→Infobox inclusion, again: Link to the 2012 consesus establishing the criteria for inclusion in the infobox (on the ballot in enough states to be able to get 270 electoral votes) |
|||
Line 412: | Line 412: | ||
:Note: There was a subsection added to this discussion titled "Row of three". I refactored it as a sandalone discussion. <b>[[User:Sparkie82|<font color="#333333">Sparkie82</font>]] ([[User talk:Sparkie82|<font color="#666666">t</font>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Sparkie82|<font color="#666666">c</font>]])</b> 05:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC) |
:Note: There was a subsection added to this discussion titled "Row of three". I refactored it as a sandalone discussion. <b>[[User:Sparkie82|<font color="#333333">Sparkie82</font>]] ([[User talk:Sparkie82|<font color="#666666">t</font>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Sparkie82|<font color="#666666">c</font>]])</b> 05:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
::Just to be clear; there is consensus to include write-in access (as long as they have a slate of electors) for inclusion in the infobox. This has already been discussed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016/Archive_10#For_Third_Parties.2C_should_we_include_Write-In_Access_for_the_Purposes_of_Organization_and_the_Infobox this year] and in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012/Archive_10#Write-In_Candidate_Status 2012]. Unless you can provide a link to this "long-standing consensus" you are referring to- Castle should remain in the infobox. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27🌍]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 13:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC) |
::Just to be clear; there is consensus to include <strike>write-in access</strike> (as long as they have a slate of electors) for inclusion in the infobox. This has already been discussed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016/Archive_10#For_Third_Parties.2C_should_we_include_Write-In_Access_for_the_Purposes_of_Organization_and_the_Infobox this year] and in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012/Archive_10#Write-In_Candidate_Status 2012]. Unless you can provide a link to this "long-standing consensus" you are referring to- Castle should remain in the infobox. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27🌍]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 13:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::{{Reply to|Prcc27}} '''That is not correct.''' The consensus is that candidates who are '''''on the ballot''''' in enough states to get to 270 electoral votes are included in the infobox, not write-ins. Here is a link to the consesus from 2012: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012&diff=493899519&oldid=493899242] |
|||
:::Specific quotes from the 2012 discussion that established the consesus: |
|||
: |
|||
::::''"I agree with Jay. The candidates with enough ballot access (not write-in status) to win the election should be included here. Wikipedia influences the polls, not vice versa."'' |
|||
::::''"... agree on some criterias the (third party) Candidates should meet. When I read this through I can see a concensus for for the first: |
|||
::::"*'''''The candidate will appear on enough state ballots to actually win the election (270 electorial votes)''' {{done}} (concensus reached)"'' |
|||
:::Further, the discussion cited above by [[User:Prcc27]] (which was not a discussion about infobox inclusion) says right at the top: |
|||
: |
|||
:::: ''"Yes, but with the understanding that write-in status does not confer notability. IMO, we should only list it for the candidates that have achieved actual ballot access elsewhere. Moreover, it should not be used when calculating eligibility for the infobox."'' |
|||
: |
|||
:::I'm going to put this link and a summary at the top of this page so there will be more more efforts at consesus creep. If you want to change the consesus, then go ahead and open a well-advertised RfC and try to change it, but don't try to attempt to alter the criteria for inclusion in the infobox by mis-stating or mis-characterizing what was discussed and agreed to in 2012; or by opening a discussion during the Labor Day holidays with a handful of editors. <b>[[User:Sparkie82|<font color="#333333">Sparkie82</font>]] ([[User talk:Sparkie82|<font color="#666666">t</font>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Sparkie82|<font color="#666666">c</font>]])</b> 18:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
==Row of three== |
==Row of three== |
Revision as of 18:08, 11 September 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Order of the list of candidates in the infobox
There is a clear consensus that the first row of the infobox should contain the Democratic Party candidate and the Republican Party candidate. The candidate whose party received more electoral votes in the previous election should be on the left; the second candidate should be on the right.
There is insufficient discussion on whether third parties' candidates should be listed in the infobox or how they should be ordered. More discussion is needed if editors want to resolve those issues.
Cunard (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- There is a long-standing consensus based on discussions in previous presidental articles that presidental general election candidates who have ballot access sufficient to have a mathematical possibility to reach a majority (270) of electoral votes are including in the infobox. The consensus regarding the order of candidates (from this discussion) is that the order is based on previous electoral results, not an arbitrary selection of particular parties. The issue of whether to arrange the candidates as two-per-row or four-per-row was not the subject of this question and there is no consensus on that. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion 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.
What should the order of the list of candidates in the infobox be? Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Scope: U.S. Presidential (general) Elections
- (Publicized at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums, Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom, Talk:Australian_federal_election,_2016, Talk:Icelandic_presidential_election,_2016, Talk:National_electoral_calendar_2016, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics)
Background: Broad consensus has been reached as to which candidates are included in the infobox in presidential elections, however, despite much discussion on the issue, there has never been a firm consensus as to how they are ordered. Previous suggestions include alphabetically, an aesthetic criterion, by ballot access, by poll results, or some other order. Summary of advantages/disadvantages:
- Aesthetically - Advantages: Looks nice, graphic quality. Disadvantages: Imprecise, more subjective.
- Alphabetically - Advantages: Fair, simple, precise and unambiguous. Disadvantages: Doesn't give extra weight to potentially stronger candidates.
- Ballot access - Advantages: Gives extra weight to potentially stronger candidates. Disadvantages: Perception of bias toward established parties, the order changes as ballot access changes.
- Poll results - Advantages: Provides a rough indication of candidate's popular support. Disadvantages: The actual election is not based on popular support, polls are unreliable, subject to bias and constantly changing.
- Other criterion? Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments:
- Alphabetically - This method is precise and fair, and once settled on, it avoids all future arguments among editors as to which candidates/parties should get "extra weight" in the infoboxes. The order doesn't constantly change based on external factors which are sometimes ambiguous and potential biased. This also more closely follows WP guidelines on the order of lists. Regarding WP:Weight, all of the candidates in the infobox have achieved a threshold that separates them from the hundreds of others who are unlikely to be elected. The difference in elect-ability between a candidate that has 50-state ballot access and one who has 47-state access is inconsequential. Although two parties have dominated U.S. politics for some time, this can change (and historically has changed). Differences between the candidates who have made the cut and appear in the infobox are best handled within the body of the article where the subtleties of weight can be better addressed. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- What is the scope of this RFC? It's phrased and advertised as if it's relevant to all elections, but the argument and forum suggests that it's relevance is limited to US presidential elections. The scope needs to be clarified before continuing. Rami R 12:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've clarified in the proposal that the scope is for U.S. presidential (general) elections. Sparkie82 (t•c) 12:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Sparkie82: do you mean future/on-going presidential elections, or all presidential elections? Ebonelm (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- The RfC is for this article (United_States_presidential_election, 2016). If it results in a firm consensus with a clear standard, then the consensus could be relied upon for 2020, 2024... Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note that this covers the pre-election time period. I believe that there already is a consensus to sort the candidates by actual electoral votes received post-election. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Sparkie82: do you mean future/on-going presidential elections, or all presidential elections? Ebonelm (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've clarified in the proposal that the scope is for U.S. presidential (general) elections. Sparkie82 (t•c) 12:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Is this meant to address the same issue currently discussed in #Ballot access and the infobox above? If so, will you add a comment there to avoid splitting discussion? 64.105.98.115 (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Tradition – US elections have essentially been a two-party system for more than a century, so the first row should reflect this reality, otherwise many readers would be confused. Second-row candidates and beyond can be listed alphabetically. For the ordering of the first row, tradition places the incumbent party on the left and the challenging party on the right, i.e. no change from today's placement. — JFG talk 19:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Tradition - I see no reason to change a long standing practice done in books, and encyclopedias alike. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Tradition/keep prior consensus The candidates were consistently sorted by ballot access throughout 2012, with the incumbent party in the first spot. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Some newer !votes support using past electoral results to determine the order. This carries an implication that only parties with prior success will have success in the future, which is a subtle case of WP:CRYSTAL. Ballot access is purely objective and reflects a current rather than past situation. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- The implication is what you make of it. It is certainly not WP:CRYSTAL since we're not adding any further information. You'll agree that we must find an order, and any order will carry some perceived bias. How exactly do you suggest to order parties with equal ballot access? There are two issues here: inclusion and order. I agree that ballot access should be the criteria for incusion. However, for ordering the candidate, this page should use the same method used on all election articles across WP: previous election results. Ballot access is not precise enough, polls are too volatile, and alphabetical gives undue weight to any minor party whose name startswith A. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Tradition - If we are going to include 3rd Party candidates in the infobox, let's not pretend they are as important as the two major parties. --yeah_93 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- We need to summarize in the same way as reliable sources. At the moment, they describe this election in a 2+1+1+others way, so Dem/Rep on first line, Lib/Green on second, and lets see if any others get ballot access. Revisit if a 3rd party rises sufficiently to get access to debates (15% in polls). Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- My default position for an upcoming election is to list candidates in order of how well they did last time: that's the usual approach on most election articles and seems sensible. If reliable sources/polls are consistently showing something else, then I would switch to that (recognising that "consistently" can be difficult to define). Were we to get to a point where, say, Stein was consistently being talked about as having a serious chance of winning, but Johnson was being ignored by RS as an irrelevance, then I think the infobox should reflect that. (I do not believe that outcome will happen.) Bondegezou (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think that Bondegezou's suggestion (ordered by votes in previous general election) is a good one. In general I would favour some sort of simple, objective criterion; it will hopefully minimize both arguing about the order and about whether wikipedia is taking/should take a political POV. Second preference would be for alphabetical order (though probably it should be clarified whether you mean alphabetical by party name or by candidates name, and if the latter what you intend to do whilst two of the candidates are still unconfirmed).Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Tradition - The Democrats & Republicans should get the top row. A third & fourth party can be added to the top line if they win any electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Previous result is, I believe, the only method that is impartial, non-arbitrary and rooted in actual facts. It settles the issue once and for all and it has the advantage of mirroring the order used for other election articles (e.g. Canadian federal elections). Specifically, I would order the candidates by their parties' electoral votes in the last election. The tie-breaker would be the popular vote in the previous election. As a second (unlikely) tie-breaker--for example if two brand new parties qualify--we can go alphabetically, either by party or by candidate's last name, or ballot access, whichever the community prefers.
- In short I suggest we order the parties according to:
- Party's electoral vote in the last election
- Party's popular vote in the last election
- Party's ballot access in the current election
- Alphabetically by party's short name
- Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- If no consensus can be reached regarding using alphabetical order, then previous results is preferable to just arbitrarily selecting the Democrats and Republicans to always go first. I'd suggest always putting the incumbent first because sometimes the incumbent will not have the most electoral votes (or no votes, e.g., Ford) or a candidate could switch parties while in office. Then sort the remaining candidates by the candidates'/parties' previous electoral votes, treating "independent" like a party. If there is more than one independent in the infobox, then sort them alphabetically in place. I agree that popular vote could be used as a tie-breaker. Also, I think that the incumbent should be indicated as "incumbent" or "incumbent party" and the previous vote totals shown in the infobox so the sorting order is explicit. If an election was settled in the House then also include those votes in the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that the incumbent candidate or their party should be put first. I think adding other info like incumbency and previous results is too much. Th infobox is cluttered enough as it. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, including previous total electoral votes prior to the election is less information than is included after the election. Also, including the word "incumbent" is no more than including the word "presumptive", which is currently there for two of the candidates. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I misunderstood, I thought you wanted to include that information even after the election. I'm not against including it until Election Day. However, I still think writing "incumbent" is not needed. That information is included on the infobox's bottom left corner already. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, including previous total electoral votes prior to the election is less information than is included after the election. Also, including the word "incumbent" is no more than including the word "presumptive", which is currently there for two of the candidates. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that the incumbent candidate or their party should be put first. I think adding other info like incumbency and previous results is too much. Th infobox is cluttered enough as it. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- If no consensus can be reached regarding using alphabetical order, then previous results is preferable to just arbitrarily selecting the Democrats and Republicans to always go first. I'd suggest always putting the incumbent first because sometimes the incumbent will not have the most electoral votes (or no votes, e.g., Ford) or a candidate could switch parties while in office. Then sort the remaining candidates by the candidates'/parties' previous electoral votes, treating "independent" like a party. If there is more than one independent in the infobox, then sort them alphabetically in place. I agree that popular vote could be used as a tie-breaker. Also, I think that the incumbent should be indicated as "incumbent" or "incumbent party" and the previous vote totals shown in the infobox so the sorting order is explicit. If an election was settled in the House then also include those votes in the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Rank by electoral college votes in the previous election or, if did not earn an electoral college vote in the previous election, by rank in polls or (if no polls) ballot access.--Proud User (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, if we had stuck with my original idea of not putting any prez or vice prez nominees in the infobox, until after the presidential election results? There'd be no disputing over order of candidates, who to include, when to include etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Traditional Images are sorted by previous electoral college results. No mess. Easy to follow. Less drama if we stick with what we know works. --Majora (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- What if the sitting president (or their party) did not receive the most electoral votes in the previous election? Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Sparkie82: I think you confused electoral college votes with the popular vote. While the winner of the popular vote has not become president four times (most recently in 2000), the candidate who receives the most electoral college votes becomes the President 99.9% of the time. The only time this could not occur is if nobody receives a majority. Then Congress picks and could, in theory, pick someone else. This has not happened since 1824 and is unlikely to happen again. If and when that occurs then we can come up with a different consensus. Until then, we go by the last electoral college results. --Majora (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I was referring to the cases in which the House decides, or a president switches parties mid-term, or when a president is not elected at all, e.g., Ford. The possibility of no majority is actually pretty high this year, in fact, one possible strategy being discussed for an alternate candidate is to appear on the ballot in a few key states in order to deny a majority and then win in the House. If the list of candidates is not sorted alphabetically, then I think the incumbent should be first, and the rest sorted by electoral votes (or votes in the House if the election is decided that way.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Sparkie82: I think you confused electoral college votes with the popular vote. While the winner of the popular vote has not become president four times (most recently in 2000), the candidate who receives the most electoral college votes becomes the President 99.9% of the time. The only time this could not occur is if nobody receives a majority. Then Congress picks and could, in theory, pick someone else. This has not happened since 1824 and is unlikely to happen again. If and when that occurs then we can come up with a different consensus. Until then, we go by the last electoral college results. --Majora (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- What if the sitting president (or their party) did not receive the most electoral votes in the previous election? Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Alphabetical. This seems the most fair to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I reverted the edit of 04:11, 24 May 2016 by Antony-22 (which added a consensus infobox to this talk page) because we have not yet reached a consensus here. (That edit was made during a previous discussion on the same issue.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 11:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Actually it's pretty clear that we reached consensus given the overwhelming majority of opinions in favor of keeping the previous ordering. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- It seems unlikely that we will gain a consensus to order the candidates alphabetically at this time. Given that, I propose using the following criteria for this and future United States presidential election articles:
- 1. Place the current president in the first position (if she is a candidate in the presidential election that is the subject of the article).
- 2. Order the rest based on the candidates' previous actual electoral vote totals (or House vote totals if the election is dispositive within the House).
- 3. If a candidate did not participate in the previous presidential election, then use the number of votes received by the candidate's current party in the previous electoral election (or House votes if the election was dispositive in the House).
- 4. If there is a tie in the number of electoral votes (or House votes if dispositive in the House), use the number of popular votes cast for the candidates' (or parties') electors to break that tie.
- 5. Candidates (or parties) who don't have any votes based on the above criteria are placed in alphabetical order following the candidates/parties who do have an electoral history.
- I think this criteria will cover any situation (under current law). Sparkie82 (t•c) 13:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- It seems unlikely that we will gain a consensus to order the candidates alphabetically at this time. Given that, I propose using the following criteria for this and future United States presidential election articles:
- Previous result, even though I don't mind using tradition and polling numbers. I think using the previous result is the most neutral and objective method that there is, and in addition I believe it is used for other election articles. I don't want Wikipedia to give undue coverage to third parties as if it were campaigning for one (and at the same time, I don't want Wikipedia to censor third parties either). I want fair coverage. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2016 (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.
Is Utah a 'swing state'?
Two of us are having a dispute about whether Utah is one of the swing states in the election. I appreciate it's not the safest state particularly as Clinton is relatively up currently, but what is a manageable definition of swing that means we don't have the Republican's 4th safest state and thereby we have to have 40 states in the swing states section? Tom B (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC) One innovative method might be to use the top 10 or so of the 'chance of tipping the election' list on 538 [5]? Anyway need to find consensus on using a method that results in a small list Tom B (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Tom B (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to narrow the states down then okay I am on board with that, but is there more than one source that agrees with 538 when it comes to the top 10 or so flipping states? I don't want to have to rely on one source here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- thanks, agree to narrow down states. like you say it'll be hard to find sources agreeing on a definite 10 or 11.... we could perhaps build in the other direction e.g. everyone agrees at least FL, Ohio, N. Carolina...Clinton's current supremacy is bringing more states into play so it's a moving target. Tom B (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- I added Utah back to the chart. Let me explain why. Not one political pundit, whether strictly by polls or polls + demography, has Utah as GOP safe. On it's face it seems absurd to consider Utah a swing state, I agree there. But Democrats have now opened offices there and it's possible it could seriously come into play. Utah has voted strongly for third-parties, and it would be no shock if they did so this year as well leading for the winner of the state to win with only 30%. Yes, it hasn't gone Blue since 1964, but every year is different and never precedent bound. Main Point : NO pundit has it as Republican safe. What other criteria is there for a state to be there? It's not Wikipedia's job to judge whether non-political experts are making assertions many of us think is crazy. Manful0103 (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The pundits are idiots quite frankly, if the primaries didn't tell you that already. Even in 1992 Utah was still overwhelmingly Republican when other "safe" Republican states flipped for Clinton. It went 70% for Romney. It is not a swing state.108.51.205.28 (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
New Trump photos
The following discussion 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.
I was at the immigration policy speech yesterday, and have uploaded several dozen photos of Donald Trump. I uploaded one that I thought would work as an infobox image, but would welcome users to look through the others, particularly the ones of him smiling. The link to do that is here. Calibrador (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging some users involved with past discussions Ghoul_flesh, SquidHomme, Jean-Jacques Georges, TexasMan34, ShadowDragon343. Calibrador (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Not bad at all, maybe if you take the microphone out, will be better, this is perfect, HD, smiling, what else do you want in a photo? TexasMan34 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- As the microphone is not obscuring his face, (and the fact that the current photo also has a microphone) I don't think there's really an issue with it. Calibrador (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I Oppose this image, the microphone is an issue and I don't like the smirk. Can we please focus on more constructive things here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- There's no issue with the microphone being in the photo, and a smile is preferred over a frown. Calibrador (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I Oppose this image, the microphone is an issue and I don't like the smirk. Can we please focus on more constructive things here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Side note, please be sure to also go to the link I provided at the beginning of this section. There are several other smiling photos that don't have a microphone in the photo if it were to be cropped. Calibrador (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually it is a constructive issue the current image needs to be updated badly, it has him leaning over and it is from last year. Here is one I propose, no microphone or anyone else behind him. Just Trump lightly smiling and standing upright!!! ShadowDragon343 (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)- Thanks for adding the second photo ShadowDragon343. Calibrador (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- There is something very odd about that smile, its looks very 'forced' ..compared to his image we are currently using, it looks off....I prefer an image like these but with his mouth slightly open..maybe its botox or something but i'm sure his lips were fuller before--Stemoc 03:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The first photo's smile looks very natural, and is vastly superior to the smile in the current photo being used. Oh wait... Calibrador (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- There is something very odd about that smile, its looks very 'forced' ..compared to his image we are currently using, it looks off....I prefer an image like these but with his mouth slightly open..maybe its botox or something but i'm sure his lips were fuller before--Stemoc 03:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Personally I prefer Gage Skidmore's offerings—they cleverly give the man the appearance of a smug buffoon. But the existing photograph already has consensus. Also Knowledgekid87 hit the nail on the head; there are far more important issues to address in the article. A pointless distraction, this thread is a waste of time. Unfortunately it's also par for the course at political talk pages during presidential campaigns. Writegeist (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- You realize by simply complaining rather than contributing to a substantive conversation you are contributing to what you are complaining about. Also the article states in a note to obtain consensus on the talk page in regards to changing the image. That's what I've attempted to do. Calibrador (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Trying to inveigle a photograph into the article that portrays a serious Republican candidate for President of the United States as a smug buffoon ill-befits WP and shamelessly insults the supporters who (one need only refer to his Facebook page) regard him as (a) the only possible savior of the nation and also as (b) a man who has been looking wonderfully presidential in his latest appearances. This is not the place to pursue an anti-Trump agenda. Writegeist (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- You realize by simply complaining rather than contributing to a substantive conversation you are contributing to what you are complaining about. Also the article states in a note to obtain consensus on the talk page in regards to changing the image. That's what I've attempted to do. Calibrador (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Personally I prefer Gage Skidmore's offerings—they cleverly give the man the appearance of a smug buffoon. But the existing photograph already has consensus. Also Knowledgekid87 hit the nail on the head; there are far more important issues to address in the article. A pointless distraction, this thread is a waste of time. Unfortunately it's also par for the course at political talk pages during presidential campaigns. Writegeist (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I honestly think that the first photo would be perfect TexasMan34 (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
538 members of the Electoral College 270 electoral votes needed to win | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Opinion polls | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The electoral map for the 2016 election, based on apportionment following the 2010 census | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it looks fantastic.
Don't know about Trump but this photo https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/29270335682/in/album-72157673261299025/ looks good for Pence. TL565 (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be a good replacement for the photo that's currently on this article. Calibrador (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Anythingyouwant, personally I am in favor of any image which he has a smile, but I think the first photo above may be the superior one, as he is looking forward more rather than down. Granted it is a minor detail, but any of them would be better than the current one. Calibrador (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe, but which photo looks more like him? Which one captures The Donald?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant That one doesn't have good shading, TexasMan34 He has his head turned a bit and the microphone is in the way which is why I prefer the second one.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Calibrador : all the photos are fine, but that one, IMHO, is by far the best. However, I think it may also replace the current one in the Donald Trump page's infobox. So, on this page, we may use that one, or that one. that one. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant That one doesn't have good shading, TexasMan34 He has his head turned a bit and the microphone is in the way which is why I prefer the second one.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, good work User:Proud User. I think that's the best one yet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- He is looking down too much in that one, I like the one's where he is looking forward, as well as the flags in the background. Calibrador (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, he's not smiling in that one, right? It looks like a glum passport photo. Only my opinion, of course.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The first photo was the one I was referring to mostly. To me that one looks sort of like a proud father or something like that. Calibrador (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, he's not smiling in that one, right? It looks like a glum passport photo. Only my opinion, of course.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- He is looking down too much in that one, I like the one's where he is looking forward, as well as the flags in the background. Calibrador (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, good work User:Proud User. I think that's the best one yet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Anythingyouwant that that the photo on the left submitted by Proud User is the best Trump pic so far. He is smiling and (slightly) looking forward.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that he is slightly looking down is not a problem IMHO. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed, looking down a little is no problem, it adds spontaneity. The first one just doesn't look as much like him as the Proud User pic; he also looks kind of dazed or day-dreaming in the first one, IMHO. And teeth add a lot to a smile.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- You can't hardly see his eyes, and the lighting is not as good as it is center stage. Calibrador (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The only good thing in my opinion is the showing of teeth, but that doesn't outweigh the first photo. Calibrador (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- And the microphone?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The only good thing in my opinion is the showing of teeth, but that doesn't outweigh the first photo. Calibrador (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that he is slightly looking down is not a problem IMHO. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Anythingyouwant that that the photo on the left submitted by Proud User is the best Trump pic so far. He is smiling and (slightly) looking forward.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- [1].Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The criticisms about the new photo look like nitpicking to me. The "smiling" photo is much better, more flattering and more neutral than the current "grumpy" one. As for that one, I think it should be used in the infobox of the Donald Trump article.
- As for the photo with Clinton in green, I think it's also better than the current one. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Pr we could go generic: [2]. Green is off-color and should not be used. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The color looks fine to me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's not the question is it? OR. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus is required to make any sort of change on this article, this discussion is attempting that. Calibrador (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know why this discussion still lingering here for months, I'm surprised. Why can't users here with so much time, brain and energy, solve a simple picture issues? We should stop bragging and start compromising and listening to others' opinions. Anyway, this one has the smile, looking at the camera, and clapping. It's perfect. Also, what green is off-color? I don't get it. Is that because of green usually represents islam?—SquidHomme (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus is required to make any sort of change on this article, this discussion is attempting that. Calibrador (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's not the question is it? OR. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The color looks fine to me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Pr we could go generic: [2]. Green is off-color and should not be used. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- [1].Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
√ Muted US-flag field (same field used in the third photo at "About Donald J. Trump").
√ No microphone.
√ No smirking, smug, dazed, or glum expression.
√ Eyes relatively open, not squinting into the lights.
√ No forced, taut-lipped smile.
√ Presidential-aspirant pose (uncannily like Obama 2006).In the Phoenix AZ photo submitted by Proud User, Trump looks more like the gloating victor in a takeover battle. But it does meet the other standards I listed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- In that photo, you cannot get a clear, undistracted view of Trump's face. Fails priority one in my opinion. --Proud User (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like I was reverted. Can we please get a consensus so that this old photo can finally be taken down? To me it is quite clear the first photo is the best one. The one Proud User posted is not focused correctly. The others are too squinty, or look like a passport photo (the second photo) as someone mentioned. These little nitpicks about whether it's a smirk and the presence of a microphone, which is also present in the current photo, is keeping a high quality, recent, and much more visually pleasing photo from being added. Calibrador (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support the current photo already in the infobox. It still works fine. The recent suggestions for photos show him with a smirk, as others have noted, and are not better than what we already have. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please realize there is a reason this frowning photo is consistently brought up here. Most everyone who has commented here has been in favor of replacing this so-called better photo, and your reason for being opposed to changing it is against all odds. The first photo is more than a year newer, is straight on, he is standing straight up rather than hunched over, and whether it is a smirk or smile is nitpicking. Calibrador (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's my opinion, I'm entitled to it, and will continue to express it. That's what consensus building is made of. I note you pinged (canvassed only specific, pro-Gage-photo editors under the guise of pinging sundry editors who have commented on your images previously. I also note you changed the Trump article infobox photo with less than a day's worth of discussion toward consensus. Providing your own images is fine and good. Forcing your byline images into articles without consensus and selectively canvassing isn't. You've been warned about this before. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Looking back at the last discussion, it seems you thought this very low quality photo of an open mouthed Trump, screen captured from a video, was the best photo of Trump yet. Your opinion is a very unpopular one. Calibrador (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- That previous opinion was based on an editor feeling we should have a photo of Trump with a flag in the background. The one I opted for in that discussion was the best of the others offered, considering that specific criteria. Consensus isn't meant to be a popularity contest for which editor is better liked, as you are suggesting, it's about what's best for articles, what's best for the encyclopedia. If you want to start flaming and beating up each other (as the direction of your comments seem to now be heading) , I can do that too, but engaging in such is against policy and is wholly unhelpful. Please just stick to consensus building rather than bullying and tearing down editors who disagree with your opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well unfortunately I do not think there will ever be 100% consensus, much to the suffering of the article. Calibrador (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please take note that when we change the photo, we'll also have to change it in Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well unfortunately I do not think there will ever be 100% consensus, much to the suffering of the article. Calibrador (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- That previous opinion was based on an editor feeling we should have a photo of Trump with a flag in the background. The one I opted for in that discussion was the best of the others offered, considering that specific criteria. Consensus isn't meant to be a popularity contest for which editor is better liked, as you are suggesting, it's about what's best for articles, what's best for the encyclopedia. If you want to start flaming and beating up each other (as the direction of your comments seem to now be heading) , I can do that too, but engaging in such is against policy and is wholly unhelpful. Please just stick to consensus building rather than bullying and tearing down editors who disagree with your opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Looking back at the last discussion, it seems you thought this very low quality photo of an open mouthed Trump, screen captured from a video, was the best photo of Trump yet. Your opinion is a very unpopular one. Calibrador (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's my opinion, I'm entitled to it, and will continue to express it. That's what consensus building is made of. I note you pinged (canvassed only specific, pro-Gage-photo editors under the guise of pinging sundry editors who have commented on your images previously. I also note you changed the Trump article infobox photo with less than a day's worth of discussion toward consensus. Providing your own images is fine and good. Forcing your byline images into articles without consensus and selectively canvassing isn't. You've been warned about this before. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support the current photo already in the infobox It feels like this has been discussed to death, why cant this be discussed after the election? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: The sole official photograph of Trump as president (& CEO) shows his upper canines and incisors. (Source: "Donald Trump Biography", The Trump Organization.) So does the "smiling photo" (4). But photos 1, 2, 3, and 5 don't show any teeth at all; nor does the current photo ("0").
- In that official biography photo, his frontalis (forehead) muscle looks relaxed, as it does in photos 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, but not photo 0.
- Also, he's looking at or near the camera, as in photos 1, 2, 3, and 4, but not photos 0 or 5.
- Also, the cropped background is rather neutral, as in photos 3, 4, and 5, but not photos 0, 1, or 2. And the microphone is absent, as in photos 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, but not photo 0.
- Raw scores
- Current photo: -5. Photo 1: +1. Photo 2: +1. Photo 3: +3. Photo 4 (smiling): +5. Photo 5: +1.
- I still like photo 5 best, but that's my problem. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment There's currently a discussion ongoing over at Talk:Donald Trump with a poll of support. Calibrador (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Third parties without 270 electoral votes
Is there a reason why all of a sudden a bunch of minor parties are now being significantly highlighted with their own photo section, map, etc. despite not having the 270 electoral vote criteria that was the previously agreed upon threshold for highlighting such candidates? If a candidate does not meet the requirements of being Constitutionally eligible (35 years old, American citizen, etc.), and does not have ballot access to achieve at least 270 electoral votes, they should be kept in the list format that was present in this article not too long ago. The Green Party and Libertarian Party, as well as potentially the Constitution Party, should be the only third parties with a section like the major party candidates until any of these other parties meet the criteria I mentioned that has long been agreed upon. Calibrador (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with this. I find Rocky De La Fuente to be an interesting fellow, but that's not the standard for a longer listing; access to 270 electoral votes is. A secondary point about this is that the recently-added images are not of very good quality, especially the image of Gloria La Riva's podium. That's reason enough to advise against using the images on its own. Darrell Castle seems to qualify again at this point, so his longer section is not an issue. The other two candidates should not have expanded sections. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- As the change was undiscussed originally, I went ahead and reverted it back to the list format. Calibrador (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Darrell Castle Ballot Access in New Hampshire and Vermont
The Constitution Party's Ballot Access web page http://www.constitutionparty.com/get-involved/election-central/ballot-access/ currently has New Hampshire and Vermont shown as being in progress for write-in access on their map, yet the text list below that map on the very same page shows New Hampshire and Vermont as already having write-in access. Which should the article and our map favor, their map or their list? VladJ92 (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Pence photo
Why was this photo reverted? It's newer and the expression a lot better than the current one now. TL565 (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's another instance of a photo being clearly superior, but you have to have everyone on Wikipedia agree and if anyone dissents you're out of luck. Calibrador (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Of course you would think a photo you took is "clearly superior". You took it! To lament the consensus process that makes Wikipedia run is not exactly the best way to get people to agree with you however. And to attempt to force the photos you have taken into every article is also, probably, not the best method of getting what you want. --Majora (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- I took both photos. The staring at the sun photo should be replaced. Calibrador (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Of course you would think a photo you took is "clearly superior". You took it! To lament the consensus process that makes Wikipedia run is not exactly the best way to get people to agree with you however. And to attempt to force the photos you have taken into every article is also, probably, not the best method of getting what you want. --Majora (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Although I can understand a long process for consensus when discussing Trump and Hillary photos which have been discussed countless times before, I don't know why we need this kind of discussion for Pence. There wasn't any firm consensus for the current image either, it was the only photo that was available at the time. I'd say just put the new photo up. No one has objected or showed any preference to the other one yet. TL565 (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just for clarity this is what it would look like;
Republican Party ticket, 2016 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Donald Trump | Mike Pence | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
for President | for Vice President | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chairman of The Trump Organization (1971–present) |
50th Governor of Indiana (2013–present) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Campaign | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- I however do not like either photo. So I have no preference in changing it or not changing it. I slightly like the new one better.Chase (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Calibrador, you've been contributing to Wikipedia long enough and have been warned enough to know how things work in the way of consensus. Just start utilizing the talk page first when it comes to replacing photos, wait for a reasonable amount of time for consensus, since you'd be involved don't declare consensus yourself, and this kind of issue will be averted. It's really quite simple. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
-
A
-
B
-
C
-
D
-
E
-
F
- Support A as it fits better alongside the current Trump photo. --Proud User (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Added more photos and support B. Seems like a no-brainer to me. TL565 (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support B Technically the best (lighting, color, etc.), and A looks like he is staring directly at the sun. Calibrador (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support B the best photo so far, A you can tell the photoshop, C has the microphone and is not looking to the camera, D looks like he has something in his ass, I think that if you put photo B with this trump photo, they kink of match.
Republican Party ticket, 2016 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Donald Trump | Mike Pence | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
for President | for Vice President | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chairman of The Trump Organization (1971–present) |
50th Governor of Indiana (2013–present) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Campaign | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Support C - it improves upon A without clashing with the present Trump photo. Harrison (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Prior to B being released I would have agreed with you, but in comparison C is looking to the side and has a microphone in front of his face. Looking forward and no microphone seems better suited to me. Calibrador (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Current photo is fine (A); next, F with E as secondary to F. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Inappropriate, way too early close by involved editor with bias. Claims that because there is a similar discussion at another article talk page that this one shouldn't exist. Need I point out how disruptive this close and how ridiculous the reasoning is? is? I think it's important to note that the same editor, a short time ago, essentially vandalized one of the photo considerations at the other article talk page and, by doing so, committed a BLP vio (he labeled the photo a mugshot). Someone needs to reopen this one or an uninvolved admin should close appropriately. That said, consensus is being sought here and we are still far from that. Someone needs to reopen this one or an uninvolved admin should close appropriately. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- This user is currently involved with hounding my edits across many different articles. The discussion is nearly identical, including many of the users involved with the discussion casting the exact same vote for a photo on both pages. There does not need to be a discussion here, as well as at Talk:Mike Pence, one discussion about the same photo choices can suffice, as was done with the Trump photo section only a couple sections above this one. Calibrador (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Two different articles, two different discussions. That's the way it is, and always has been done. Consensus at one article
- Then why didn't you revert Knowledgekid for doing the same exact thing above with the Donald Trump photo discussion? You are hounding. Calibrador (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, Winkelvi needs to cut the crap. He showed his bias as soon as he tried to introduce his own photo. He is running a campaign against any photo taken by Gage Skidmore. TL565 (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I will note that your !vote at the other article talk page was the result of biased canvassing by Calibrador based on your preference for his images in the above discussion just closed inappropriately by Calibrador (who is the photographer of the photos offered above). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- They started this discussion on this page, why should they not be involved in the same exact discussion elsewhere? And all you did was add your own uploads, you didn't try to create or foster any sort of consensus at all. As someone who constantly harps on getting consensus before any change is made whatsoever on any article, I've yet to see you constructively respond to anyone opposed to your viewpoint in order to create a consensus among the two parties. Calibrador (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly, he has been stalking you for days harping about "consensus" but doing absolutely nothing constructive except doing everything he can to undermine you. The fact that he had to scramble to upload a new picture of his own proves this has nothing to do with consensus building and everything to do with his own preferences. TL565 (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- They started this discussion on this page, why should they not be involved in the same exact discussion elsewhere? And all you did was add your own uploads, you didn't try to create or foster any sort of consensus at all. As someone who constantly harps on getting consensus before any change is made whatsoever on any article, I've yet to see you constructively respond to anyone opposed to your viewpoint in order to create a consensus among the two parties. Calibrador (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I will note that your !vote at the other article talk page was the result of biased canvassing by Calibrador based on your preference for his images in the above discussion just closed inappropriately by Calibrador (who is the photographer of the photos offered above). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Two different articles, two different discussions. That's the way it is, and always has been done. Consensus at one article
Reopened due to inappropriate close by highly involved editor and all the wrong (stated) reasons for close. We don't decide what happens at one article because of what's being discussed or decided at another. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Way to edit your original vote again. If you're going change your vote, at least strike the old one out. Don't just edit it behind the scenes making it seem like that was your vote from the very beginning. Btw if you are going to reopen this section, you might as well reopen the Trump one. TL565 (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- As I have done elsewhere recently as in the past throughout my nearly 24k edits, I can reword my choice(s) however I choose as long as it's not against policy or guidelines. Anyone can. Not sure why you are taking umbrage over something that neither affects you nor is a violation of policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- You create unnecessary confusion especially when there was a discussion that followed about your original vote. Note, you changed your vote both on this page and on the Pence page days after you initially voted because I called out your bias. Did you forget on the other page you added your photo, then responded to me days later(didn't even mention you) saying I'm wrong because you support a photo you clearly didn't. You did not indicate which photo you were talking about or tell me you changed your initial vote in your response.(You edited your vote after that.) Then, instead of trying to clarify any confusion when I said I couldn't see anywhere in the photo(you knew which one I meant) that it was taken by Gage Skidmore, you tell me to do my own research and say I shouldn't be posting on Wikipedia. That is not good faith. Any reasonable user would say "Are you referring to photo C or E? I changed my vote recently." No, instead you play dumb and make excuses saying you always meant to support another photo but made a mistake. Now you're doing the same thing here, changing your vote today(I'm sure that was a mistake too.) and you wonder why I have a problem with that? TL565 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in the drama you seem to enjoy creating, perpetuating, and fostering here and everywhere else I've been lately. I'm also not a fan of your misrepresentations of the chain of events. On both talk pages where I later edited my choices and comments, there were no responses by others in regard to those specific choices. If you're finding I've violated policy, then take me to a noticeboard. Your personal attacks against me (noted by others and removed by others that you chose to reinstate regardless) are also unwanted. Your complaints and attacks are unwarranted and unproductive - they need to stop or, if you have something truly valid, take it to a noticeboard. In other words: Comment on edits, not editors; shit or get off the pot. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Calling out your obvious bullshit is not a personal attack. You still have yet to explain why prefer your own photos or why you backtracked on them. Don't want drama? Maybe you should have thought about it when you wrote this comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Pence&diff=738401847&oldid=738359657 TL565 (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in the drama you seem to enjoy creating, perpetuating, and fostering here and everywhere else I've been lately. I'm also not a fan of your misrepresentations of the chain of events. On both talk pages where I later edited my choices and comments, there were no responses by others in regard to those specific choices. If you're finding I've violated policy, then take me to a noticeboard. Your personal attacks against me (noted by others and removed by others that you chose to reinstate regardless) are also unwanted. Your complaints and attacks are unwarranted and unproductive - they need to stop or, if you have something truly valid, take it to a noticeboard. In other words: Comment on edits, not editors; shit or get off the pot. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- You create unnecessary confusion especially when there was a discussion that followed about your original vote. Note, you changed your vote both on this page and on the Pence page days after you initially voted because I called out your bias. Did you forget on the other page you added your photo, then responded to me days later(didn't even mention you) saying I'm wrong because you support a photo you clearly didn't. You did not indicate which photo you were talking about or tell me you changed your initial vote in your response.(You edited your vote after that.) Then, instead of trying to clarify any confusion when I said I couldn't see anywhere in the photo(you knew which one I meant) that it was taken by Gage Skidmore, you tell me to do my own research and say I shouldn't be posting on Wikipedia. That is not good faith. Any reasonable user would say "Are you referring to photo C or E? I changed my vote recently." No, instead you play dumb and make excuses saying you always meant to support another photo but made a mistake. Now you're doing the same thing here, changing your vote today(I'm sure that was a mistake too.) and you wonder why I have a problem with that? TL565 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- As I have done elsewhere recently as in the past throughout my nearly 24k edits, I can reword my choice(s) however I choose as long as it's not against policy or guidelines. Anyone can. Not sure why you are taking umbrage over something that neither affects you nor is a violation of policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support B along with new Trump photo. These photos have a much higher quality, and they are much more recent as well. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Infobox inclusion, again
There's an edit war currently unfolding with regards to the candidates featured in the infobox, with some editors declining to discuss their edits. The most recent discussion of any substance about this issue is at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016/Archive 10#For Third Parties, should we include Write-In Access for the Purposes of Organization and the Infobox, and it mostly endorses (many) previous discussions. However, more discussion is always welcome and certainly better than violating the 1RR restriction in place on this article. In short, there are three live (as opposed to merely hypothetical) issues open:
A.) Should Darrell Castle be featured in the infobox?
B.) How should Castle be positioned in the infobox?
C.) How should Gary Johnson be positioned in the infobox?
Any other issues are a distraction from these - Stein and Castle can't get 538 electoral votes, and no other minor candidate can get 270. The issues above need to be resolved in line with consensus, either the previous existing consensus or new discussion below. They should not be edit warred over. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- The issue regarding the inclusion of Castle was previously discussed, it was agreed that the policy from 2012 regarding infobox inclusion would be implemented here. Any candidate who has ballot access to 270 electors will be included in the infobox, this includes states in which a candidate has to file a list of electors to qualify as a write in. Castle now qualifies under this scheme. It is possible that De La Fuente may as well. I doubt any other candidate could feasibly make it to 270 at this point, even with filing slates of write in electors. XavierGreen (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Castle should not be in the infobox. Putting him there gives him undue weight, suggesting to our average uninformed reader that he has a chance of being important in this election, which he does not. Polls are what matters, not ballot access. The Constitution Party is incredibly unimportant. Earthscent (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I thought there was also a criteria of being at at least 5% in any independent poll? Calibrador (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- That has been used in the past, and seemed like a good compromise then. Earthscent (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well I think the three criteria of being Constitutionally eligible, ballot access to at least 270 electoral votes, and at least 5% in any independent polling should be used as the infobox criteria. Calibrador (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- The consensus was that polls were not used for infobox inclusion in 2012; all six candidates who had the requisite ballot access were featured. I support continuing this for this cycle, which would mean Castle should be included. (Note that actual popular vote results have been used for inclusion after the election; I'm not sure if it's ever been used before the election.) As for placement, I'd support putting Johnson in the top row only if he gets ballot access in all 51 jurisdictions, otherwise the infobox should remain with two candidates per row. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 09:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I definitely agree with you about the being on the ballot in 51 jurisdictions part, and being in the first row if that happens. Calibrador (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- The consensus was that polls were not used for infobox inclusion in 2012; all six candidates who had the requisite ballot access were featured. I support continuing this for this cycle, which would mean Castle should be included. (Note that actual popular vote results have been used for inclusion after the election; I'm not sure if it's ever been used before the election.) As for placement, I'd support putting Johnson in the top row only if he gets ballot access in all 51 jurisdictions, otherwise the infobox should remain with two candidates per row. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 09:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well I think the three criteria of being Constitutionally eligible, ballot access to at least 270 electoral votes, and at least 5% in any independent polling should be used as the infobox criteria. Calibrador (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- That has been used in the past, and seemed like a good compromise then. Earthscent (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I thought there was also a criteria of being at at least 5% in any independent poll? Calibrador (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- The consensus has been for many years that, to be included in the infobox, a candidate needs to be on the ballot in enough states to mathematically win a majority of electoral votes. If there are reliable sources that say that Castle is on the ballot in enough states to total a potential of 270 electoral votes, then he goes into the infobox; if not, he doesn't. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- There is a difference between pre- and post-election inclusion. Consensus for pre-election inclusion is that they can mathematically win a majority of electoral votes (270). The consensus for post-election inclusion, if I recall correctly, was dependent on the percentage of votes received. And if I recall correctly even further, that cutoff was 5% of the popular vote. The last time this happened was in the 1996 election where Ross Perot got 8.4%. --Majora (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Im fine with the status quo, according to the source though, Castle has passed the 270 mark again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm one of the ones that added Castle to the infobox and I think that he should be re-added. The previous consensus says he should be listed and I feel like we should stick with that. I'm sorry but the 5% polling idea would be a little silly, and it would mean we would have to remove Jill Stein from the infobox. Polling is not entirely accurate, and it is an arbitrary criteria for inclusion. Having enough ballot access to win a majority of electoral college votes is pretty straightforward criteria, and it doesn't fluctuate throughout the election season like polls do. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Prcc27: The 5% is only for post-election inclusion and is based on the popular vote. Can't get much more straightforward there. Consensus for pre-election inclusion seems to be in favor of including him. However, I don't think we should be doing three photos across. As that messes with smaller screens and pushes the lead all the way over to the left making it hard to read. --Majora (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, but Calibrador was suggesting that that be the criteria for pre-election inclusion. I don't oppose using the 5% popular vote threshold as a requirement for post-election inclusion. Anyways, I'm not sure if I know how to put him in a third row; do you know how to do that? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I just implemented it with a third row, you do it by adding a page break in the code right before you want the information to spill onto a third row.XavierGreen (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'd also like to note that the 2012 rules which were adopted here previously through consensus include only states where a slate of electors has to be filed to qualify as a write in candidate. This is a very important distinction, there are states which allow write in votes and yet do not demand a slate of electors to be filed IE, New Jersey (most of these states will not count write in votes unless write ins are a majority or plurality of votes cast.)XavierGreen (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I want to point out that at the end of the cycle those with less than 5% of the vote are going to be deleted anyways per consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Umm... if Johnson makes it to the 1st row if he's on the ballot in every jurisdiction with electoral votes then what does Castle have to do to make it to the 2nd row? It seems weird arbitrarily placing Castle there when people obviously don't mind having 3 people in the same row (i.e. Clinton/Trump/Johnson in row 1). What if Stein and/or Castle make it on the ballot in every jurisdiction with electoral votes? Would they also be put in the 1st row? If we're going to keep Castle in the 3rd row- I oppose adding any third party candidate e.g. Johnson to the 1st row for the most part. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I want to point out that at the end of the cycle those with less than 5% of the vote are going to be deleted anyways per consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, but Calibrador was suggesting that that be the criteria for pre-election inclusion. I don't oppose using the 5% popular vote threshold as a requirement for post-election inclusion. Anyways, I'm not sure if I know how to put him in a third row; do you know how to do that? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Prcc27: The 5% is only for post-election inclusion and is based on the popular vote. Can't get much more straightforward there. Consensus for pre-election inclusion seems to be in favor of including him. However, I don't think we should be doing three photos across. As that messes with smaller screens and pushes the lead all the way over to the left making it hard to read. --Majora (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm one of the ones that added Castle to the infobox and I think that he should be re-added. The previous consensus says he should be listed and I feel like we should stick with that. I'm sorry but the 5% polling idea would be a little silly, and it would mean we would have to remove Jill Stein from the infobox. Polling is not entirely accurate, and it is an arbitrary criteria for inclusion. Having enough ballot access to win a majority of electoral college votes is pretty straightforward criteria, and it doesn't fluctuate throughout the election season like polls do. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Im fine with the status quo, according to the source though, Castle has passed the 270 mark again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Prcc27: The only issue with having three pictures in the same row, as it stands is due to picture size. The formatting gets all wonky and people with smaller screens are forced to read a tiny column of text that is supposed to be the lead. That really is not acceptable from an accessibility standpoint. If you look at the last time there were three people in one row, United States presidential election, 1996, the pictures were shrunk. In this article each picture stands at about 135x200 (I only looked at Clinton's to get an estimate). On the 1996 page they are 115x153 (again, only looked at Clinton's (Bill this time) to get an estimate). --Majora (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- The standard for election pages across Wikipedia is to have candidates listed in the infobox in rows of three, see for example German_federal_election,_2017, French_legislative_election,_2017, Chadian_presidential_election,_2016, Australian Capital Territory general election, 2016, Georgian parliamentary election, 2016, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- The US does not have a parliamentary system or any type of proportional representation. Parties can get 15-25% in the US and never win one state or seat in Congress ever, not the same in those countries you listed. That's a fallacious comparison and not applicable to this election. 2601:589:4705:B31D:2875:7808:34C6:4680 (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- The standard for most countries around the world is to have more than two parties that actually do anything. The U.S. is strange like that and "standards" don't really matter all that much if the local consensus is against it. --Majora (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- The standard for election pages across Wikipedia is to have candidates listed in the infobox in rows of three, see for example German_federal_election,_2017, French_legislative_election,_2017, Chadian_presidential_election,_2016, Australian Capital Territory general election, 2016, Georgian parliamentary election, 2016, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
If Castle is going to be in the infobox, how about someone add a cropped version of his portrait so it matches the other photos (same size, proportions, etc.). As of now it looks very lazy. Calibrador (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- There are a couple of face crops in the file history of the current image that could be uploaded separately. I don't know why they weren't already, given how much attention has been paid to images on this discussion page. I agree that a face crop would better match the other images in the infobox. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Local consensus does not necessarily prevail here. There is already a consensus across election pages for Wikipedia to have rows of three for other countries as well as for the United States. There is a row of 3 candidates for the 1992 and 1996 elections. Ross Perot made it to the 1st row for having ballot access in every jurisdiction with electoral votes just as there is consensus to do the same if a Johnson, Stein, Castle, etc. gets complete ballot access. Many people on this talk page think the 1st row should have up to 3 people and should be reserved for candidates with complete ballot access. The 2nd row is reserved for candidates that don't have complete ballot access and since the maximum capacity for row 1 is 3- the maximum capacity for row 2 should also be 3. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- At this point, the only way De La Fuente or the Party for Socialism and Liberation can achieve 270 is through write ins. I don't think any of the others can make it at this point, even with write ins.XavierGreen (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- @XavierGreen: keeps adding Castle into the infobox. There is no consensus to make that change. XavierGreen has attempted to re-add Castle at least three times on Sept. 6th at these edits: [3][4][5] I am politely asking XavierGreen to remove Castle from the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- @XavierGreen:, please remove Castle from the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- I repeat, if there are multiple, reliable sources that say that Castle will be on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical possibility to achieve at least 270 electoral votes, then he can be added. Until then, he should not be in the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- He already has ballot access to more than 270 electoral college votes, the consensus here was to use the same inclusion criteria from 2012, and he meets that criteria. Also, I did not "attempt to re-add Castle three times on September 6" as you incorrectly assert above. My initial edit was not reverted, and one of my subsequent edits on that day were to correct mistakes I had made in the infobox coding for his entry. My third edit had nothing to do with the infobox at all: it added some minor ballot access information to the sections on other candidates entries in the body of the page. XavierGreen (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- The article says he is only on the ballot in states totaling 207 electoral votes. That's not enough to be included in the infobox. The consensus states that a candidate must be on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical possibility to achieve 270 electoral votes (not write-in votes, but on the ballot -- please read the consensus from previous years for details.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- XavierGreen, please remove Castle from the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- The 2012 rules as adopted here specifically included write in access where such access required a candidate to file a list of electors. This is outlined thoroughly in the discussion above, as well as the talk page archives here.XavierGreen (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- He already has ballot access to more than 270 electoral college votes, the consensus here was to use the same inclusion criteria from 2012, and he meets that criteria. Also, I did not "attempt to re-add Castle three times on September 6" as you incorrectly assert above. My initial edit was not reverted, and one of my subsequent edits on that day were to correct mistakes I had made in the infobox coding for his entry. My third edit had nothing to do with the infobox at all: it added some minor ballot access information to the sections on other candidates entries in the body of the page. XavierGreen (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- I repeat, if there are multiple, reliable sources that say that Castle will be on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical possibility to achieve at least 270 electoral votes, then he can be added. Until then, he should not be in the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- At this point, the only way De La Fuente or the Party for Socialism and Liberation can achieve 270 is through write ins. I don't think any of the others can make it at this point, even with write ins.XavierGreen (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Local consensus does not necessarily prevail here. There is already a consensus across election pages for Wikipedia to have rows of three for other countries as well as for the United States. There is a row of 3 candidates for the 1992 and 1996 elections. Ross Perot made it to the 1st row for having ballot access in every jurisdiction with electoral votes just as there is consensus to do the same if a Johnson, Stein, Castle, etc. gets complete ballot access. Many people on this talk page think the 1st row should have up to 3 people and should be reserved for candidates with complete ballot access. The 2nd row is reserved for candidates that don't have complete ballot access and since the maximum capacity for row 1 is 3- the maximum capacity for row 2 should also be 3. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Ballot Access News released a story today that Johnson will be on the ballot in that state. The Libertarian Party still has yet to update their own ballot access map on their website, however (http://ballot-access.org/2016/09/09/rhode-island-secretary-of-state-says-three-independent-presidential-petitions-have-enough-valid-signatures/). Okay, so now that Gary Johnson has total ballot access in all 50 states and D.C., I believe his picture should be included in the first row. Maybe we should wait until we get confirmation by the Libertarian Party updating their own ballot access map, but the issue remains of whether Johnson should be in the first row, and I believe he should. Someone else here on this talk page suggested a 5% polling rule for the first row. That proposal was rejected but it may be worth noting that, even if we were to use that rule, Gary Johnson should be included in the first row because he has been consistently polling nationally at about 8% for some time now. In moving Gary Johnson to the first row, I believe Castle should be moved to the second so that we can go back to having just two rows. Not only does having three rows just seem clunky and annoying, but if Johnson is moved to the first row, it would simply be silly to have one row for Stein and one row for Castle.VladJ92 (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Having ballot access to every electoral vote is a symbolic milestone. Johnson's chances of winning hardly increased tbh. Ask yourself this: if Johnson had ballot access to every electoral vote, but Trump didn't have ballot access in Washington, D.C. would you place Johnson in the first row and Trump in the second row? I'm worried that putting Johnson in the first row would violate WP:UNDUE. Do the reliable sources view Johnson as being on the same level as Clinton and Trump? If not (which I'm sure they don't), why would they be on the same level (row) in the article? Maybe making it to at least one of the CPD debates would be reasonable criteria for inclusion in the 1st row since the reliable sources would most likely cover a third party candidate more than they have been doing. But I highly doubt Johnson's ballot access milestone will result in significantly more coverage. I am however open to having 3 people in one row i.e. Johnson, Stein, and Castle in the 2nd row. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- The CPD has a 15% polling requirement and they can choose their own set of polls, so that would be a much stricter requirement than the old 5% polling requirement that already doesn't have support. I doubt that such a standard is workable this year. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just unlikely to get support. Personally I don't like a standard that lets polling organizations control who can be considered by simply not polling those they don't like. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I totally understand not wanting to use polls as criteria for inclusion in the 1st row. But if Jill Stein also gets ballot access to every electoral college vote, she would probably remain in the 2nd row even though Johnson and Stein would belong in the same row in my opinion. Clinton and Trump get far more coverage and as a result only having those two in the 1st row would be an example of applying due weight. If the reliable sources start covering the election as a three-way race then maybe it would be acceptable to include Johnson (or whomever) in the 1st row. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- The CPD has a 15% polling requirement and they can choose their own set of polls, so that would be a much stricter requirement than the old 5% polling requirement that already doesn't have support. I doubt that such a standard is workable this year. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just unlikely to get support. Personally I don't like a standard that lets polling organizations control who can be considered by simply not polling those they don't like. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Summary
- Castle cannot appear in the infobox unless there is a change in the long-standing consensus that says that the only candidates in the infobox are those who are on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical possibility to obain 270 electoral votes. (That consensus was reached with scores of editors and changing it would require a well-publicised RfC with unanimity from many editors, not just 2-out-of-3 editors during a holiday weekend.)
- There is a consensus, recently reached here on this article via RfC, as to the order of the candidates in the infobox based on previous electoral results.
- There has never been a consensus as to the number of rows or the number of candidates per row.
- The use of polls for making these types of editorial decisions has been discussed many times and rejected for many reasons, including the fact that polls are unreliable. (Actual election results, however, have been used as a criterion, although they too have the inherent problem of arbitrariousness.(Is that a word?)
- Also, changing the inclusion criteria for the infobox to accomodate specific candidates or for specific elections seems like a biased way to handle these election articles. See Stare decisis Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: There was a subsection added to this discussion titled "Row of three". I refactored it as a sandalone discussion. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just to be clear; there is consensus to include
write-in access(as long as they have a slate of electors) for inclusion in the infobox. This has already been discussed this year and in 2012. Unless you can provide a link to this "long-standing consensus" you are referring to- Castle should remain in the infobox. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just to be clear; there is consensus to include
-
- "I agree with Jay. The candidates with enough ballot access (not write-in status) to win the election should be included here. Wikipedia influences the polls, not vice versa."
- "... agree on some criterias the (third party) Candidates should meet. When I read this through I can see a concensus for for the first:
- "*The candidate will appear on enough state ballots to actually win the election (270 electorial votes) Done (concensus reached)"
- Further, the discussion cited above by User:Prcc27 (which was not a discussion about infobox inclusion) says right at the top:
-
- "Yes, but with the understanding that write-in status does not confer notability. IMO, we should only list it for the candidates that have achieved actual ballot access elsewhere. Moreover, it should not be used when calculating eligibility for the infobox."
-
- I'm going to put this link and a summary at the top of this page so there will be more more efforts at consesus creep. If you want to change the consesus, then go ahead and open a well-advertised RfC and try to change it, but don't try to attempt to alter the criteria for inclusion in the infobox by mis-stating or mis-characterizing what was discussed and agreed to in 2012; or by opening a discussion during the Labor Day holidays with a handful of editors. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Row of three
I just reverted this on the article. As I have stated before, I am fine with having a row of three but the current size of the pictures screws with the rendering of the article on smaller screens. So does anyone have objections to shrinking the size of the images to accommodate three photos on each row? --Majora (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- There are only four candidates in the infobox. If Castle ever makes it into the infobox, then 3 + 2 might make sense, but with four candidates, it makes more sense to have the four on a single row as is done on many other election articles. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
4 on one line will just revert back to the same issue we had before with the larger pictures. Why do people keep wanted to screw with the rendering of this article on smaller screens? This is not acceptable and this is an accessibility issue for the entirety of our readership. If there are only four candidates in the infobox, there is a previous consensus. The two major parties on top and the two third party candidates in the second row. That was decided on a long time ago and I can dig through the archives tomorrow to find it if you want. I strongly oppose 4 on one line and will continue to oppose anything that lessens the reader's experience with this article. They are our audience and their needs should be priority number one. --Majora (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)- This whole thing is moot anyways. The template does not support four pictures in one row as you have been told before here. --Majora (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- There are only four candidates in the infobox. If Castle ever makes it into the infobox, then 3 + 2 might make sense, but with four candidates, it makes more sense to have the four on a single row as is done on many other election articles. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Looks ridiculous every election has only 2 at the top unless there is significant third party performance. Until the election happens and there ever is I think the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties should be in the 2nd row as a row of three.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
- Templates serve editorial decisions, not the other way around. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Majora, for that info on mobile/accessibility. We have discussed the issue of the number of photos per row recently without obtaining consensus and without reference to any known previous consensus. Yes, if you have a link, I would like to review any previous discussion/consensus on the issue. Accessibility for mobile users, etc. is a consideration. How about organizing the candidates in a vertical column? That would work on both wide screens and for mobile devices. Another option I suggested a long time ago to just get rid of the photographs all together and put a presidential seal or something in the infobox. That would save an awful lot of editor time trying to figure out which pictures to use and how to arrange them. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:49, 10 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 those involved in editing this article might be interested in here. The polling is set to conclude on September 20, 2016. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)