NextUSprez (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
::William, let's just have this discussion here (rather than [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHugetim&type=revision&diff=687984387&oldid=687983977 in two places]), OK? What I meant is that the people who registered those names were referring to those people, just as Brady C. Olson was referring to a pre-existing concept when he registered as "Deez Nuts." Regarding Eugene Puryear, yes, of course. What I'm waiting for from you (the only person taking this position) is why this template should not reflect the way that reliable sources (as opposed to "my personal belief") repeatedly and clearly delineate ineligible and fake candidates from eligible and real ones. -[[user:Hugetim|hugeTim]] <sup>([[user talk:Hugetim|talk]])</sup> 22:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC) |
::William, let's just have this discussion here (rather than [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHugetim&type=revision&diff=687984387&oldid=687983977 in two places]), OK? What I meant is that the people who registered those names were referring to those people, just as Brady C. Olson was referring to a pre-existing concept when he registered as "Deez Nuts." Regarding Eugene Puryear, yes, of course. What I'm waiting for from you (the only person taking this position) is why this template should not reflect the way that reliable sources (as opposed to "my personal belief") repeatedly and clearly delineate ineligible and fake candidates from eligible and real ones. -[[user:Hugetim|hugeTim]] <sup>([[user talk:Hugetim|talk]])</sup> 22:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::Because such delineation is not necessary.--[[User:William S. Saturn|William S. Saturn]] ([[User talk:William S. Saturn|talk]]) 23:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC) |
:::Because such delineation is not necessary.--[[User:William S. Saturn|William S. Saturn]] ([[User talk:William S. Saturn|talk]]) 23:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::So simply referring to someone makes that person a presidential candidate? [http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/509/201508239000927509/201508239000927509.pdf Joe Biden] is a candidate? [http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/488/201508259000929488/201508259000929488.pdf Elizabeth Warren] is a candidate? Don't be obtuse. It's clear what you were doing and it was disruptive.--[[User:William S. Saturn|William S. Saturn]] ([[User talk:William S. Saturn|talk]]) 23:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ping|William S. Saturn}} I admit that my edit was borderline [[WP:POINT]] (though I was not conscious of that guideline when I made the edit), but it was a substantive edit which took me quite a bit of time to carefully compile based on reliable sources--I attempted to include all declared candidates with names notable enough to have Wikipedia pages, which is what I understand the current criteria for inclusion here to be. You're the one being obtuse if you think a hyperlink to Ronald Reagan implies Ronald Reagan is a candidate. No, someone registered "Ghost of Ronald Reagan" as a candidate, completely on par with "Deez Nuts," and the hyperlink just explains what that absurd name is referencing. |
|||
::::Back to the issue at hand: delineating candidates as withdrawn or ineligible is absolutely necessary for a template such as this, which is directing people to information about on ongoing election. Including ineligible candidates at all is itself an attempted compromise with your extreme position. I think everyone else may prefer to remove Deez Nuts from the template altogether, since he is not a real candidate (though he is a story related to the campaign that should be linked to in the appropriate place elsewhere. -[[user:Hugetim|hugeTim]] <sup>([[user talk:Hugetim|talk]])</sup> 14:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Redirects for "positions". == |
== Redirects for "positions". == |
Revision as of 14:42, 29 October 2015
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Inclusion of secondary candidates
@William S. Saturn: I don't see any reason for including additional candidates that aren't contenders, that are either perennials or whatever they might be. Personally, I think they are a distraction when put with the credible candidates running, who might show up in the debates and primaries. I mean Waka Flocka Flame on the same immediate areas as Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton? I think its unnecessary, and unwarranted. Especially on the Republican side, when by month's end we'll have like 80 candidates... Spartan7W § 01:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- It may be a future problem but it is certainly not a problem at the moment. The template is currently very small so there is no spatial reason to separate candidates into tiers subjectively. Each link is to a valid wikipedia article. The purpose of a template is for navigation to wikipedia articles. That is what the change is meant to facilitate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with William S. Saturn and support returning it to the previous format. Gage (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Based on what?--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with William S. Saturn and support returning it to the previous format. Gage (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- It may be a future problem but it is certainly not a problem at the moment. The template is currently very small so there is no spatial reason to separate candidates into tiers subjectively. Each link is to a valid wikipedia article. The purpose of a template is for navigation to wikipedia articles. That is what the change is meant to facilitate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Charles A. Long
Resolved - article in question has been deleted |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@NextUSprez: @JayJasper: @David O. Johnson: I don't think that Mr. Long is of sufficient note to be included in this template. There are thousands filed for President with the FEC, and Mr. Long has not received any stories, not even minor ones, that show up in a search, which others may have. Mark Everson was IRS Commissioner, and that adds notability even if a non-competitive, and such with others who are notable for a news story or their perennial nature. If no comments are taken otherwise, I will removed in 36 hours. I've pinged recent editors involved in this template Spartan7W § 04:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I would disagree. Long's article only existed after he was a filed candidate with the FEC. Had he not filed with them, he wouldn't have had an article. The article is almost certain to be deleted, and my question is why it didn't get nominated for speedy deletion. Spartan7W § 19:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Independent candidates
This page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2016 is missing from the template. Kimpire (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's there, it had been hidden for some unknown reason, but it's visible now.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Vermin Supreme...
...has apparently not actually filed to run, unless his secret birth name is the one that appears on this list: http://fec.gov/press/press2013/presidential_form2nm.shtml. Should he really be in this template? Kimpire (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, because his candidacy is verified by reliable sources. Filing with the FEC is one of the inclusion standards, but it's not a make-or-break one. The reason it isn't is that the FEC doesn't require anyone to file until they have raised or spent a minimum amount of money ($5,000, I think) for their campaign.--Rollins83 (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Ineligible candidates
Including merely satirical candidates is one thing; including candidates who are not constitutionally eligible and are satirical like this "Deez Nuts" is another. Regardless of whether or not he is technically a candidate for legal reasons, he is not a real candidate and has no chance of winning. I removed Waka Flacka Flame for similar reasons. Dustin (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- You are then editing against established consensus. One does not need to be constitutionally eligible to be president in order to run for president. Running for president is not the same as being president.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- @William S. Saturn: Deez Nuts was not added until very recently, and I reverted soon after that. Where is this "consensus" you speak of? Dustin (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- You can find the consensus at the talk pages of USPE, 2012 or USPE, 2016 or in their archives. This issue is not one taken on a case-by-case basis. NPOV demands it be consistent.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with William S. Saturn, there needs to be consistency in the criterion for inclusion. The same candidates that are included in the main election article, and in the corresponding candidates/primaries articles, should be included on the template as well. That is the simplest, most practical and NPOV application, is it not?--NextUSprez (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- What consensus? I see not a consensus but mixed opinions here. It should require consensus to add it, so you are the one who needs to find consensus. Dustin (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I repeat, what consensus? Dustin (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you did a little more reading, I'm sure you'd find it. Regardless, what you are proposing is a violation of NPOV. What you consider a "real candidate" or a candidate with a "chance of winning" is completely your own POV.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- And this "violation of NPOV" means you can make additions without consensus? If you think I misread the text somehow, then please explain to me why what looks like mixed thoughts is a consensus. Dustin (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I can't read your mind and explain why you misunderstand things. All I can see is that you are removing candidates against consensus based only on your POV expressed here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- And this "violation of NPOV" means you can make additions without consensus? If you think I misread the text somehow, then please explain to me why what looks like mixed thoughts is a consensus. Dustin (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you did a little more reading, I'm sure you'd find it. Regardless, what you are proposing is a violation of NPOV. What you consider a "real candidate" or a candidate with a "chance of winning" is completely your own POV.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- You can find the consensus at the talk pages of USPE, 2012 or USPE, 2016 or in their archives. This issue is not one taken on a case-by-case basis. NPOV demands it be consistent.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- @William S. Saturn: Deez Nuts was not added until very recently, and I reverted soon after that. Where is this "consensus" you speak of? Dustin (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that satirical or ineligible candidates belong on this particular template. If they are kept, then they ought to be explicitly identified on the template as satirical or ineligible or whatever. But they really do belong somewhere else, not here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is a navigational template to reach articles of a certain type. This is a not a place to put unnecessary labels on articles based on a misconception. It is a complete misconception that people ineligible to be president cannot run for president. They can and have.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- So what possible objection could you have to saying "ineligible" on the template? I would prefer a separate template for ineligible candidates, but if they remain on this template then what's wrong with saying they're ineligible? Also, I believe there are plenty of candidates who are not listed on this template, so what criteria are we using to exclude them while including "Deez Nutz"? Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Because that's extraneous information. This is a tool to navigate to wikipedia articles and so only those candidates with a wikipedia article are linked.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- What if person wants to navigate to ineligible candidates, or wants to avoid navigating to ineligible candidates. Why can't the template say which are which?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- What if person wants to navigate to black candidates, or wants to avoid navigating to black candidates? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- We need to decide whether eligibility is relevant like political affiliation, or irrelevant like skin color. That oughta be an easy call.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant. Running for president is not the same as serving as president. We do not need to create a separate template for the two ineligible-to-serve candidates. Furthermore, we do not need to add any more extraneous information to this template. There's enough of that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Running for president isn't the same as being president, but it's very closely related. It's very misleading to say that someone's running for president without mentioning that even if they win the vote, they can't become president. So it's not extraneous in the least. I think the best option is either to add the word "(ineligible)" after each such candidate, or to add an asterisk with a note on the bottom. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant. Running for president is not the same as serving as president. We do not need to create a separate template for the two ineligible-to-serve candidates. Furthermore, we do not need to add any more extraneous information to this template. There's enough of that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- We need to decide whether eligibility is relevant like political affiliation, or irrelevant like skin color. That oughta be an easy call.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- What if person wants to navigate to black candidates, or wants to avoid navigating to black candidates? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- What if person wants to navigate to ineligible candidates, or wants to avoid navigating to ineligible candidates. Why can't the template say which are which?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Because that's extraneous information. This is a tool to navigate to wikipedia articles and so only those candidates with a wikipedia article are linked.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- So what possible objection could you have to saying "ineligible" on the template? I would prefer a separate template for ineligible candidates, but if they remain on this template then what's wrong with saying they're ineligible? Also, I believe there are plenty of candidates who are not listed on this template, so what criteria are we using to exclude them while including "Deez Nutz"? Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I think we have reached consensus (which is not necessarily unanimity, but rather the conclusiveness of arguments). Whether a person is eligible to hold an office is particularly relevant to the process of them coming to hold that office. I'm not sure what could possibly be more relevant. And NPOV requires that fringe candidates/views not be given the same prominence and treatment as other candidates/views, consistent with the way reliable sources treat them. I like Ypnypn's specific proposal. -hugeTim (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is not the template's purpose to display such specific information about candidates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Would you advocate removing all information about party and whether candidates have withdrawn? The thing is that Waka waka and Deez Nuts are not really candidates for President at all. If anything, they are candidates* for President. -hugeTim (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Party is a valid identifier because these individuals are running for the party's nomination. I would like to remove the withdrawn identifier because, in the end, all but one will be withdrawn. Whether there is a difference between a "candidate" and a "candidate*" is your personal belief.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, the difference between a candidate and a "candidate" is determined by reliable sources, such as http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/08/21/deez-nuts-for-president-sparks-a-new-wave-of-fake-candidates/ -hugeTim (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Ypnypn's and Hugetim's specific proposal, for the reasons explained above (by me and by them). We should either add the word "(ineligible)" after each such candidate, or add an asterisk with a note on the bottom.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do you agree with Hugetim's recent vandalism to the page as well? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Could you please explain why you are accusing me of vandalism? I think we should either list all notable ineligible candidates or none.
By the way, you are in violation of WP:3RR. I would suggest reversing your most recent revert.You're just under the 3RR line. My mistake. -hugeTim (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)- You are adding nonsense to the template and linking to unrelated pages. It is evident you are only here to cause disruption.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- While I think adding Satan and Hip Hop to the infobox are definitely disruptive edits, I don't think it is accurate to discredit what may have at least originally been a good faith motion to change. I agree that some sort of "Ineligible" label should be used. Dustin (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Could you please explain why you are accusing me of vandalism? I think we should either list all notable ineligible candidates or none.
- Do you agree with Hugetim's recent vandalism to the page as well? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Ypnypn's and Hugetim's specific proposal, for the reasons explained above (by me and by them). We should either add the word "(ineligible)" after each such candidate, or add an asterisk with a note on the bottom.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, the difference between a candidate and a "candidate" is determined by reliable sources, such as http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/08/21/deez-nuts-for-president-sparks-a-new-wave-of-fake-candidates/ -hugeTim (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Party is a valid identifier because these individuals are running for the party's nomination. I would like to remove the withdrawn identifier because, in the end, all but one will be withdrawn. Whether there is a difference between a "candidate" and a "candidate*" is your personal belief.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Would you advocate removing all information about party and whether candidates have withdrawn? The thing is that Waka waka and Deez Nuts are not really candidates for President at all. If anything, they are candidates* for President. -hugeTim (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is not the template's purpose to display such specific information about candidates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
That's the only reason I'm here, huh? Can you give an example of the nonsense and links to unrelated pages I've added? Seriously, these are notable names that have been submitted to the FEC and they have received marginal coverage in reliable sources just as Waka Flocka had (without actually declaring). I think people interested in this presidential election may be interested to know these names. I found them interesting, myself. -hugeTim (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you truly believe "Ghost of Macho Man Randy Savage" is "Randy Savage" then there may be some serious WP:COMPETENCY issues here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Should the note also be added to Eugene Puryear since he is an underage running mate? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- William, let's just have this discussion here (rather than in two places), OK? What I meant is that the people who registered those names were referring to those people, just as Brady C. Olson was referring to a pre-existing concept when he registered as "Deez Nuts." Regarding Eugene Puryear, yes, of course. What I'm waiting for from you (the only person taking this position) is why this template should not reflect the way that reliable sources (as opposed to "my personal belief") repeatedly and clearly delineate ineligible and fake candidates from eligible and real ones. -hugeTim (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Because such delineation is not necessary.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- So simply referring to someone makes that person a presidential candidate? Joe Biden is a candidate? Elizabeth Warren is a candidate? Don't be obtuse. It's clear what you were doing and it was disruptive.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- @William S. Saturn: I admit that my edit was borderline WP:POINT (though I was not conscious of that guideline when I made the edit), but it was a substantive edit which took me quite a bit of time to carefully compile based on reliable sources--I attempted to include all declared candidates with names notable enough to have Wikipedia pages, which is what I understand the current criteria for inclusion here to be. You're the one being obtuse if you think a hyperlink to Ronald Reagan implies Ronald Reagan is a candidate. No, someone registered "Ghost of Ronald Reagan" as a candidate, completely on par with "Deez Nuts," and the hyperlink just explains what that absurd name is referencing.
- Back to the issue at hand: delineating candidates as withdrawn or ineligible is absolutely necessary for a template such as this, which is directing people to information about on ongoing election. Including ineligible candidates at all is itself an attempted compromise with your extreme position. I think everyone else may prefer to remove Deez Nuts from the template altogether, since he is not a real candidate (though he is a story related to the campaign that should be linked to in the appropriate place elsewhere. -hugeTim (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- William, let's just have this discussion here (rather than in two places), OK? What I meant is that the people who registered those names were referring to those people, just as Brady C. Olson was referring to a pre-existing concept when he registered as "Deez Nuts." Regarding Eugene Puryear, yes, of course. What I'm waiting for from you (the only person taking this position) is why this template should not reflect the way that reliable sources (as opposed to "my personal belief") repeatedly and clearly delineate ineligible and fake candidates from eligible and real ones. -hugeTim (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Redirects for "positions".
Some of the candidates have "positions" articles, and some have links that redirect to other articles already mentioned, which seems redundant to me. I would get rid of the redirects. bd2412 T 14:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Waka Flocka Flame
It's not just that he's ineligible. The fact that he hasn't registered with the FEC is determinative in his case because he has clearly spent (and/or raised as in-kind contributions from Rolling Stone and others) more than $5000 on his "campaign" videos: http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/23/rapper-waka-flocka-flame-is-running-for-president-what-are-his-views-on-foreign-policy/ -hugeTim (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Filing with the FEC is not a requirement to be a candidate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a reliable source that confirms he has spent and/or raised $5,000? Because the one linked above dosen't do that.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)