Template talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Proposed deletion of "potential" categories from template

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal to delete the category potential candidate from the template. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal to delete the category potential candidate from the template was keep, for lack of substantial consensus to change the template.

-- Yellowdesk 01:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Proposal: Per Wikipedia: Not a crystal ball, Wikipedia should not engage in tabloidy speculation concerning individuals who've not made any filings for a presidential run. This includes the "Potential candidates" sections beneath each major party's listing, plus the "Notable potential independent candidates" section at the bottom. If they file or state an intention to run, we'll gladly place them on the template. Italiavivi 03:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

• Support, it being my proposal. Italiavivi 03:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Mh. Yeah, frankly. Support. There's simply too many. Nothing bad in having an article about people who were rumoured to be potential candidates, but not in this template. —Nightstallion 11:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support - If any "speculation" should exist, it should be mention of the actual speculation in the news media, which should be confined to the main article. It is not something that should be in a template, which is replicated on many many pages! ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment for clarification's sake: I'm mainly concerned with so much emphasis being given to people that aren't even candidates! There's a bold heading for former candidates, and a bold heading for maybe-but-not-yet candidates. Good grief, what a load of visual clutter. Much better, IMO, to keep former candidates in the main list with a strike-thru (universally comprehensible), and put potential candidates in the main list ghosted (easily understood). More subtle, and keeps the list from needing rearrangement, which can be confusing in itself. Something like this:
    Candidates: Biden (campaign) • Clark • Clinton (campaign, views) • Dodd • Edwards (campaign, views) • Gore • Gravel (campaign, views) • Kucinich • Obama (campaign, views) • Richardson • Vilsack
    You could go with italics or a dagger(†) or some other way to denote them, instead, but the use of eye-catching bold in a template should be kept to a minimum. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Better to be explicit, in words, with headings, in my view. It makes no assumptions about the user/reader's understanding. The strike-throughs and ghosting have different meaning on different articles. If the template needs a key, it is better to simply be explicit at the outset. --Yellowdesk 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose I don't think it is an issue we need to decide, at this point. Potential candidate has all the aspects of notability and need for citations from reliable sources that any other aspect of Biography of living persons has. (For example about 75-plus people register for the NH presidential primary, and we don't worry about all of them in the least.) There is not a proliferation of candidates on the template, and there's not a lot of needless conversation about potential candidates on the talk page here. I can't find an aspect where there's wasted effort, right now. And I would rate Al Gore not even a potential candidate, based on the reported statement on his bio: I don't see any circumstances under which I would run for president. It's the kind of thing that can be worked out on the talk page. -- Yellowdesk 20:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wouldn't that be a neutral opinion? ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No, the start of a crticismm of the Gore listing. -- Yellowdesk 20:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Politics is not only about who has filed the right forms. I don't think this template would accurately reflect the state-of-play of the 2008 election without these names. Wikipedians are not pulling names out of the hat and saying this or that person might run; therefore, this template is not trying to be a crystal ball. I agree with Yellowdesk in that the criteria should be notability, that the existing names meet that requirement, and that the list is not overly long. Unlike the discussion about Exploratory Committees (see #Hillary Clinton), keeping these folks separated into a "potential candidates" seems to be the right thing in my view. Eventually, the the window will close on the ability for individuals to enter the race. That time is not now as Gingrich, for example, has said he won't make his decision until this fall. Theflyer 23:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Since those potential candidates have been talked about in the national media and have even been mentioned in polls (the real kind), I think we should leave them on the template (the race still has a very long way to go). Anarchist42 17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Echoing the previous comments, as long the WP notability guidelines are observed and credible sources are cited to support the speculation of candidacy,I see no reason to delete this category from the template.--JayJasper 20:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral For potential candidates like Clark there is really very little evidence of a candidacy of some kind, however both Gore a Bloomberg have received a considerably amount of attention and it make sense to keep them.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sam Nunn

I like the "Active draft movements" heading on the template, and think it's a good way to qualify "potential" candidates (assuming there is credible sourcing for the draft movements). But what about someone like Sam Nunn, who by his own public statements is a potential independent candidate for President. I'm not aware of a "draft Nunn" movement at the present time, but I definitely think he should he should be listed here (as he was previously). The question is, under what heading should he, and other self-declared "potential" candidates (those who meet the notability criteria, of course) be listed?--JayJasper 18:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Self-declared potential candidates" section could be a good title to put below "Independent draft movement". I'll do it and see what happens. If you can think of others who can be classified under this please add them.--Southern Texas 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a winner to me. Thanks!--JayJasper 21:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Evan Bayh

Shouldn't Evan Bayh be listed under Withdrawn Candidates? CoolKid1993 20:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No because Bayh was never a declared candidate.--Southern Texas 22:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He is listed on the Democratic candidates page under the "Declined to seek nomination" header rather than "Withdrew from race". He filed papers for an exploratory committee, but never officially declared his candidacy. So I agree that he should not be listed on this template.--JayJasper 14:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that is what I had originally thought. CoolKid1993 03:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bayh did NOT file for the committee. It was a draft effort. Friends of Evan Bayh. There appear to be no filings disavowing the committee by the caqndidate. But also no statement of candidacy by the candidate. See FEC database listing. The committee does not appear to have made any filings since May, 2007. -- Yellowdesk 00:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The question has already been answered, Yellowdesk. CoolKid1993 23:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that, excepting a couple of long commentaries, most people agree that Senator Bayh CANNOT be assumed as a withdrawn candidate since he never was one. According exactly to the cnn link posted by one of the writers he declined to form and exploratory comitte so I think se's very far from being considered a candidate. As such, once again, I will put his name out of the temple. Please, let's try to keep this according to actual, certain facts and not to relatives or political feelins. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar Sanchez (talk • contribs) 04:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an old discussion and we have since changed our consensus on the matter. The exploratory committee of Bayh was filed with the FEC and an exploratory committee equals a candidacy. This is the new consensus.--STX 04:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For Oscar Sanchez:
The more recent interpretations:
Bayh declined to oppose this letter from the FEC, and disavow the committee. See this listing for Friends of Evan Bayh, at the FEC. More importantly, it was reported in the Press that Evans Bayh had committed to running, and then withdrew. See this article Bayh bows out of '08 presidential race (CNN, December 16, 2006).
Yellowdesk (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Alan Keyes

After being a candidate for only three days, how is Alan Keyes a main candidate as of this moment? I've fought back and forth with another user, placing Keyes in the Other Candidates category, but it continues to be reverted. Until Keyes is noted as a notable candidate, by at least being included in polls, then I think that he should remain in the Other Candidates category. CoolKid1993 03:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

He is listed with the main candidates on the Republican candidates template, and clearly meets the WP notability criteria. That's why I moved him to the listing of main candidates on this template. However, your reasoning has merit, and I have no desire to engage in an edit war. So I agree to wait until Keyes is included in the polls and/or the official debates before moving him to the notable candidates section .--JayJasper 15:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you agree, JayJasper. I'm sure Mr. Keyes will fit the criteria of being a main candidate in the near future, if he is included in debates and polls and is recognized as a candidate, not just a former ambassador. CoolKid1993 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Keyes may not have any chance, but neither does Duncan Hunter, and he's listed as a main candidate. He is a seasoned politician, not just some Joe Schmo who decided to run. I think he belongs in the main section. --Mr Beale 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that he doesn't stand a chance, in due time, he should be moved into the main candidates. Unless multiple users disagree. CoolKid1993 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Keyes is well on the road to Harold Stassen territory. Unless he gets included in the debates, I'd leave him out of the main candidates list. Wasted Time R 21:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Right now, Keyes is in John Cox territory. If Cox is in the other candidates section, so should Keyes. Casey14 18:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly beg to differ, Keyes will most likely be in the debates and is a former politician. If Mike Gravel is in the majors for the dems then Keyes certainly should be in for the GOP —Preceding unsigned comment added by GBVrallyCI (talk • contribs) 21:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Being a former politician does not mean anything. If we only consider former politicians, that would be against the No POV of wikipedia, maybe you should read the section above on Cox. Casey14 23:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

GBVrallyCI, I did not particularlly appreciate your comment about Fmr. Sen. Gravel, considering I am one of his supporters, but I do think that Keyes should more than likely now be moved into the Major Candidates section, considering he was invited to a major debate. If no one else disagrees, then either I or someone else should perform the edit. CoolKid1993 02:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Red links

Navboxes are for linking to other articles. If those articles don't exist, the navbox is useless. I'm going to assume that red links indicate non-notable figures and start removing them shortly. Chris Cunningham 11:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The candidates without WP articles are listed on the candidate pages, and can always be added to the template if articles about them are created. No point in needlessly cluttering the navbox in the meantime.--JayJasper 14:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Amen. Wasted Time R 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

All of you make some good arguments. However, where can our dear reader find a comprehensive listing of all candidates (partisan and independent), if not here? We could have black-ink names if not red links. If nothing else, the template should have a link to wherever that full list is. Korky Day 20:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That should be accessible from the main election article. The navbox is not intended to be any form of summary; it's just an article map. Chris Cunningham 12:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A recent edit

Someone recently deleted the links to the candidates' articles and additionally put the very minor candidates (ie. John Cox, LaManga, etc.) with the majors (Clinton, Giuliani, etc.).

I think it's better to keep the very minor candidates separated from the majors.

However, I'm guessing the reason the deletion of the campaign and views articles were done for the intrest of space. If that is the case, I think it would be better to have just a letter next to the candidate indicating the article; for example: Biden ^{(C • V)} • Clinton ^{(C • V)} • …

But if it were up to me, I'd just change it back to what it was before this edit (with the deletion of Gingrich's name).

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Matté (talk • contribs) 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah go ahead and do it, I was just experimenting.--Southern Texas 16:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit I like the clean listing: it has the merit of being visually clear and economical, without the links to the campaigns and views articles. Each biography article should make it clear how to get to those sub-articles. -- 24.34.112.131 15:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal: US presidential election

I've never been involved with a wikipedia portal. It's starting to appear that there is such a big constellation of articles that one is desirable on the topic of presidential elections for the U.S., so there can be an easy navigation and center for discussion. I notice it would be nice to easily list the separate categories of election-related articles (and keep most of them off of the recently simplified navigation template as of this date):

• Political Positions,
• Campaign,
• Fundraising
• Primary and calendar issues
• voting, registration, access issues, counting issues, and more.

-- Yellowdesk 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Cox being added to nationwide candidates

Cox has been invited and will attend a MSNBC debate in November (via his website). We have already voted he is a major candidate, and this solidifies it. I will be adding Cox to the major candidates. Casey14 02:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

colbert

I added Stephen Colbert to the republican candidicy, wasn't sure if I should add it to the demacrat party (he said he would run as both a republican and a democrat, but I'm not sure). 71.112.137.71 02:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The template's strict rule is that it will only contain the names of people who have filed papers with the FEC. Socby19 03:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Colbert should not be put on the Template until he files with the FEC, like Socby19 mentioned, and forms a national campaign. As of right now, he reportedly is only working towards getting his name on the ballot in his home state of South Carolina. CoolKid1993 23:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed he was re-added and thus removed him again. Dylan 22:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I forget the source (ABC News, maybe?) that in an interview he said that he wants to run for president, not be president. "There's a difference." Socby19 03:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

He noted that in an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press. A video of him stating what you just wrote can be seen either here or here on YouTube. CoolKid1993 01:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

FEC filing standards

And what's the standard for a candidate to register? It is fundamentally based contributions received and expenditures made, for those who are actually running. Here, from the Federal Elections Commission:

If you are running for the U.S. House, Senate or the Presidency, you must register with the FEC once you (or persons acting on your behalf) receive contributions or make expenditures in excess of $5,000. Within 15 days of reaching that $5,000 threshold, you must file a Statement of Candidacy (FEC Form 2 [PDF]) authorizing a principal campaign committee to raise and spend funds on your behalf. Within 10 days of that filing, your principal campaign committee must submit a Statement of Organization (FEC Form 1 [PDF]). Your campaign will thereafter report its receipts and disbursements on a regular basis. Campaigns should download the Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates [PDF] for more information on the laws that apply to them.

And for people "testing the waters" and not actually campaigning for office, there are standards as well. Among a number of registerable actions, these individuals do not yet state that they are a candidate, or do not yet undertake efforts to become a candidate (such as taking actions to qualify for the ballot), or do not advertise. From the FEC. Testing the Waters and Campaign Committees. Basically, those people must keep track of expenditures and receipts as if they were a registered committee, are subject to all of the contribution and expenditure limits, and report the financial activity of the "testing the waters fund" at the regularly scheduled reporting dates, after passing one or more of the qualitative thresholds. And register a committee upon passing the qualitative threshold. Most of these people would have already passed the $5,000 dollar thresholds during their "testing" activities, and would need to file immediately with a statement of Candidacy, authorizing a pricipal campaign committee for their activities.

It appears if a candidate, or potential candidate can keep their activities below $5,000, they will not need to register. (And defacto have no ability to organize a campaign, since they cannot even pay the phone bill for the activities needed to be undertaken.)
--Yellowdesk 14:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Template

I am sure you don't realize it but I have no problem with you trying to tighten the template, the problem is how uneven you are making the bottom sections in relation to the top sections. I don't want the template to look stupid and uneven so if you can still tighten it and make the sections even then please do it.--Southern Texas 20:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• The above was cut & pasted from my talk page and moved here for further input.

Saying my good faith edits make things look stupid is not really that helpful, nor civil, SoTX. Please refrain from off-the-cuff remarks.

I believe you are mistaken, unless you are using a different browser or screen resolution. The way you have it, the group & subgroup sections take up nearly 40% of the template; the way I have it they take up only about 20% of the template - more in line with the common look of WP. What do you mean by "bottom section"? Do you mean the "below" parameter? Help me out here.

Please advise what browser you are using and at what resolution - that may be the problem. I am using Firefox @ 1024X728 resolution.

I am moving this to the template talk so others can join in. Regards.--Old Hoss 21:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, the sections entitled Constitution Party through Independents stick out further than the sections above it. This makes the template look bad. It would be ideal if the template could still be tightened and the sections mentioned not stick out further than the sections above them.--Southern Texas 21:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It must be your browser, because that is a beautifully straight line from top to bottom. Again, please advise what browser and resolution you are using so I can see things from your prospective. Otherwise, I cannot accept your argument. Regards.--Old Hoss 21:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I use Microsoft Windows at 1024x728.--Southern Texas 21:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the template in my view

Here is what is frustrating to me: You reverted all of the reformatting because one change did not look well in your browser. In the future, please be more considerate of that possibility - that sort of got things off on the wrong foot for me.

I do apologize that the subgroup width did not conform to your browser; that was my oversight as I have not run into that problem before - but I was aware it was possible. I believe the problem was I chose to use "px" instead of the more universal "em" when setting the width. I have now corrected that. Please advise if a) it looks straight in your browser now, and b) if the rest of the re-formatting is acceptable. If it still is not straight, I (or you) can adjust the widths again. Regards.--Old Hoss 22:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks great :), sorry about the misunderstanding and incivility.--Southern Texas 22:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)