Misplaced Pages

Talk:2016 United States presidential election

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Majora (talk | contribs) at 01:43, 13 August 2015 (→RFC Survey). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:43, 13 August 2015 by Majora (talk | contribs) (→RFC Survey)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 United States presidential election article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 15 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconElections and Referendums
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections / Government Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 United States presidential election article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 15 days 


Another look at Juaquin James Malphurs (Waka Flocka Flame)

Is there some point at which we can agree that a person may have said they were running for president, but they aren't really doing so? I'm thinking primarily of Waka Flocka Flame in regard to this, but I suspect Dan Bilzerian falls into this category too. Neither one has filed a Statement of Candidacy with the FEC yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Could we have the rule that they have to file with the FEC within 14 days of the announcement that they're running? It still gives them some time but it would eliminate candidates that are not really running. Of course, once they file (if they file), we would readd them at that time. Does that sound good? PrairieKid (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
No. That is completely arbitrary. The 14 days is based on nothing. Moreover, FEC filing is legally necessary only if a candidate plans to raise a specific amount of money. An announcement is all that is necessary as per past consensus. This requirement may be met by an FEC filing but that is not the only way.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree in part with PrairieKid and William. Federal law defines a "candidate" for president as someone seeking nomination or election as president who receives campaign contributions or makes campaign expenditures of $5,000 (or authorizes someone else to do so). A person must file with the FEC within 15 days after becoming a "candidate". (I remember that in 1996, Ralph Nader avoided raising or spending $5,000 so he wouldn't have to file with the FEC. However, he actually got on the ballot in 21 or so states as the nominee of various state Green Parties and managed to get 0.7% of the national vote.) I guess the next question in my mind is: How do we know that someone who has announced a presidential campaign, but hasn't filed with the FEC, is really running for president or was just joking about their campaign? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we can say that Malphurs isn't "really running for president"—he can't. — Liebensraum (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
He endorsed Clinton here: http://national.suntimes.com/national-politics/7/72/994306/waka-flocka-flame-hillary-clinton 71.105.96.33 (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
He gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NOwakaNOflockaNOflame (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The Constitution prevents Waka Flocka Flame from serving as President until he's 35, but does it actually bar someone from running if they're not eligible? Of course if someone ineligible were to win that would cause a problem, but the person could still theoretically be a "candidate" even if ineligible. Unless the FEC stops the candidacy in its tracks. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If equal standing in the navbox, why not equal standing in the article?

I had thought that Misplaced Pages's current coverage of the 2016 election (or at least as it was presented in the navbox) would set a new precedent for the inclusion of third parties, and thus I wanted to harmonize it in the least intrusive manner possible.

  • The Green and Libertarian parties, no matter how little of a chance they have, at least get the opportunity to obtain the minimum 270 electoral votes.
  • I didn't add every other Green or Libertarian candidate that was on this page, as they didn't have Misplaced Pages pages (save for the excluded Kent Mesplay redirect).
  • I didn't embellish the Green and Libertarian parties' sections when I moved them, nor did I try to tone down the sections on the Democratic or Republican parties.

Do they thus not warrant some type of level inclusion? Are we going to completely reject the idea that exceptions to Duverger's law can happen? Doesn't it make such articles unnecessarily biased? mahir256 (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You had the right idea. We did something similar on the 2012 election page in the last election period. I've mostly restored your edits. One difference from your version is that third party candidates aren't given a gallery section. At the present time, only candidates included in 5 or more major polls get to be "gallerized". Based on precedent, I assume we will also place the nominees of parties with ballot access to the minimum 270 electoral votes in a gallery section as well (nominees, that is, not just candidates). Otherwise, I believe you had it right.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Should Trump be listed as potential independent candidate?

It seems to me that Donald Trump should be listed as a potential independent candidate in addition to being a republican candidate. Sources: ,  . He's clearly expressing interest in a possible "third-party run" if the republicans don't nominate him. He doesn't specify any particular third party, so I guess he'd be categorized as an independent until he specifies one (if that ever actually happens). Thoughts on this?--Eli755 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a tough question. I think we should agree that once a candidate has declared for one party, they can't really be considered for another unless they've made some serious inroads towards launching a run. That said, people like Gary Johnson start out running for one and then end up in another occasionally so I will concede it is plausible Trump will do that. One other important thing to note is that several of the current candidates are considered by the media "potential" other candidates. Several sources say Rand Paul could run as a Libertarian or that Bernie Sanders could be an Independent--we can't consider them "potential" candidates or even "publicly expressed interest" simply because of an article or two, even if the candidate says something about it. Like I said, I see both sides here. Maybe now is a good time to remember that if it ain't broke, don't fix it! PrairieKid (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Given the fact that Trump himself has said it's a possibility, and the media coverage it's generated, I think there should be recognition of his potential independent run. How about if we list him in the independent candidates section as a potential "publicly expressed interest" candidate with a notation stating that while he is presently a declared Republican candidate, he has publicly expressed in an independent/third-party run in the event he fails to win the republican nomination?--Rollins83 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Rollins on this. We have a notation for Waka Flaka Flame because of "special" circumstances (being ineligible), so I think it would be appropriate to do the same thing for Trump.--Eli755 (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with Rollins83's suggestion. Trump is clearly a potential independent candidate. Significant media coverage and speculation has been generated by his acknowledgment of the possibility of running independent (or 3rd party) if the R's don't nominate him. So I say put him on the independent list with the above-suggested notation.--Thatotherdude (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with all the above in support of including Trump on the Independent "potential" list. Seeing that we have a consensus on this, I will go ahead and place him on this list with the notation that was suggested by rollins83.--Newbreeder (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2015

This edit request to United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Party of Socialism and Liberation has announced their presidential ticket. Presidential nominee: Gloria La Riva Vice-presidential nominee: Eugene Puryear

The Green Party has gotten on the ballot in Arkansas, while the Constitution Party has gotten on in Arkansas and most likely Alaska.

Also, the Prohibition Party is nominating in a few days, and there is only one ticket that has filed, so we can assume them as the nominee.

Presidential nominee: James Hedges Vice-presidential nominee: Greg Seltzer (Seltzer had previously challenged Hedges, but dropped out to become Hedges' VP)

Also, I think that instead of including candidates with just a Misplaced Pages page, it needs to include either: Candidates on the ballot in at least one state OR Candidates who have raised $200,000- The Green Papers considers anyone that raises $200,000 to be a "principal candidate".

Thanks to Ballot Access News for the stories. Thanks to The Green Papers for the Prohibition Party info.

216.248.107.107 (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please provide the link for the Party of Socialism and Liberalism declaring LaRiva and Puryear as their ticket. I have been unable to find it. The only thing I can find is the 2008 election- which was the same ticket.Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I have located the referenced story on Ballot Access News http://ballot-access.org/2015/07/24/party-for-socialism-and-liberation-announces-2016-presidential-ticket/. But I cannot confirm the statement about the Prohibition Party. I ask that the IP address please provide a link supporting the statement about the Prohibition Party ticket.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Esteban Oliverez

According to this link Esteban Oliverez is also a Republican candidate. Greenman (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Not eligible for inclusion as he doesn't have a Misplaced Pages page. If he gains a page, then he will certainly be eligible.Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2015

This edit request to United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Kenn Gividen has stepped down as presidential nominee of the American freedom party. Bob Whitaker, who was the vice-presidential candidate, is now the AFP presidential nominee. Please change the article to reflect this. Here is the source:http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/07/kenn-gividen-steps-down-as-american-freedom-party-presidential-nominee-bob-whitaker-to-take-his-place-at-the-top-of-the-ticket/ 2600:1003:B442:8DE5:0:46:B157:CE01 (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done I removed the AFP section altogether. The current nominee doesn't have his own article on Misplaced Pages, which is a requirement for inclusion (per consensus).--Newbreeder (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Third party candidates

I'm wondering why Marc Allan Feldman isn't listed under the Libertarian Party candidates. He has declared his candidacy and his official website is here: http://www.votesnotforsale.com/. RyanPrz (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)RyanPrz

No Misplaced Pages page. If he gets a page he will be listed. Until then- he is not eligible to be listed. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Jim Gilmore's announcement

It is currently scheduled for Thursday. "Asked on "The Steve Malzberg Show" whether he is throwing his hat into the ring, Gilmore — president of Free Congress Foundation, a conservative think tank — said Tuesday: "We'll let you know on Thursday. At that point there's going to be an announcement that you'll probably be interested in, but the goal here is to do the right thing for the United States."" http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Jim-Gilmore-interested-presidential-race/2015/07/28/id/659352/

Suggest changing his portion under impending to reflect the 30 July date and not the old first week in August part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.164.86 (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Conventions

The Constitution Party will be having its 2016 Convention from April 13-16 in Salt Lake City, UT (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/07/constitution-party-selects-city-and-dates-for-presidential-convention/). Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I might be mistaken about this, but I think we only include the conventions of parties that have a mathematical possibility of getting the minimum electoral votes needed to win the election based on ballot access. At the present time, I don't think the CP has ballot access in enough states to meet the criteria.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleting presidential candidacy from lead paragraph

FYI, there's currently a new RFC about whether it's appropriate to delete from the Rick Perry lead paragraph that he is a presidential candidate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Fiorina Image

Why are we using an image of Fiorina that is a different shape and pose from all the others? Wouldn't this one be better to use?--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, the pertinent discussion is here. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
What relevance does that have to this page?--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It explains why the cross-eyed picture that you've suggested is not optimal, and also discusses the various alternatives.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It does not look cross-eyed to me. But even if she is, why should this be hidden? From what I read, it just sounds like it's not your preferred image. However, in fact, it is far superior for this page than the current poorly shaped image with a microphone. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Per guidelines, "Editors should avoid using images that readers would not have expected to see when navigating to the page.... should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." An image that catches a subject in an unflattering pose is generally unexpected. Why do you prefer this image to all the others discussed at the article talk page? I'm not the only editor who considers this image to be cross-eyed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
You're really pushing it. That guideline is to prevent using images like this. The image I proposed is neutral. It's not cross-eyed, she's looking to the side. If you're going to be that nit-picky then why aren't you saying that the current image being used is cross-eyed? She's looking to the side in it too! Plus, the image is far too small when used in the gallery here for the reader to even see her looking to the side.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't object to an image that is looking to the side a bit. What I object to is the appearance of one eye looking in a different direction from the other eye's direction. Anyway, we could save a lot of time and energy if we just use here the lead images from the individual BLPs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
That's not a very long-sighted policy. Images on election pages should be contemporaneous with the election. Why aren't you objecting to Trump's image which seems to have the same issue you cite?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks to me like the Trump image at this article is the same as the top image at the Trump BLP. And the image doesn't look cross-eyed to me. Both of his eyes seem to be looking at the same thing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
You're making me think this is a COI issue here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean? I have no connection to Fiorina or Trump (or any other campaign). You can look at the Fiorina talk page to see that others objected to the image you're suggesting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure many of her supporters frequent that talk page. You sure were quick to come in and try to prevent the better image from being inserted. Do you have a directive from the campaign to prevent insertion of the photo because Fiornia feels like she doesn't look good in it? That's the vibe you're giving off right now.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I already said "I have no connection to Fiorina". If you think it's the kind of photo that she wouldn't like, perhaps that's a clue that it is not the kind of photo that is suitable for Misplaced Pages. Anyway, I won't comment further here, and others can chime in if they want.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That's complete nonsense. We don't have to cater to the vanity of subjects.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think she would prefer the current image instead of the one you propose?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Because of your reaction to an obviously better image.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Makes no sense to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
So we agree. The better image should be inserted. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
We agree that the better image should be used, but disagree about which image that is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
How can you defend an image that has a microphone protruding into the candidate's face?--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Oy. The tiny microphone is what made the decision difficult at the Fiorina talk page, and it's why we need to be on the lookout for better images. Christie's pic includes a microphone but it doesn't get in the way of his face. The main point is that many images were considered at the Fiorina talk page, most of them without microphones in her face, and you are now endorsing the worst one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with this one? --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That's much better than the cross-eyed one. In fact, I uploaded and cropped it. However, another editor at the Fiorina talk page opined that it still looks "creepy". Life will be much more peaceful, and discussions will be less repetitive, if we just use here the top images in the candidate BLPs, while keeping an an eye out for better photos as they become available. We don't have to proceed that way, it just seems advisable. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Green Party convention

The Green Party has announced its 2016 national convention will be held in Houston in August of 2016:http://ballot-access.org/2015/08/02/green-party-will-probably-hold-presidential-convention-in-houston/.

Can someone please add this to the conventions section. I'd do it myself, but am not sure how to do the map formatting. Thanks.--Ewers1 (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I added the GP to the list, but I don't know how to do the map formatting either. Hopefully someone who does will take care of that shortly.--Odin'16 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Using Logos

Logos should not be used merely for decorative purposes. There is no reason to list them on this page or any other election page. I propose the logos be removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

So no logos on the campaign articles either? The logos represent each candidate, just as much as their portrait does. The reader goes out and sees Hillary's logo, Bush's logo, Kasich's logo, etc. and they affiliate it with the candidate. The Obama logo in 2008 is a perfect example. These logos don't meet the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright protection, and thus, they need not be limited solely to a single page (i.e. BMW logo). By including the logos, we allow the reader to connect the campaign with the candidate, and it allows for a uniformity among articles; plus, they illustrate the article just like any other article's images, otherwise, this and the other pages become dull lists. You really don't have any substantive rationale for their exclusion. Spartan7W § 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with campaign articles where they are used for identification and so qualify as fair use. They are being used on this page purely for decorative purposes.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
So are images used in any article. You buy a print encyclopedia, some have no images. We don't need to have any images at all. Rather, we place images for the purpose of educating the reader, of connecting the realm of the physical world with the factual described in an article. There is no need for a portrait gallery, since they're only decorative, right? The campaign logos are of encyclopedic value, because the image and branding of a campaign are as relevant and important to strategy and the course of a campaign as the things they say. Using this logic, an article discussing the United States presidential election, 1944 shouldn't feature an FDR-Truman poster, which is only 'decorative', using your logic. Spartan7W § 22:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. These images are not free use. They are fair use.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

These campaign logos do not meet the threshold of originality, they are non-copyrightable items. (as below) Spartan7W § 23:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This image or logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain. See Misplaced Pages:Public domain § Fonts or Misplaced Pages:Restricted materials for more information.
Please note: The public domain status of this work is only in regards to its copyright status. There may be other intellectual property restrictions protecting this image, such as trademarks or design patents if it is a logo. 
PD
Public domain
false
false
Anyone can post any tag on any page. That doesn't make it true.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I am going to have to side with Spartan on this; I see no reason for the removal of the logos in question, that any decoration (provided it is within the spirit of the article and done within reason) is a bonus that draws interest to the article as a whole, and that the format as originally presented actually reinvigorated my interest in working here on Misplaced Pages. I'll admit it needs a few tweaks given the Republican section as presented was running off the page, but ultimately I find it an improvement over the old style that I myself used to use. --Ariostos (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Let me be clear. Use of most of the logos on here is in violation of fair use. Period. They cannot be on this page or any other page not about the individual campaigns.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The matter has been brought to the attention of the administrators on Commons. It will be resolved shortly.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Alright. Reading the link on fair use you had provided I personally didn't see any conflicts arising as they remained associated with the individual campaigns, but inquiring as to the opinion of the Administration is the best course here. --Ariostos (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

When did they get the circular photos with the nifty hovering info thingies?

I never saw them before, cool! YoursT (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

By editing a rectangular photo into a circular template with transparent borders, they organize quite easily, and the hovercards have been around for awhile, but are seldom used. Spartan7W § 19:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
They are seldom used because more often than not, they tend to violate WP:CLICKHERE and WP:ACCESS, especially when trying to instruct users with mobile and text-based web browsers to "hover here" despite the fact they may not have a mouse. Or a user with a disability trying to use a screen reader, thus making "hover here" practically meaningless. And "hover here" is especially meaningless on the printable version, because the caption that becomes visible when you hover over the image is instead automatically printed below the image. Thus, it should be reverted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a useful feature for an article such as this one. It conserves white space and gives the page a cleaner layout. As long as it doesn't defeat the functionality of a screen reader, I don't see any accessibility problem. The single line of text ("Hover over images...") ain't hurtin' nobody. Eclipsoid (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
What about my first point about users with mobile and text-based web browsers who may not have the ability to "hover here"? What about them? Are you going to address that? They are not "nobody" you know. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
See also WP:NOSYMBOLS: "Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text." How is that also not relevant? This is what we are instructing all users to do: using hover text essentially. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
So what about them? If we display to them a single, short line of text that informs them of a feature they cannot use... so what? How does it make sense to deprive 99.9999% of the readership, when the feature in question does no harm to the 0.0001%? That's retarded.
CLICKHERE and NOSYMBOLS do not apply, because it is not necessary to click or hover to obtain information. It's all there in the text of the article, every bit of it, complete with Wikilinks. Eclipsoid (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a user does have to hover over the image to get the name of the person in the photo. The text in the rest of article does not provide the information as to which face in each image matches which candidate. Thus, CLICKHERE and NOSYMBOLS should apply in this case. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that the captions somehow just (POOF!) disappear if the user isn't viewing Misplaced Pages on a standard computer with a mouse attached. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption. You yourself have already shown us an example of what happens in a case like that--the page renders as it does in the print version, with the captions below the photo. At that point we are left with the sole issue of the text "Hover over each photo to view label detail", which is a non-issue if ever there was one. Eclipsoid (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the circles and "hover-over" feature. First of all, the circle images are ugly and uneven. Rectangular images look better and decrease the ugly white space between the circles. Second, mobile users make up a very large percentage of readers. This hover-over "feature" is a huge disservice to them. I would like to revert the page to its state before the uglification and before it was rendered inaccessible.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Ugly is not an objective opinion. I have received various degrees of praise in email/thanks for these, so some people in fact like them. The fact is, the hover card gallery would not be an extant option in wikicode were it not intended to be used. Now, because the above table does provide detailed information on campaign, title, office, etc., perhaps mention of just their name is prudent, to cover the photo less. Also, looking at these on a mobile platform, you can touch the image and it will appear as a pop-up over the page and show the image. You can look at it and hit the 'x' in the top right corner to go back to the article behind the pop-up. It works quite well. Spartan7W § 19:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I very much doubt you received phrase. In fact, based on my years of dealing with sockpuppetry on wikipedia, I'm pretty certain the person who started this thread is you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE: I've changed the captions of the Democrats to include only their last name, linked to bio. On a mobile platform, the hover space only cuts off a small slice of the image, thus making the face visible. A good improvement. Also, I have no sockpuppets, sir. Please don't personally attack me. Spartan7W § 19:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack. I'm just highlighting a very common way that unscrupulous editors try to make it seem their changes have more support than they actually do. When someone comes on here from nowhere and their first edit is to compliment a change to an article that just happened, that is very suspicious.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, and it has nothing to do with your going around reverting edits I've made with no reason? Or reporting my files for copyright violations both with lack of evidence, and without being so courteous as to notify me of this? Spartan7W § 19:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not aware of any requirement on Commons to notify a user. However, you were notified on this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The "hover over" does violate WP:CLICKHERE, so I removed it. Does it violate WP:ACCESS? I'm uncertain. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
If I add alt fields to the images, I see no other violations. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images Spartan7W § 19:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I like it. I am able to view it on my phone just fine by tapping it once, and I can double tap to click on the image. I honestly think it's an improvement, and should stay per WP:IAR. However it's just my opinion. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 19:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
To me, they clearly go against the tenets of WP:CLICKHERE, WP:ACCESS, and general principles of encyclopedic formatting. Overly gimmicky. --Varavour (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
If you think this looks bad, take a look at Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016, complete with logos, state outlines and other frivolous crap.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Economic and foreign policies of the candidates of United States presidential election, 2016

I found to source which are useful to improve the candidates policies: Economic policy and foreign policy.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Could we add Sanders to Publicly expressed interest or Potential as a third party/independent candidate?83.80.208.22 (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done. Sanders himself ruled out a third party run. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Zoltan Istvan

The article lists Istvan as "founder of a proposed Transhumanist Party", which is a contradiction in terms. If the party has only been proposed - i.e. not actually founded yet - then by definition it can't possibly have a "founder". I think this "title" should be removed unless he actually goes ahead and founds the party. Jah77 (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A Call for Consensus

User:Spartan7W has been experimenting with this page for the past couple of weeks, adding logos, circle images, and a complex template where a simple list would suffice. He also chooses to use some official photos, but not others. He claims these changes have consensus. However, I dispute this claim. I would like to see if there is consensus for his changes. Specifically:

--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have not been experimenting willy-nilly. I have made thought-out edits over a period of time, taking suggestion and improvement from editors and reached consensus on inclusion of various elements, what should and should not be included. Additionally, I have received thanks for these edits. You need consensus to remove my improvements. You don't remove and then ask to keep. It is established preference to include official portraits where they may be applicable and available. In cases where an official portrait is old, a new one of equal quality is included, i.e. Hillary Clinton. Simply because your photos are new, do not make them superior. Your Chafee, Sanders, and Webb are all inferior photos, and those subjects have not aged/changed their appearance significantly. The portraits used in the Republican section, in lieu of official ones (whose age is recent), are also inferior.
  • The table makes an efficient and effective organization of name, highest office/profession, campaign, and relevant links. The table is clean and simple. The list, in many ways, is less clean. Additionally, the table need not be shrunk as candidates drop out. By using a strikethrough for name, and using a grey color to fade the text, and replacing "campaign" with "dropped out: MMDDYY", the reader can see how the field has changed, while still including the basic information relevant to the overall campaign.
  • The circular photographs fit well into the text, they are of good resolution, they are clean, they are modern, much like the direction many internet sites take. A clean, modern, effective approach is something the average reader likely appreciats. The labels, including last-name-only, are good for desktop and mobile readers alike; labels appear when hovered over, as desktop users do, and the last-name-only label appears fixed on a mobile device, and thus, takes only a sliver of space. Both parties' logos are free-use, either below threshold of originality (DNC), or not copyrighted in a historical deadzone (RNC). These highlight the identity of the party.
My greatest motivation here was efficiency, cleanliness, and aesthetic quality. Removing tables and using small, thumbnail images makes this article very bland. In fact, it is a long list, and while headings exist, is relatively unorganized. These improvements for major parties break up the monotonous list which the article would otherwise be, placing information in a logical, unbiased, clean, and efficient organization. These are my reasons, my motives, and I hope you support them - they need not be absolute, tweaks can be made, but basic structure is sound. Spartan7W § 18:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the changes make editing and viewing the page more difficult. The table splits the candidate name, campaign page, office, and references and makes it more difficult to edit and follow. As for the circle images, the circles are not used anywhere else on Misplaced Pages and do not look neat on the page (on my browser I don't know how it looks to you). On a mobile device, the caption covers up half the image. If circles are to be used then every time someone wants to add a new photo it has to be made into a circle. That adds an unnecessary step that makes editing this page more difficult. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an experiment in design.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@William S. Saturn: shouldn't this be formatted as a RFC? That way it would attract a wider audience and generate a more formal consensus. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 18:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to first try to get consensus from the regular editors of this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of restoring a sane version of the article. Both "Candidates featured in major polls" sections are god-awful, the circles are gimmicky and completely disconnected from the table entries for the pictured candidate. Tarc (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
God-awful is not a rationale to undo changes which have persisted for awhile, and which discussion has established basis for improvements. WP:BOLD applies. Why not reach consensus. Spartan7W § 23:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
A week is not a while.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
It was sufficient time for discussion to rebuild the table, change captions, meet Misplaced Pages rules, change sizing, to refine and alter my original BOLD edit. Thus, WP:BRD doesn't apply. Spartan7W § 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


I ,honestly, am not sure I like either of these. The list tends to be harder to read and appears to be more of a jumble of words sometimes, and the circles aren't connected to the person they represent so someone looking at it for the first time isn't always going to be able to tell which candidate is which. To me, the list of candidates should do the following:

-Show what the candidate is known for (IE Ted Cruz has been the Senator from Texas since 2013)

-Show where the candidate is from (IE Carly Fiorina is from Virginia)

-Provide a link to the candidate's campaign page

-Provide a picture of the candidate

These are the simplest things we could do. And they've already been done (with a few additions) on the individual party pages. You can sort the candidates, see certain information about them, and are provided links to their campaign pages. That is the perfect compromise I think. In all honesty, the circle VS square picture debate isn't that major. I, personally, think the pictures are better as circles and not squares. It focuses more on the specified person and less on the background.

This is just my two cents on this issue. I think this would be a good compromise- but what do you guys think? Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


Personally, if I may include my two cents, I liked the table of the circle version but disliked the photos of the circle version. I felt like the circle version information was well put together and easier to read than the block of text that is currently used. However, the circle photos were confusing and disjointed from the rest of the information. Perhaps a compromise is in order? Use the table from the circle version but the rectangular photos? --Stabila711 (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Stabila711: See RfC below please! Spartan7W § 01:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah my bad, that's what I get for not reading the whole page first. Thanks. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Note there is an option of which you described, option C Spartan7W § 01:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment Remodeling of major party candidate areas

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

A new format for the organization and display of major party candidates has been introduced. (You may click the links below to view each proposed.) Which do you prefer? 00:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A - Proposed B - Original C - Combined

RFC Survey

  • V:Option A
  • The table makes an efficient and effective organization of name, highest office/profession, campaign, and relevant links. The table is clean and simple. The list, in many ways, is less clean. Additionally, the table need not be shrunk as candidates drop out. By using a strikethrough for name, and using a grey color to fade the text, and replacing "campaign" with "dropped out: MMDDYY", the reader can see how the field has changed, while still including the basic information relevant to the overall campaign.
  • The circular photographs fit well into the text, they are of good resolution, they are clean, they are modern, much like the direction many internet sites take. A clean, modern, effective approach is something the average reader likely appreciats. The labels, including last-name-only, are good for desktop and mobile readers alike; labels appear when hovered over, as desktop users do, and the last-name-only label appears fixed on a mobile device, and thus, takes only a sliver of space. Both parties' logos are free-use, either below threshold of originality (DNC), or not copyrighted in a historical deadzone (RNC). These highlight the identity of the party.
My greatest motivation here was efficiency, cleanliness, and aesthetic quality. Removing tables and using small, thumbnail images makes this article very bland. In fact, it is a long list, and while headings exist, is relatively unorganized. These improvements for major parties break up the monotonous list which the article would otherwise be, placing information in a logical, unbiased, clean, and efficient organization. These are my reasons, my motives, and I hope you support them - they need not be absolute, tweaks can be made, but basic structure is sound. Spartan7W § 00:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Proposed combination of the two
I like the table in the proposed section and the image format on the original. Is there a way to combine both. Such as add the images from the original and add them to the table from the proposed. Such as look at the Simple English Misplaced Pages; I like how the images are there, but the background info about each candidate should be in table format. Plus a suggestion; can we change Rand Paul, "The American dream is dead" Donald "You won't see another black president for generations" Trump, Chris Christie and John Kasich images to the ones from Simple English? As I said I like both and if we combine both it'd be great. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Simple English uses the same organization as the original. The only difference is that it lists the full name and profession of the candidates. I favor that as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
As do I. Can I add those images in the table created by Saturn and see how it goes?--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I will not comment on this RfC because of WP:CANVASS. Prcc27 (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes the Christie and Paul images Simple English uses are good, but I do not favor the image of "The American dream is dead" Donald "You won't see another black president for generations" Trump they use because it is from 2011. The images should be contemporaneous with this election.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Age of a photo is not as important as its quality and representative nature. Jeb Bush's appearance has changed since 2011, whereas Ted Cruz is very near. That is the important factor. If an official portrait looks like the person today, then no change should be done. Official portraits are of highest quality. Spartan7W § 00:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Addition: I have just added the combined option Spartan7W § 00:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment That I may comment, the way the Saturn has edited this page following Tarc's revision of my proposed has made it such that a table is even more logical, with all this free info floting under small thumbnails. Spartan7W § 00:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No. All I did was add captions to the gallery. There is no need for a table.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Captions exist within the bounds of a thumbnail. Those are external text areas, which, I might add, are redundant to the above list. Tell me, why not have a table? They organize information. Spartan7W § 00:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Because we don't need you to do any more style experiments on this page. A list and gallery is how it is best organized for easier editing and flow.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The table separates everything and makes it hard to edit.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Tables organize. Your 'captions' feature the exact information, minus campaign link, as the line-item list. Thus, they are redundant. A table organized information per candidate. You can see name (or name+pic), office, campaign link, and references in one location. The name is made a darker background to emphasize seperation between sections. Having everything loose and unbound isn't organized. A table is not a style experiment. And as for style changes, what is wrong? Misplaced Pages is completely different from 2004. Spartan7W § 01:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
As I already explained to you, the table separates the references and other information from the actual candidates. That is what the list is for. The gallery is merely there to supplement the list. A table makes it difficult to make changes to update the page as needed. Why are you sacrificing usability for gimmicky style experimentation? This is an encyclopedia not your personal sandbox.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Your rationale is an indictment of every table. We should eliminate every table, every infobox from pages. Those are gimmicky. A table is not a gimmick. Tables collate and organize information. Lists become cluttered, especially with 17 candidates being listed. Your 'gallery' still features redundant information which your list includes. Mere opposition to change is not a substantive rationale against a table, or anything else. Spartan7W § 01:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, I personally prefer the combined option. I do feel like the table is the best way to display the information for the candidates, especially since there are so many of them. The table format allows a person to quickly pick out the candidate they want and look at the information associated with them. The list format does not do that. Also, including the picture with the information (instead of down below) is a better option as it was disjointed before. For ease of use, I say the combined option is the best. As for the rectangular vs. circular photos, either or is fine in my opinion. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I vote for Option C and the combined approach. Had a whole rational written out but it got eaten by an edit conflict and I don't have the time to try and recreate it from memory. Suffice to say, I find the tables far more desirable than the original system of a list and gallery, and I have actively worked to combine the two in the past with mixed results. Option C takes that idea to its conclusion. At the same time, beyond the initial setup given you can't have more than six or seven candidates per row before it runs off the page (a problem that extends to galleries as well), I don't see any additional difficulties in editing when compared to what was present before. --Ariostos (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't really know how to comment here or where exactly to give my input but whoever redesigned it needs to be given an award or something because the way it was before (Option A) is one of the best designs I have ever seen on any Misplaced Pages article. Very clean and very easy to navigate. The current revision looks dull and cluttered. CloudKade11 (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Categories: