Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Nomination of Vice presidential candidacy of Paul Ryan‎ for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vice presidential candidacy of Paul Ryan - which falls within the scope of this project - is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vice presidential candidacy of Paul Ryan ‎ until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Republican Party presidential primaries, 2020 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Republican Party presidential primaries, 2020 - which falls within the scope of this project - is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican Party presidential primaries, 2020 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please See - Submissions

https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Austin Petersen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Austin Petersen - which falls within the scope of this project - is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of United States vice presidential election, 2016 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article United States vice presidential election, 2016 - which falls within the scope of this project - is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States vice presidential election, 2016 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements

You are invited to participate in Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Taco trucks on every corner

I gathered some references and stuck them on Draft:Taco trucks on every corner. Do project members think this phrase may be notable enough for a stand-alone article? Please feel free to discuss on Draft talk:Taco trucks on every corner. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. NextUSprez (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --NextUSprez (talk) 16:04, 6 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 that project members might be interested in here. The polling is set to conclude on September 20, 2016. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Taco trucks on every corner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Taco trucks on every corner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taco trucks on every corner until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --NextUSprez (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC on United States presidential election, 2016 infobox inclusion

There is a Request for Comments regarding threshold for candidate inclusion in the infobox on the United States presidential election, 2016 page. Please add your perspective to the discussion. Bcharles (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject United States - The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

Members of this project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC of interest

The RfC located here may be of interest to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Campaign Finances of Non-Major but Notable Presidential Candidates

The issue of whether to include the campaign finances of non-major but notable candidates for president in the 2020 primaries has arisen. The discussion can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries#Finances_of_Notable_Candidates XavierGreen (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Joe Biden

Joe Biden, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing Discussion at 2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia#GamerKiller2347's Opinion on Trump in the Infobox about the inclusion of Donald Trump in the infobox. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Relevant split discussion

Talk:Postal voting in the United States#Split 2020 election section to new article. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election § Now that it's November, when should we move?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election § Now that it's November, when should we move?. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election § Request for comments on which presidential candidates should be considered "major"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election § Request for comments on which presidential candidates should be considered "major". Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sam Sloan

Was wondering if some more editors could take a look at Sam Sloan and Talk:Sam Sloan? The article has recently been worked on quite heavily by an editor in what seems to be a good-faith attempt to clean things up, but there's still lots of unsourced or poorly sourced content that might need more eyes looking at it and assessing it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Images in the infoboxes of presidental elections

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn. Interstellarity (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

---

I would like to propose changing the images in the presidential election infoboxes to ones currently used on the convention page. Here is an idea of what I am proposing. I think it looks nicer and will attract to readers reading the page. Interstellarity (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections to make the changes described, I will go ahead to implement them. Interstellarity (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I object as these (a) look terrible and (b) don't exist for all candidates. There is no need to "attract users" to the presidential elections pages; they are very popular. The convention pictures are fine for their purpose but there's no need to replace standard portraits, which are used in the infobox of literally every other election.-A-M-B-1996- (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I also object. The pictures as they were on the page were just fine. What's the business with reframing some pictures in an oval and not others? It takes away from the linearity of the page as it was before.THD3 (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I object for numerous reasons, mainly being the lack of explained necessity for this change. I can't imagine myself finding the wikibox any easier to understand with those backgrounds. Tinyds (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I object as the previous images looked quite nice while these new ones are terrible. This change does not improve the appearance of the articles nor does it provide clarity. The party color was clearly indicated just below the images and that was sufficient.Mwoodj (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I object. Literally no other election pages use these types of images, whether they are Congressional, gubernatorial, or statewide election pages. They also look terrible compared to the current images in place. Politicsfan4 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@-A-M-B-1996-, THD3, Tinyds, Mwoodj, and Politicsfan4: Hi everyone, I would like to work with you to figure out how we can agree on the best way forward regarding the pictures. I'm fine leaving the portraits on the election pages, however, on the convention pages, I would like to see the oval pictures be changed to the portraits on the election pages. Not every convention page uses the ovals and I think it will look better that way. Interstellarity (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the convention pages should keep the ovals if possible but am open to accepting that the portraits may be more feasible. The ovals make some sense on the convention page as they reflect the party colours and resemble campaign material (at least that of a certain era). Since the pages are moreso intended to reflect the culmination in a party nomination, I think it makes sense to allow something a bit more "coronationesque" on those. But I'm not as adamant that the ovals should be used there as I am that they should not be used on the main election infoboxes.-A-M-B-1996- (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I can see why ovals would make sense on convention- if something could be done about them, then I would suggest going back to years like the pages for the 1888 and 1900 Democratic conventions and add in ovals for consistency. No reason not keep the election pages themselves the way they are, though. Tinyds (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@-A-M-B-1996- and Tinyds: How will we know when we have reached consensus? If we reached consensus to make some changes, do you think we should upload more ovals for the convention pages? I am also open to removing the ovals altogether and changing everything to the portraits. Interstellarity (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, the consensus will become clear as the RfC plays out. RfCs typically run for at least 30 days. However, it looks to me that it's already trending a certain way. You can request an admin closure of the discussion if you feel that the consensus is unclear. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 13:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Oval portraits are appropriate for the convention pages because those pages are about the formal conclusion of the parties' nomination processes. Those pages cover internal party affairs, so it is encyclopedic to present the nominees there as they are formally presented by the parties. There's no encyclopedic reason to use the ovals on election pages, and there are many reasons not to. Doing so risks violating WP:PROMO by unnecessarily repeating parties' colors. Also, ovals look awkward placed right alongside each other in election infoboxes. We don't need to "attract readers" to articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not clickbait or a tabloid. We write about the world as it is, which many people may find boring compared to the sensationalist news media. But that's none of our concern. I'm not seeing any policy-based argument for why we should do this, and given that this proposed change would introduce many problems and is already facing strong opposition, I suggest a WP:SNOW close. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 14:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Tartan357: There is one more thing I would like you to consider. On the election pages, where it says who the nominees were for their parties, would you consider doing something like this? Example: User:Interstellarity/sandbox. Interstellarity (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  Interstellarity, that is something I'd be willing to consider but I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it. You may want to start a separate RfC if you're going to pursue that. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 15:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Tartan357: Where is the best place to start the RFC? I want to start it on a page that has a lot of watchers. This page doesn't seem to have many watchers which is why not many people have not responded to it right away. If you could help me with that, that would be great. Interstellarity (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  Interstellarity, this is probably the best place to do it. RfCs get listed at RfC noticeboards, so they're seen by people other than talk page watchers. You could also add a note pointing to this page at Talk:2020 United States presidential election. If I were you, I'd end this RfC first. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

VP picture in infobox

Here’s an idea I’d like to float by you guys. You know how we add pictures of the presidential candidates in the infobox? Well, how about we do that with the vice presidential candidates? It feels like a more inclusive option rather then the last option, which is just to put their names and nothing else. Here is an example of what it could look like. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Image Editor: I don't think it's a good idea. We already have pictures of the candidates in the Democratic and Republican running mates later in the article. I think the presidential candidates in the infobox are enough. Interstellarity (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Adding ovals where it says the Democratic nominees and Republican nominees

I would like to add ovals to the nominees below on the election pages. See here. I would like community input on whether this is a good idea or not. Interstellarity (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging previous participants in RFC above: @-A-M-B-1996-, THD3, Tinyds, Mwoodj, Politicsfan4, and Tartan357: Interstellarity (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Mixed. I am opposed in the sense that this seems like an extensive project with little reward or usefulness. That said, I am not so opposed that I would revert the edits, as they are not intrusive or disruptive. I just wouldn't suggest doing this as it means editing a LOT of images to ensure uniformity across the project.-A-M-B-1996- (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I'd echo User:-A-M-B-1996-'s thoughts about this being "an extensive project with little reward or usefulness". Plus, the oval doesn't really seem "natural". Not to sound too orthodox or anything, but shouldn't portraits be square? The ovals appear old-time-y. NickCT (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• @NickCT: Do you think the ovals should appear on the convention pages? I took them out in favor of the portraits, but I was reverted by another editor. What are your thoughts on this? Interstellarity (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Interstellarity - Huh.... after brief review, it seems like there is a convention on the convention pages (pun intended). I'm not exactly sure why that convention occurred. I'm also not sure it's a good convention. I don't think the oval pictures make sense there either. One way or another, if you wanted to chase this down, I think the "right" thing to do would be to ask on the convention page whether those pages should go to square. NickCT (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - On one hand, I find the oval portraits to be very aesthetically pleasing, but on the other it seems like a difficult change to implement across all pages that mention American elections. In addition, it's not very clear why this particular design should be used for US elections, but not for elections taking place in other countries. Trying to implement it across all electoral systems seems like an impossible task. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  @PraiseVivec: To be clear, do you want to keep the ovals on the convention pages, but you don't want the ovals to be on the election pages in section where it talks about the nominees? I believe that is what you are saying. Interstellarity (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Interstellarity: Sorry if my wording was confusing, I meant almost the opposite. I like the ovals but I don't think they should be used unless theiy are implemented uniformly across all similar pages. If this becomes a design used across all articles on US elections, I would be OK with that, but I don't understand why the ovals should be used on some pages related to the election and not on others. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  @PraiseVivec: We could upload more ovals. If I were a graphics designer, I would upload some ovals. This is not an area that I'm an expert in. I usually focus on making sure the wording of the article is OK. Since this discussion affects multiple articles, I think it is better to discuss here rather than the individual convention pages since this would create fragmented discussions. Where do think is the best place to ask on Wikipedia or Commons regarding this area? I appreciate your thoughts. Interstellarity (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – Why would these pages use a style distinct from the rest of the encyclopedia? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Help Filling Out the 1968 Democratic Party Primaries and Caucuses

Specifically I am talking about the table I've been working on (here), which I've moved from my Sandbox to the Talk Page. I largely done and am still doing what I can to fill out the table, but the sources I have on hand simply don't have all the information necessary, nor am I certain how best to list the delegate results when there are so many "soft" delegates to be considered. I will apologize ahead of time though that the links referenced are behind the New York Times Archive paywall; I normally would have converted them to their PDF format which can be access by anyone, but for some reason their servers seem unable to do that as of the past month or so, or there are these extremely tight windows with large periods of blackout. --Ariostos (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Joey Merlino conspiracy

Hi. Please provide input at Talk:Joey Merlino#Parking whether this conspiracy should be added there, or anywhere. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Attention needed at Elizabeth Warren 2020 presidential campaign

This article, particularly before my recent changes to it, struck me as under-detailed and rather unbalanced. Much of it read to me like an article focusing more on controversies of the campaign than on anything else about the campaign. C'mon, this could be an important article. Warren was the second-best performing woman ever to run for a U.S. presidential nomination, and was a one-time frontrunner in 2016. The article on the subject should be far superior than this. SecretName101 (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Group activities and the 2024 Presidential election

Hello. I would like to share some ideas with respect to the encyclopedic coverage of the upcoming 2024 Presidential election and with respect to group activities.

Firstly, we can consider encyclopedia articles about election tactics and strategies and hyperlinking to these articles from elections’ main articles.

Secondly, hot-button, third-rail, dog-whistle, and wedge issues, and other uncouth occurrences can be curtailed by enhancing encyclopedic, and subsequently historical, coverage of these occurrences. Unbiased and unblinking encyclopedic coverage can contribute to discouraging uncouth events and happenings. This includes coverage of such events and happenings which occur in the news, on the Web, and on social media. We can consider encyclopedia articles about election-relevant events and happenings and hyperlinking to these articles from elections’ main articles.

Thirdly, with respect to group activities, I propose that we could discuss how to improve the encyclopedic coverage of the 2024 Presidential election in advance. I also propose that we could, together, design a generic template or prototype of a collection of encyclopedia articles in advance. That is, we could brainstorm, discuss, sketch, and revise an interconnected collection of articles about aspects of a generic Presidential election, establishing their main structures and main outlines, utilizing placeholder text. As envisioned, such a generic template or prototype would be convenient when starting the actual encyclopedia articles for the actual election.

Enhancing the encyclopedic coverage of the upcoming 2024 Presidential election would inspire the improvement of the encyclopedic coverage of other, subsequent elections, federal, state, and local. I am optimistic about the potential to improve elections by enhancing the encyclopedic coverage of them here on Wikipedia.

Thank you. I look forward to discussing these ideas with you. AdamSobieski (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually I believe the election nerds have already discovered that aside from the everyday vandalism you describe there are other forces at work and the only Wikipedia remedy is the tried and true "more eyes" solution. So thanks for joining the project and dragging me from the mailing list over here as WikiProject member #71. I don't get too enthused about elections, but I do believe it's a civic duty for anyone who cares about democracy and I believe in voting. It's not clear to me how much value an encyclopedia can bring to the political discourse, but I do believe in the Wikipedia way of covering breaking news. It's a bit depressing to see the page for the 2020 United States presidential election start to get serious pageviews only days before the election. It makes it seem as if Wikipedia is still used more for bar-room bets than educating voters. Jane (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. The gist of the proposal is that we should: (1) expand encyclopedic election coverage, e.g., to include coverage of election strategies as well as of news, media, and social media climates, and (2) make use of the time before the next election to prepare, e.g., by sketching the expanded coverage and articles' structures on a wiki server using placeholder text. A next logical step appears to be to look into how to obtain a wiki server from Wikimedia with which to explore and to sketch expanded election coverage models. AdamSobieski (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't need a wikiserver. You can just use Wikidata to add datapoints such as groups, topics, campaign proposals, candidates, policy issues, etc. Then you can set up lists of placeholder redlinks on subpages of this WikiProject. For more examples of active WikiProjects that do this, you can look at the WP:WikiProject Women in Red or the Mililary History project. I don't know if there is a WikiProject United States presidential elections on Wikidata yet, but that would be the place to create/improve items and tag them with the property P5008 (on focus list of <WikiProject>). For example, this article United States debt ceiling should probably split out into the various crisis moments it has had, and then transform into a timeline article that links out to the various parts. Jane (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, a wiki server would be advantageous though I see your points about Wikidata and related best practices. I think that group participants could collaborate with a wiki sketchpad workspace area to develop models of expanded encyclopedic election coverage. These models would include multiple types of encyclopedia articles interconnected by hyperlinks, e.g., including timeline-based articles. I think that after collaborating together using a wiki sketchpad workspace area, with placeholder text in the articles, gathering the best ideas of the group, we would then be ready to make use of and create new schemas for Wikidata (groups, topics, campaign proposals, candidates, policy issues, types of election-related and campaign-related events, mass media and mass communication events, etc.). We could be mindful of Wikidata interoperability and best practices as we brainstorm and sketch expanded coverage models utilizing a wiki sketchpad workspace area. AdamSobieski (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack

A request for comment that may interest members of this project is occurring at Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack § RfC: Should the following categories be kept?

The question being posed is: should the article stay in the following categories? Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2021, Category:Rebellions in the United States, Category:Coups d'état and coup attempts in the United States. ––FormalDude ^talk 03:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush 1992 presidential campaign Peer Review

Kindly participate in Peer Review discussion of article George H. W. Bush 1992 presidential campaign here. Article is already submitted for copy-editing and comments are requested for improvements in the article, particularly lead section. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This is now a GA! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Alan Keyes

Alan Keyes has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR of Wesley Clark

I have nominated Wesley Clark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

GAR for James Armstrong (Georgia politician)

James Armstrong (Georgia politician) has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Steelkamp (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)