Template talk:2012 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Template:2012 Presidential

Just as an audit trail:

#	Candidate	Poll Frequency	Polls Won	Last Polled
1.	Mitt Romney	28	12	5/2010
2.	Mike Huckabee	28	7	5/2010
3.	Sarah Palin	28	4	5/2010
4.	Newt Gingrich	19	0	5/2010
5.	Tim Pawlenty	14	0	4/2010
6.	Bobby Jindal	14	0	2/2010
7.	Ron Paul	9	0	5/2010
8.	Rudy Guiliani	8	2	7/2009
9.	Haley Barbour	6	0	4/2010
10.	Jeb Bush	5	0	3/2010
11.	Mark Sanford	4	0	7/2009
12.	Charlie Crist	3	0	11/2009
13.	Mike Pence	2	0	4/2010
14.	Rick Santorum	2	0	4/2010
15.	John Thune	2	0	3/2010
16.	John McCain	2	0	2/2010
17.	Mitch Daniels	1	0	3/2010
18.	Scott Brown	1	0	2/2010
19.	Bob McDonnell	1	0	2/2010
20.	Fred Thompson	1	0	2/2010
21.	Dick Cheney	1	0	1/2010

Category:Elections in the United States

Um, just out of curiosity, what is exactly is the purpose of an audit trail on this page, and what's with the speedy delete tag?--Rollins83 (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but it doesn't belong. Template talk pages aren't subject to this speedy deletion criterion. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Maybe the tag was placed there by mistake? I'm still curious about the "audit trail", though.--Rollins83 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Democratic "prospective candidates"

I decided to give the header a more generic title than the immediate subject (Alan Grayson) in case there are issues with the other candidates. The fact that Grayson's name appeared appears to trace back to http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2009/12/alan_grayson_for_president_in.php which was stating bemusement at the existence of a movement. Until such time as there's enough notability for the article about the candidate to mention the "prospective candidacy" I suggest it not be mentioned here for silliness as well as BLP reasons. Andreona (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Grayson should definitely be removed. The template should use the info from the main election page, which does not have him or Greene. -LtNOWIS (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the the main election page does list both Grayson and Greene, and has for the last few months.--JayJasper (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

3rd party and indy candidates?

Resolved

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Shouldn't the declared and speculated 3rd Party and independent candidates be included on the template as well as the major party candidates? I see that the minor candidates are on the 2008 template, in a seperate section with different formatting. I'm not sure how to create that kind of formatting, but I think these candidates should be included. Any thoughts?--Rollins83 (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC) I agree with you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I don't think there would be any major objection to adding them, especially since the previous template includes 3rd party/indy candidates. I'd add them myself, but I'm not sure how to do the formatting and am afraid I'd just make a mess of things. If no one else adds them after a while, I may give it a try, though.--Rollins83 (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Mission accomplished. Incredibly, I did it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollins83 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of "prospective"

I question the use of "Prospective candidates" in this template. Per this dictionary definiton, "prospective" here means "likely" or "expected" to run. While this is certainly true of some of the people named (e.g. Romney and Pawlenty), many of these people listed are in fact not expected to run, but simply have been listed because of the WP editors' "subject of speculation as potential presidential candidates in at least two reliable sources in the past six months" guideline (e.g. Brown, Cornyn, DeMint, Gregg, Ryan, others). Given the nature of this guideline, I think "Possible candidates" or even "Speculated candidates" would be a much more accurate description. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Your definition just illustrates the silliness and non-notability of the list. The list of possible, potential, and prospective candidates is endless. If we have to have such a list, only people from whom we have two independent sources where the person themselves states they are considering/evaluating/exploring running, they should not be included. Rillian (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with that. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

---

• This is how (in part) the issue was handled in the 2008 cycle: the Federal Election standard was relied on for who was a candidate. If the individual was required to file with the Federal Elections Commission, a highly verifiable fact, or failed to disavow a draft committee's filing with the FEC, the individual for the purposes of this template was considered a "Candidate" (perhaps not notable, hence not worthy of listing). All others were potential candidates (also perhaps not notable). If there was no Wikipedia article, the candidate definitely failed to merit listing in the template. There was never specific agreement among all editors for other thresholds, though some advocated a particular FEC expeditures / fundraising thresholds as evidenced by the FEC filings, to have a clear independent basis to drop the perennial nobodies that would not even be able to mount a campaign for their local city council or county commissioner.
  • See: Proposed Deletion of category "Exploratory" and "Declared" for individuals filing with FEC (April 2007).
  
  Here's a glancingly brief survey of the FEC standards for filing (must file with $5,000 of activity; may file if individual has fewer dollars of activity).
  • Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008/Archive 3#FEC filing standards (October 2007) and
  • Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008/Archive 6#FEC filing standards, again (February 2008)
  
  There is also a summary of some of the history of the discussions (also written by me) at:
  • Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008/Archive 6#Non-comprehensive standards, a history (November, 2007)
  
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As we discussed countless times (as can be seen from the links above), if an individual is notable enough to have a wikipedia article then they are notable enough to be listed on this template.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, discussed several times, yet not a topic of universal satisfaction. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Reclassification of Randall Terry

In the citations, Terry admits that he cannot defeat Obama and that the purpose of his presidential run is not to win the election, but rather to "expose the genocide Obama promotes in America and around the world." He is not a serious presidential candidate and is merely using the electoral process to shine a spotlight on the abortion debate. Moreover, he has not yet filed the paperwork with the FEC to officially start his campaign. Jay Gatsby^(talk) 21:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Your point?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

He is not an official Democratic candidate yet. He has only "announced his intentions." Please don't revert any changes without explanation. Jay Gatsby^(talk) 22:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please make yourself aware of consensus and reality. Randall Terry filed with the FEC.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're trolling me or not. In any event, if you think that Terry has filed with the FEC, then it's your responsibility to include a citation. Until then, your claim is unsupported. Jay Gatsby^(talk) 22:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

[1]--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the information you have provided. However, I would like to leave you with one piece of advice which is to try to be more respectful when interacting with other Wikipedians. If you had provided the citation in the first place, then I would have reverted my own changes, and we would have been working together to improve the article. Instead, you ignored me completely, undid my changes without explanation or consultation, and resorted to petty name calling (e.g., "ignorant"). I especially fear for newcomers, because if they have to interact with people like you, then we would repel many potentially great contributors. It's something you should think about. Jay Gatsby^(talk) 22:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Add R. Lee Wrights

He has a wikipedia page now: R. Lee Wrights so he should be included on the template as a Libertarian. Thunderstone99 (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The good thing about wikipedia is that it is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Autocollapse

This template is set with 'autocollapse', which means that if it's the only Navbox then it should be displayed as open - if not, it should be closed collapsed). However, it's always displayed as collapsed. Please fix, as the alternative is to add See also links at the top of the campaign articles for each and every candidate. Or, to make it always uncollapsed. Flatterworld (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, how exactly does one fix that? I'd gladly do it if I knew how. Does anyone else know?--Rollins83 (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Matt Damon is not a potential candidate.

I'm thinking of having a few "courageous views" myself, and getting a couple of local reporters to publish that assessment in my local paper, so that Wikipedia editors can call me a potential presidential candidate. There is no draft movement, no statements on his part, no filing by interested parties, no campaigning. There are hundreds of people with such courageous views mentioned in journals and media outlets. Just wild speculation by Michael Moore, who likes to say things that get attention, for the fun of it. Listing Matt Damon on the this template is bogus.
- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not going to be the one to remove it, I agree that Matt Damon doesn't belong in the template. Just because Michael Moore wants him to run doesn't mean that he has any desire himself to do so. Moore's opinion does not dictate who is included in the template, Wikipedian consensus does. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If Roseanne Barr is running for President

Then that most definitely should be added to her article. J390 (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The use of dots is now deprecated, and have been since August

I thought I would take a minute to explain to you why I have introduced changes to this template. One reason for changing the templates is to improve accessibility for visually impaired users using a screen reader. Whenever a screen reader encounters a dot, it calls out the word "dot". The material presents as a lot of tiny disjointed paragraphs rather than a list. With the new mark-up, the screen reader will announce that a list is coming, and then will proceed to read out the items on the list. Application of the hlist class is about presenting the material as actual lists, which helps not just people with vision issues, but those viewing the site using phones and other non-traditional devices. Search engines also will read lists better.

The use of the dots is now deprecated, and have been since August. Each dot requires the application of a template, and templates are expensive, as they increase server load. There are limits as to how many templates can be placed on a page. Application of the latest method, using listclasses and bodyclasses to create the lists, results in a reduction in post-expand include size of 19.8% and a reduction in template argument size of 24.4% on this template. This is a substantial improvement that will lead to quicker load times for pages and a better experience for our viewing audience. No-wrap templates a re no longer required, as the no-wrap behaviour is now coming from higher up in the css.

The transition has not been trouble free; some kinks have had to be ironed out, and there may still be a ways to go. However, we have the templates displaying adequately in the two latest versions of the problematic Internet Explorer (IE8 and IE9), and we can't hold back development of Wikipedia for older, buggy browsers. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, -- Dianna (talk)

Thank you for the notification. I have changed the template on my userpage accordingly.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the information as well, as I was unaware of any of this. Certainly helpful to know for future reference. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. There was a recent article in the Signpost; here is a link: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-21/Technology report#Horizontal lists have got class. If you have any questions about how to use hlist, please let me know, or inquire at Template talk:Navbox. --Dianna (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)--Dianna (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

unfortunately the hlist does not work in the group fields, or at least it doesn't on firefox. so, I reorganized the top section to move that dot list into its own subgroup. Frietjes (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Frietjes. --Dianna (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Italics

Why are there italics in the template? Nothing in viewing the template explains them. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 15:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

good question. I was going to remove them, but thought there was something meaningful (like still in the race or something). Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I undid the italics, since no explanation was given for them.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)