Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

TAFI

Hello, Please note that George M. Dallas, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team)

1912 Presidential Primaries

I am working to expand, or in the case of the Democrats, create pages on the Presidential Primaries that were held that year. Unfortunately, I am not exactly sure how to do the various grouping that pages are subjected to, in addition to other refining methods. If anyone could go over them with a fine-comb, it would be much appreciated.

Also, I am not exactly sure how best to separate the National Conventions from the Primaries. How should I go about doing that? --Ariostos (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC - FactCheck.org citation for inclusion in John Kerry Military Service Controversy

As an article of interest in this wikiproject, opinions from project participants are solicited for this RfC. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Bill Still for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Still - 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/Bill Still (3rd 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) 18:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Kent Mesplay for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kent Mesplay - 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/Kent Mesplay (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) 19:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Kat Swift for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kat Swift - 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/Kat Swift 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) 19:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Jacob G. Hornberger for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jacob G. Hornberger - 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/Jacob G. Hornberger 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) 19:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Barry Hess for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barry Hess - 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/Barry Hess 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) 19:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Jim Duensing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jim Duensing - 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/Jim Duensing 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) 19:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Tom Hoefling for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tom Hoefling - 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/Tom Hoefling 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) 17:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Tom Stevens (politician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tom Stevens (politician) 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/Tom Stevens (politician) 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.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Carl Person for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carl Person - 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/Carl Person (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) 19:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012 FAC

Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012, which was created using this project's article creation tool is currently a candidate for Featured Article status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012/archive1.

Please review if interested. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Jeff Boss for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeff Boss - 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/Jeff Boss (3rd 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) 20:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Daniel Imperato for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Imperato - 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/Daniel Imperato (3rd 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) 17:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Gene Amondson peer review

If possible, please provide feedback on the article Gene Amondson which is currently undergoing a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Gene Amondson/archive1‎. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012 FAC 2

Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012 was not promoted as a featured article because an adequate number of people did not review it. I was allowed to renominate it with the caveat that I try to garner reviews.

Please, if you have some time, try to take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012/archive2‎. Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion to remove the Automatically assessed logic from the WikiProject United States template

Greetings, there is a discussion regarding removal of the logic used to populate Automatically assessed article categories from Template:WikiProject United States. Most of the categories (over 220 Wikipedia wide) were deleted in February 2013 because they were empty. These categories were previously populated by a bot that hasn't run since 2011 and the categories aren't used. Removal of this uneeded/unused logic will greatly reduce the size and complexity of the WikiProject United States template. Any comments or questions are encouraged here. Kumioko (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Do what you want. You already destroyed this Wikiproject. Finish the job. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Great, another comment taking a jab at me for trying to help and you give me too much credit. If I single handedly destroyed this or any other project then the project wasn't very strong to begin with. With that said, if I knew then what I know now, that people would rather be nomads and fight than to help collaborate and participate in building up the project(s), I wouldn't have bothered trying to keep any of them going. Also, if you felt I was killing the project you should have just asked to separate back out, but you didn't. Because in the end you are just like 98% of the rest of the editors. You complain when people try something and it fails but you have absolutely no desire in doing anything but complaining. If you didn't like what I was doing you should have stepped up, but you didn't, so you have no one to blame but yourself. Kumioko (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep them going? No. You buried them. At least you did with this one. I can't speak for the others. In the end, because you were so dead-set on this reorganization, I didn't care to waste my time with it. You can take the credit for your own edits because I had nothing to do with them. Nevertheless, I would like to know what good to the encyclopedia comes from all this constant reorganization. To me, it seems largely pointless. Perhaps you can help me understand. After reading your talk page, I sympathize with your situation here, but perhaps others likewise see your reorganization "edits" as largely pointless. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually as I recall if any project objected, they didn't get added to the template. When I see it on the projects talk page under archive 4 there was no response. Grouping the banners together wouldn't have affected the project if people were interested in working together, The American Civil War project falls under Military history and its pretty active, so are quite a few others. I created a lot of supporting stuff like a newsletter, noticeboard and a collaboration. No one wanted to participate. I setup a lot of bots but most of those have stopped because the operators left or were kicked off the site and no one took over the tasks. I wanted to have more bots do automated tasks, but they won't give me a bot and none of the operators will do them. So I'm stuck doing everything manually. I'm not an admin so I can't update the template which is protected so I have to ask and wait up to more than a week for someone to do the update. So believe me, I would have done more if I could, but people are set on making sure this project fails. Its been like that from day one. So I apologize if I don't feel guilty if I had some hand in the projects demise. If people wanted these projects to succeed they would have helped ensure they did, I never intended to be the lone editor supporting these projects. If its any consolation I have been talking to the designers of the new Module for the WikiProject Banners so a primary project can be set so if USPE was set as primary it would be the big project and the WPUS would be the embedded little icon. Is just not possible with the current template. Kumioko (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you want me to break this project back out its not a big deal, just let me know. There aren't that many articles affected so I could do it in a couple days. Kumioko (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Lest there is any confusion on people who don't speak the same language, the words "logic used to populate Automatically assessed article categories" refer to the feature that was supposed to allow this WikiProject's template to "inherit" class and importance ratings from other WikiProjects. Kumioko says that there are no longer any bots performing the function that formerly copied those ratings. --Orlady (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Presidential Infoboxes

In the Presidential infoboxs I tried to add an additional decimal to the main percentages, so from (00.0%) to (00.00%), as I thought that provided a more accurate count while still not delving to far down the line. These changes were then reversed by a user for the reason that they were unnecessary. What I would like to know is if there is a certain guideline regarding the percentages in the info-box, or if there is any reason beyond the fact they are unnecessary (which, while I'll agree they are trivial, I dispute the point as to their triviality being grounds to expunge them). --Ariostos (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2012 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2012 - 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 vice presidential candidate selection, 2012 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) 22:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Individual articles for presidential election results for every election and state

I just noticed that someone's been creating these articles. They literally contain no more information than what's already available in the main article for each election. I tagged one with a speedy deletion (non-notable) notice, but then looked around to find there were a ton of them. So, I figured I'd get some consensus before taking further action. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Update: notified the editor who's been creating articles of the discussion here. I think this stuff pretty clearly falls within WP:DESCRIBE and WP:PERMASTUB guidelines. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to note here that 69.23.116.182 raises a very valid point. I had been creating these articles as they often appear with the more recent elections and I wanted to sort of "make uniform" the coverage of historical U.S. presidential elections by moving these results to separate articles for reader accessibility, if that makes any sense. But I can see the concern and I'm genuinely interested in having this discussion. Please note, also, that if it's consensus to do away with these articles, I'm more than willing to help clean up the mess. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see articles for state-level elections, I believe it's more orderly this way. Plus this allows one to quickly look through a given state's election history. For instance, a while back I created a comparative state/national table, like at Elections in Alaska. So I thank Tyrol5 for his efforts. Jmj713 (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the thought I had in creating the articles. One possibility that I had crossed my mind is adding county-level results into the articles where available (perhaps using these links as a starting point and digging a little deeper from there). Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If the intent is to add more detailed information that wouldn't be reasonable to include the main articles for individual years or individual states (such as county-level results), then I'm all for keeping the articles. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, ideally I'd say that's certainly the intent. Figuring it'd be easier to create the articles and then go back through and add more detailed information as it's available, I dove into it. It's certainly time-consuming and sometimes difficult or even tedious work to go through all these at some point and add county tables where data is available (which it's not for all states in all years, as I'm sure you can imagine), but I'd definitely say that sort of expansion is the ultimate goal. Creation/expansion in stages, I thought, would be the best way to tackle the task. It's a long-term project for sure. Tyrol5 [Talk] 06:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I've done some tinkering here, here, and here as examples of what I had in mind as county data/so forth are dug up, which aren't available for every single state in every single year, but that's the sort of content I had envisioned with a little work and snooping around. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That's great work, thank you. Exactly what needs to be done, but is of course a daunting task, if this would ever be completed. The data is obviously encyclopedic and in the end would have to be there sooner or later. Jmj713 (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)