articles, what's best for the encyclopedia. If you want to start flaming and beating up each other (as the direction of your comments seem to now be heading) , I can do that too, but engaging in such is against policy and is wholly unhelpful. Please just stick to consensus building rather than bullying and tearing down editors who disagree with your opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well unfortunately I do not think there will ever be 100% consensus, much to the suffering of the article. Calibrador (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please take note that when we change the photo, we'll also have to change it in Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please take note that when we change the photo, we'll also have to change it in
- Well unfortunately I do not think there will ever be 100% consensus, much to the suffering of the article. Calibrador (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- That previous opinion was based on an editor feeling we should have a photo of Trump with a flag in the background. The one I opted for in that discussion was the best of the others offered, considering that specific criteria. Consensus isn't meant to be a popularity contest for which editor is better liked, as you are suggesting, it's about what's best for articles, what's best for the encyclopedia. If you want to start flaming and beating up each other (as the direction of your comments seem to now be heading) , I can do that too, but engaging in such is against policy and is wholly unhelpful. Please just stick to consensus building rather than bullying and tearing down editors who disagree with your opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Looking back at the last discussion, it seems you thought this very low quality photo of an open mouthed Trump, screen captured from a video, was the best photo of Trump yet. Your opinion is a very unpopular one. Calibrador (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's my opinion, I'm entitled to it, and will continue to express it. That's what consensus building is made of. I note you pinged (
- Support the current photo already in the infobox It feels like this has been discussed to death, why cant this be discussed after the election? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: The sole official photograph of Trump as president (& CEO) shows his upper canines and incisors. (Source: "Donald Trump Biography", The Trump Organization.) So does the "smiling photo" (4). But photos 1, 2, 3, and 5 don't show any teeth at all; nor does the current photo ("0").
- In that official biography photo, his frontalis (forehead) muscle looks relaxed, as it does in photos 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, but not photo 0.
- Also, he's looking at or near the camera, as in photos 1, 2, 3, and 4, but not photos 0 or 5.
- Also, the cropped background is rather neutral, as in photos 3, 4, and 5, but not photos 0, 1, or 2. And the microphone is absent, as in photos 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, but not photo 0.
- Raw scores
- Current photo: -5. Photo 1: +1. Photo 2: +1. Photo 3: +3. Photo 4 (smiling): +5. Photo 5: +1.
- I still like photo 5 best, but that's my problem. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment There's currently a discussion ongoing over at Talk:Donald Trump with a poll of support. Calibrador (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Row of three
I just reverted this on the article. As I have stated before, I am fine with having a row of three but the current size of the pictures screws with the rendering of the article on smaller screens. So does anyone have objections to shrinking the size of the images to accommodate three photos on each row? --Majora (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Done.
- Excellent. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- There are only four candidates in the infobox. If Castle ever makes it into the infobox, then 3 + 2 might make sense, but with four candidates, it makes more sense to have the four on a single row as is done on many other election articles. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
4 on one line will just revert back to the same issue we had before with the larger pictures. Why do people keep wanted to screw with the rendering of this article on smaller screens? This is not acceptable and this is an accessibility issue for the entirety of our readership. If there are only four candidates in the infobox, there is a previous consensus. The two major parties on top and the two third party candidates in the second row. That was decided on a long time ago and I can dig through the archives tomorrow to find it if you want. I strongly oppose 4 on one line and will continue to oppose anything that lessens the reader's experience with this article. They are our audience and their needs should be priority number one. --Majora (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)- This whole thing is moot anyways. The template does not support four pictures in one row as you have been told before
- There are only four candidates in the infobox. If Castle ever makes it into the infobox, then 3 + 2 might make sense, but with four candidates, it makes more sense to have the four on a single row as is done on many other election articles. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Looks ridiculous every election has only 2 at the top unless there is significant third party performance. Until the election happens and there ever is I think the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties should be in the 2nd row as a row of three.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
- Templates serve editorial decisions, not the other way around. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Majora, for that info on mobile/accessibility. We have discussed the issue of the number of photos per row recently without obtaining consensus and without reference to any known previous consensus. Yes, if you have a link, I would like to review any previous discussion/consensus on the issue. Accessibility for mobile users, etc. is a consideration. How about organizing the candidates in a vertical column? That would work on both wide screens and for mobile devices. Another option I suggested a long time ago to just get rid of the photographs all together and put a presidential seal or something in the infobox. That would save an awful lot of editor time trying to figure out which pictures to use and how to arrange them. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Notification of run-off vote
There is currently a poll taking place regarding the infobox image at the Donald Trump article talk page those involved in editing this article might be interested in here. The polling is set to conclude on September 20, 2016. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Is Utah a 'swing state'?
Two of us are having a dispute about whether Utah is one of the swing states in the election. I appreciate it's not the safest state particularly as Clinton is relatively up currently, but what is a manageable definition of swing that means we don't have the Republican's 4th safest state and thereby we have to have 40 states in the swing states section? Tom B (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC) One innovative method might be to use the top 10 or so of the 'chance of tipping the election' list on 538 [5]? Anyway need to find consensus on using a method that results in a small list Tom B (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Tom B (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to narrow the states down then okay I am on board with that, but is there more than one source that agrees with 538 when it comes to the top 10 or so flipping states? I don't want to have to rely on one source here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- thanks, agree to narrow down states. like you say it'll be hard to find sources agreeing on a definite 10 or 11.... we could perhaps build in the other direction e.g. everyone agrees at least FL, Ohio, N. Carolina...Clinton's current supremacy is bringing more states into play so it's a moving target. Tom B (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- I added Utah back to the chart. Let me explain why. Not one political pundit, whether strictly by polls or polls + demography, has Utah as GOP safe. On it's face it seems absurd to consider Utah a swing state, I agree there. But Democrats have now opened offices there and it's possible it could seriously come into play. Utah has voted strongly for third-parties, and it would be no shock if they did so this year as well leading for the winner of the state to win with only 30%. Yes, it hasn't gone Blue since 1964, but every year is different and never precedent bound. Main Point : NO pundit has it as Republican safe. What other criteria is there for a state to be there? It's not Wikipedia's job to judge whether non-political experts are making assertions many of us think is crazy. Manful0103 (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The pundits are idiots quite frankly, if the primaries didn't tell you that already. Even in 1992 Utah was still overwhelmingly Republican when other "safe" Republican states flipped for Clinton. It went 70% for Romney. It is not a swing state.108.51.205.28 (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The section is for swing states i.e. about 10 key states. If we include all the states which haven't been confirmed as 'safe' that would be 40 states. Again this section is for swing states not for safe or unsafe states, thanks Tom B (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Ongoing discussion about lead picture at Donald Trump
You are invited to participate in an ongoing talk-page discussion about the lead picture at Donald Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Forecasting missing
There are basically three ways in which you can try to forecast the result of an election: opinion polls, betting odds, and scientific/academic models. We have whole pages dedicates to the polls, shouldn't there be information about the other two types of forecasts as well? KarlFrei (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Five Candidates?
Is there a legitimate reason why Jill Stein and Darrell Castle are displayed? Jill Stein has not polled more than 7% nationally and has been averaging at roughly 3% since polls began to include her. Darrell Castle has been included in a negligible amount of polls (2-5 in last two months) and has failed to poll past 2%. The rule in my opinion to be in the top infobox should be an average of at least 5% in the polls according to Reuters, RCP or another credible polling source that averages multiple polls. The only candidates who currently meet those standards are Trump, Clinton (Major Parties) and Johnson (9.2% as of yesterday). Just my two cents. Computermichael (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Computermichael the rule is the candidate must be on the minimum required electoral vote ballots, which is 270, to be on the infobox. All five have access. Chase (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, this exact situation is being discussed above: #Infobox inclusion, again. clpo13(talk) 23:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Infobox
This thread (Inbox) directly duplicates a pre-existing thread. Please discuss this topic at: [12].
|
---|
Why is a fifth & sixth ticket (which doesn't have ballot access in enough states to win 270 electoral votes, for that matter) being added? GoodDay (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Why is McMullin now listed at the top when both Rocky De La Fuente and Gloria La Riva have more ballot access? Also, if people are confused about the differences between ballot access and write-in access, here's something to consider. When Free & Equal does their debate, they don't count write-in access toward ballot access. They only count states where you are physically on the ballot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.120.101.23 (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC) |
Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2016
This United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |