Talk:2017 French presidential election/Archive 1

Emmanuel Macron
Is there a reason as to why Macron has been excluded from the list of potential Socialist party candidates, given his inclusion in large amounts of polling data and decent sources supirting his inclusion? 81.136.40.227 (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you find the url of one of these sources? If so, then list him. Or put the url here and I'll do it. Earthscent (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

LR.
Why did you remove the surnames of other LR candidates? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Three reasons here: because they didn't took part in the LR primaries. Also, because just giving the last name of people without links to their pages or who they are basically is not really a way to edit on wikipedia. And last, but not least: because it was unsourced. Find a source for each candidate, I promise not to remove them from the article (although they might not belong in the LR section). Tuttiseme (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I was basing on The_Republicans_(France)_presidential_primary,_2016. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 01:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This article you linked is highly outdated, most of the candidacies were withdrawn. Only seven (Copé, NKM, Sarkozy, Poissons, Juppé, Le Maire & Fillon) are in the run (I can point you to the French wiki).

Infobox criteria
Ten candidates contested the 2012 election. They can't possibly all fit in here.

British by-election infoboxes include the parties who got 5% or more last time. There is a legal basis to that as it means they keep their deposit.

The option could be to include those whose party got to the second round last time, but then again Marine Le Pen and Macron are very serious contenders for this election. In any case, going as far down as the Greens - who got less than 3% last time - looks like it's going too far. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Choosing criteria that all editors agree with will be difficult. From reading last election's talk page, here are a few comments:
 * I don't think limiting the infobox to two candidates prior to the first round is a good idea. The field is much larger than only the two major parties. As we've seen not so long ago, a third candidate sometimes reaches the second-round.
 * Ultimately, we should keep only those candidates who've managed to collect the 500 signatures necessary to run. However, since that might only happen in March, we may need other criteria until then.
 * We can choose to order candidates by previous election results or polls. I'd favour using previous election results since polls might not agree with each other, leading to edit warring. Alphabetical order is not a good option in my opinion.
 * There were only five candidates in the infobox last time. I don't know how that number was chosen, but I certainly wouldn't mind extending this number to six in order to have a good looking infobox. More than six will cause more problems, especially if we choose to order candidates by opinion polls.
 * Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Candidates
The Infobox should be limited to the eventual Socialist candidate, Fillon, Le Pen, Macron and Melenchon. The Greens candidate is polling at 2% and isn't likely to be a factor at all in the election. All of the candidates I listed are polling at double digits and are relevant to the reader. Just my two cents. 2601:345:8302:5800:547A:FCC3:921C:9869 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, François Bayrou has polled above 5%. If the criteria for inclusion is a threshold percentage in polling, the infobox should have six, but MoDem instead of the Greens. I don't know what, if anything, as been decided regarding inclusion requirements, so I will leave it to someone more knowledgeable to make any necessary edits. --Vrivasfl (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, Bayrou hasn't declared his candidacy (...yet?). He intends to decide in January (i.e., when it's clear who wins the Socialist primary/whether Fillon softens his program/Macron gives more specifics). I'd be in favor of including him if he did declare then. Mélencron (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. Those five for now (PS, Fillon, Macron, Le Pen, Mélenchon), + Bayrou if or when he decides to stand. Aridd (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not think Mélenchon should be included and I also think the case for including Hamon is very weak. I shall explain why:
 * 1. The infobox is meant to be a summary of the main contenders and by any objective measure Mélenchon can not be considered to be a main contender anymore than François Bayrou can and we have not included him.
 * 2. Similarly, if we look at the data, there is virtually no chance that Hamon will get through to the second round. I can't find any credible reliable source that suggests this to be in anyway likely.
 * 3. The only thing Hamon has going in his favour for inclusion in the infobox is that he is running for the incumbent party. Given that he is not the incumbent candidate I do not see this as reason enough to warrant his inclusion.
 * 4. The infobox is inconsistent with how we have presented the polling and indeed how the media are presenting it. There are no second round polls that include Mélenchon or Hamon. There are 3 clear contenders here;Fillon, Le Pen and Macron. The infobox is meant to be a summary, not a full list.
 * Please consider the removal of Mélenchon & Hamon. Thank you 118.148.173.185 (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In prior years (2012, at least), all candidates polling a decent percentage of the vote have been included. I don't see any reason not to include all five in the infobox, given that they are all currently polling above 10%. The comments you've made are largely speculative, in any case; I don't believe inclusion should be based on the chances they make it to the second round, much less win. Also, Bayrou hasn't even announced his candidacy – thus his exclusion. Most recent two polls: Le Pen 27/25, Macron 23/21, Fillon 20/22, Hamon 17/15, Mélenchon 10/10. Mélencron (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Inclusion and order of candidates

 * Please see above for original exchange. This is my response to Mélencron's above comments and case for removal:
 * 1. I do not see the relevance of the 10% figure, it seems like a number pulled out of thin air. 10% has no actual relevance within the electoral system the election is fought under. 10% does not get you through to the next round. We might as well have picked 5% or 15% or even 2.5% for arguments sake. This is a very subjective approach and ignores what our reliable sources tell us. It leaves us open to accusation such as "oh, we're clearly using the 10% cut off to exclude Bayrou" - to be clear I myself am not making that accusation; merely using it as an example.
 * 2. My comments are not "speculative" and I feel that this comment is unfair and dismissive when I have presented a more structured and objective argument then you have. If these comments are "speculative", it is not me doing the speculating; it is our reliable sources.In any case they are doing so on the most solid evidence we have; polling data. I challenge you to prove me wrong; find me a reliable source that suggests that either Mélenchon or Hamon making it through to the second round is anything more than the vaguest of outside possibilities?
 * 3. This is a Presidential election, not a Parlimentary or legislative election; there is only one seat up for grabs here and that is the Presidency. If we were talking about legislative elections where your arbitrary "10%" would actually mean something, then I would agree, yes there could (I stress could) be a case for inclusion even if the party didn't win any seats. However, that is simply not what we are talking about here. Our reliable sources tell us there are only 3 parties/candidates that stand a chance of even getting through to the second round, never mind securing the Presidency.
 * 4. We have a full list of candidates lower down in the article, so it is not like Mélenchon or Hamon will be removed from the article but it will mean that we are not giving either candidate undue prominence. Also, when it comes to the result, there will be a full results table, so there is actually nothing to be gained from giving these candidates undue prominance in face of evidence.
 * I am curious to hear the views of others on this. 2407:7000:875B:C370:5DF7:7160:D364:D6EE (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that Hamon is being given undue prominence at this point – if you wish to include Le Pen (polling at 24.5%) and Fillon/Macron (polling at 20%), then why not Hamon (polling at 17%)? I don't see much reason to exclude him in particular, given his recent surge in the polls; it's plausible that any of those four could advance to the second round. Perhaps I could remind you that the 2012 article on the day of the election included all five candidates polling above 10% (Sarkozy, Hollande, Le Pen, Mélenchon, and Bayrou), which seems a reasonable enough threshold to me, given that no other candidates are polling anywhere near that mark. See this talk page discussion on the 2012 article for the reasoning elucidated then, which I've essentially repeated: if the infobox is to be based on anything, it's on the candidates' levels in opinion polling – not on the probability that the candidate advances to, or wins, the second round. In any case, I'd feel it'd be unfair to exclude them – Hamon as the candidate of the incumbent party (who was polling as low as 4% only a few days ago!) and Mélenchon due to his standing in opinion polls (once only a few points behind Macron before his slow climb upwards). A more favorable solution, in my view, might be to reorder the candidates to reflect the state of the race as follows: Fillon, Macron, Le Pen (as the original three in the three-horse race), Hamon, and Mélenchon. For the record, 10% isn't a hard limit for inclusion in my view – it's just that there aren't any other candidates polling anywhere near it at the moment other than these five candidates. Mélencron (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't think that Hamon is given undue prominance at this point? Are you looking at the reliable sources? I challenged you to find a reliable source that suggests Hamon or Mélenchon has any credible chance of getting through to the second round and you have been unable to do so. You saying it is "plausible" simply isn't good enough. Reliable sources please?
 * You have actually managed to further undermine your own argument here as the reality does not fit your criteria; of the 2 most recent polls Mélenchon is polling below 10%, so according to your own arbitrary criteria Mélenchon should be excluded from the infobox as he is not polling consistently above 10% but lets look a bit deeper here: The small rise in Hamon's poll ratings has come at the price of Mélenchon (+the greens and other leftist parties); the gains/losses are very similar. Any attempt to argue that Hamon has a "credible" chance of getting through to the second round completely undermines your argument for Mélenchon's inclusion. I think you actually need to look again at what is going on here and reassess what you are arguing for.
 * I would take your point about incumbency if it actually meant anything in this election...the incumbent President isn't actually running, so there is no incumbency! Again this is a Presidential Election where an individual is given a personal mandate. It is not a party mandate, the President can not simply be ousted and replaced solely at the discretion of the party's MP's, it's not like were talking about a Prime Minister in a Parliament in which case your point would be valid. The Legislative election is separate and of course your point about incumbency is relevant there but not in this article.
 * However, on balance if Mélenchon was removed from the infobox, I can see a legitimate argument for Hamon remaining; I do take note of his increase in poll ratings since being confirmed as the Socialist Candidate. I wouldn't be suprised if we started to see Hamon included in 2 way polling with Le Pen, Fillon and Macron; if this was to happen, this would solidify his grounds for inclusion. However; for this argument to hold any weight, this is clearly at the expense of Mélenchon. I simply see no logical argument of having them both in there.
 * You raise an interesting point about the order of candidates and honestly I do not know what best to do about that. We could try and go down the incumbency route and reflect the share of the vote each party's candidate secured last time (this is what they do on the US election pages): So in this case it would be: Hamon, Fillon, Le Pen, Macron. As a side note, this is another reason for not including Mélenchon as it would put him above Macron (he clearly is not). The other route would be to look at average of polls; Le Pen, Fillon, Macron, Hamon; I do not fvour this as it is subject to change and not terribly consistent. The other option of course is good old alphabetical order; Fillon, Hamon, Le Pen, Macron (last 2 vice versa depending on whether we go off the L or the P in Le Pen).
 * 1. Based on the order respective parties former candidates came in the last election.
 * 2. Average order of current 1st round polling. Subject to change: Fillon and Macron could quite easily swap places
 * 3. Alphabetical in order of candidates Surname: For Le Pen do we use "L" or "P"?
 * Please see options laid out on th right hand side of this section. Any thoughts? 2407:7000:875B:C370:A5C8:43FE:B396:A942 (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to dissect every piece of your wall of text. Here's my thoughts, though:
 * I think candidates should be included on the infobox not on the basis of their chances of advancing to the second round or winning the election, but based on their position first-round polling. At the moment, these five candidates are all polling at a significant level. You keep demanding me to provide sources regarding Hamon – to that I say that you've literally edited the talk page of the article that provides you with that very evidence. So far as I can tell, there's been almost no mention of Hamon's surge (or Hamon at all) in English media, with the exception of Bloomberg. It's really still only reflecting the three-horse-race narrative; aside from Bloomberg, in Anglo media, only the FT has acknowledged Hamon's polling.
 * However, if you're following the French press as well, you'll notice that Hamon's sudden rise to the verge of second-round qualification has not gone unnoticed – and that an alliance of Hamon with the environmentalists (Jadot/EELV) and Mélenchon has not been ruled out. In fact, Hamon made such an offer recently which Mélenchon responded to yesterday, iirc. It's far from a remote possibility that the left allies as such, and if it does, then Hamon is suddenly in pole position. However, that's purely hypothetical and beside the point.
 * The real reason that Hamon merits inclusion, aside from his poll position, is because he's the candidate of the incumbent party, which is traditionally always listed first in election infoboxes – even when polling manifestly indicates that they will almost certainly lose (as was Sarko in 2012).
 * There's a stronger case for excluding Mélenchon at this moment as Hamon siphons left-wing votes, but my view is still that he should be included, given his level in the polling.
 * As to ordering of candidates, I've already noted that incumbency typically outweighs other factors in election infoboxes, so I suppose Hamon ought to be first. Following polling, Mélenchon then ought to be last. As for the others, I'm not so sure, but I'd rather establish a permanent position for all these candidates well before the election.
 * I'd probably argue that Fillon be listed second (candidate of the traditional centre-right party), followed by Le Pen (given her chance of making it to the second round) and Macron.
 * In terms of likelihood of making it to the second round, though, it's Le Pen > Macron > Hamon > Fillon > Mélenchon. Ignoring Hamon and Mélenchon, it's Le Pen > Macron > Fillon otherwise, but that ignores second-round polling, in which Le Pen is sure to lose; in that case, we'd conclude that Macron > Fillon > Le Pen would be the optimal ordering.
 * In terms of overall chances, though, it's Macron (48%) > Le Pen (13%) > Fillon (9%) = Hamon (9%) > [Juppé (6%)] > Mélenchon (2%) = [Bayrou (2%)], giving us Macron > Le Pen > Fillon. I'm basing these off of the estimates of the French prediction market Hypermind, by the way.
 * I'm also not sure we should base inclusion in the infobox based on the use of second-round polling, simply given the view I've provided above regarding whether we ought to base inclusion off of chances of making it to the second round (I don't think that we should). In any case, that's subjective and very much a subjective choice made by individual pollsters and media firms.
 * Regardless, I'm opposed to listing the candidates purely by surnames because it gives a misleading impression of the state of the race. Given the traditional prioritization of incumbency, though, it's difficult to maintain that, regardless of whether or not we simply listed them alphabetically. Mélencron (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see why you say that you're "not going to dissect every piece of your wall of text"? You have just written something of a similar size. I bothered to read and respond to all of your arguments and make my own points too; you have not. This is an unreasonable approach to a discussion on here. Looking at your response it seems you haven't even read my argument or taken in any of the substance. If you actually read what I put you will see that I acknowlage an argum,ent for keeping Hamon in the infobox...indeed each of the 3 suggestions of the way forward actually include Hamon in the infobox. Just look above! Please can you try and engage properly here?
 * As far as all the other things you've said go; we need to be objective and consistent, we can't just make a way up of picking the order of candidates, we need to do it in a consistent way. I think we both agree that incumbency is probably the safest way to go forward but as I have already explained and as you have in part conceded; I really do not see how you can justify having both Hamon and Melenchon in there; there are times when Melenchon doesn't even meet your artificial 10% anymore. 2407:7000:875B:C370:B1B6:DAB6:A7A7:DAE5 (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I notice that Mélencron has gone very quiet and not answered the above. Interestingly, this supposed bounce in Hamon's poll ratings has failed to sustain it's self. I am sure that Mélenchon should be removed from the infobox and I am doubtful that Hamon should remain but I can still see a few arguments for keeping him in, I cant for Mélenchon. 2407:7000:875B:C370:850B:FD6A:AA4:B385 (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Hamon is definitely still "meet[ing my] artificial 10%", and I don't really see a good reason to exclude candidates from the infobox simply because they don't have a chance of making the runoff – the election infobox shows the first-round candidates up until the runoff, so I feel we should just treat it as the highest-polling candidates within the first round. No one polls anywhere these five, but the gaps between these individual five candidates aren't all that large, either (typically around 3% or less). So far as I can tell, this issue doesn't bother anyone else, so I don't see much reason to engage since we clearly won't come to consensus on this issue if it's just us two discussing it. Mélencron (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Removing candidate/party list
I just noticed a series by an IP to this article, and frankly, I think they have a point with regards to the candidate list – it's long, basically pointless, and premature. I don't disagree with the idea of including a list of candidates, but I feel it makes much more sense to write it out as opposed to displaying it in gallery form. I also don't believe that the results template should be within the article until March, once the list of validated candidates is officially published. As a side note, I've begun working on a sandbox draft that conforms to these ideas (ignore the lack of an infobox/navigation boxes/external links/etc. – they'll be there as they are in the article; I'm working only on the text parts in the sandbox.) With this in mind, I'm not entirely sure how a list of candidates should be presented in a not-so-lengthy way: in the sandbox I've laid out a "candidates" section including those selected via the primary process (i.e., Fillon and Hamon) with an "Other" section for the rest, but I don't believe that's an ideal solution. Thoughts? Mélencron (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I created and added the results table, under the heading Overview, in part because of the messiness of the page. I found it difficult to read through and see who the various candidates were without having something like that with the basic information at the front. If it serves this use, no harm in having it, with notes as currently exist about candidates who may not read the ballot paper. --William Quill (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Changed commer in page title to a Hyphen
I have just amended the page title to a hyphen, should I revert this to keep in line with all the previous pages or amend all previous pages ?Joshua Marooney (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your contribution, Joshua Marooney. However, long standing practice on wikipedia is to use commas as per Naming conventions (government and legislation), and you have not given a reason to stray from this practice. In general, major changes should not take place without discussion. Please revert.  Rami  R  13:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Joshua Marooney (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Fillon affair
I'm working on constructing a comprehensive timeline of the Fillon affair before actually getting to writing later; here's what I've got so far. Let me know if you have any suggestions, or if I've missed anything noteworthy. Mélencron (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll be keeping it as a section for now, but might fork it to a separate article later once I finish writing up to the present (I've only finished up to 8 February at this point). Mélencron (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * At the moment, it's taking up a few large amount of space on the main page for something that also has a separate article. —William Quill (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sponsorship colors
What do the colors mean in the sponsorships table? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Left of the name: party. Background colors for cells with numbers: progress towards the required 500 sponsorships. Red indicates the fewest sponsorships, green indicates the most. (There's a comment in the article reading "1–50: #EAAAAA; 51–100: #EEBAAB; 101–150: #F2CBAC; 151–200: #F6DBAD; 201–250: #FAECAE; 251–300: #FFFDB0; 301–350: #EAF5AB; 351–400: #D5EDA7; 401–450: #C0E5A3; 451–500: #ABDD9F; 500+: #97D59B" to indicate the colors by number of signatures.) The table's sortable – try clicking to sort it and you'll see what I mean. Mélencron (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot find the legend anywhere. Where is it located? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 10:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a comment. Mélencron (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah right, my bad. I'm not sure the colours are that useful, a simple bold for those who pass the threshold would be sufficient. However if the colours must stay, then a legend must be visible. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Primaries
Just a quick FYI – I'll get to working on the sections on primaries in a few hours. Planned additions: about four paragraphs each for the LR/PS primaries, with maps of first/second round results and images of Alain Juppé and Manuel Valls added. Mélencron (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, probably only going to make a few additions for now (and not in the primaries section), need to plan that out a bit more. Mélencron (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Great work Mélencron on improving this article, it's quite informative now. I'd suggest including the results tables for the LR and PS primaries on this page too. I know they're in separate articles, but it's good that this main page for the elections provides a good account of the election campaign to date, and the tables provide that detail. Full detail of the pre-primary narrative can be left on those pages, but it's good that readers don't always have to click back-and-forth to get the main details. Just my thoughts while you're putting good work into the editing! —William Quill (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Have yet to write about the Socialist primary/attempts for a left-wing alliance. With that covered, as well as a brief note regarding FN's use of parliamentary assistants in the pre-campaign section, I'll finally be relatively satisfied with the article's state (and probably finally take the time to complete a full copyedit of the article), after which I think that B-Class seems reasonable. Mélencron (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible voter fraud
I don't know how to use wikipedia formatting properly, but I have not seen anything addressing the claim that voters in London are being allowed to vote twice due to a computer error. Is there anything that disproves this and if not, should this controversy be put in the main article? http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/792112/Marine-Le-Pen-French-election-votes-computer-Emmanuel-Macron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.172.21 (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The Daily and Sunday Express is the only source I can find for this claim and therefore it is suspect. Furthermore there is no electronic vote for the French voters living abroad for the presidential election this year, which excludes any electronic fraud. Only face-to-face and proxy votes are allowed. Besides, each voter can sign the sign-in list only once after they vote and their polling card will be stamped with the date of the polling, like any other French voter living in France. It means there is no possibility of voting more than once. For more information see the French embassy in London website : https://uk.ambafrance.org/Election-du-President-de-la-Republique-au-Royaume-Uni 77.197.238.223 (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Lucie
 * The issue is simply that an error led to 500,000 voters receiving more than one electoral card because they were listed twice on electoral rolls because of a previous domicile. This isn't voter fraud unless they actually vote twice, in which case they're fined 75,000 euros if caught. It's analogous to the U.S. case as well: you can be registered to vote in multiple states, but it's still illegal to vote more than once. Mélencron (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

wrong round. It should be round 1 not 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C810:E90:1824:CE2:8D7F:4C83 (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to slightly change the order of candidates within the infobox
Candidates are usually listed based off of parties' performance in the previous election; if this were to be implemented for this year's infobox, the order should be PS, UMP/LR, FN, FG/FI, EM (new). Therefore, it seems logical to reverse the positions of Macron (4th) and Mélenchon (5th) in the infobox. Incidentally, the closest 2012 analogue to Macron would be Bayrou, who, indeed came in fifth. Mélencron (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I propose removing the candidates from the infobox and instead placing the two key dates as well as a blank map of France's departments or communes that can be substituted with a first round results graphic once the first round result is in. The two candidates who proceed to the second round can then be inserted. Finding a better way to summarise the candidates without taking a position on who is the "challenger" is preferable to simply ranking the candidates in a subjective order. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with either proposal, given that the current infobox setting will be absolutely provisional until the two candidates going to the run-off are known (and in the end, only the two candidates in the second round will be left in the infobox). I agree that, if candidates are to be ordered by their counterparts' performances in the previous election, EM should go last. But I don't disagree either with having none until the two runner-offs are known after the 23 April round. Whatever of these it may be, the infobox current setting will not last beyond 23 April. Impru20 (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would keep the candidates, no matter the order (maybe alphabetical?) because it's a fundamental paramter of the election to know who are the main candidates. Wykx  (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but in the end the "main candidates" left in the infobox will be just the top two. So I've really no preference as to how this is accomplished before 23 April. Impru20 (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say candidate/party link and colour in the order they'll appear on the ballot, no photos or further information. Probably set as collapsible but uncollapsed. Blank commune map (we really need to sort out a vector file for overseas communes) with electorate size and any other important facts. Maswimelleu (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * fr.wikipedia will probably on the case when it comes to a map by communes + overseas. Mélencron (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Who decides which are the top two candidates ? I would prefer to see all candidates. It is not fair to make disappear the other, which ever they are. --Robertiki (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This has been standard practice for two-round elections: to list only the top two candidates/ones advancing to the runoff. I personally don't agree with it and think that the template should be amended to allow listing multiple candidates, but this is WP:E&R standard practice (I was digging around on Template talk:Infobox election the other day and apparently it's project consensus). Mélencron (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2017
Emmanuel Macron got 8,205,212 votes; Le Pen 7,490,156; Fillon 6,896,616; Melenchon 6,696,669; Hamon 2,172,226; Dupont-Aignan 1,651,939; Lassalle 425,878; Poutou 381,272; Asselineau 314,484; Arthaud 255,733; and Cheminade 62,914. 98.14.2.235 (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ The template (Template:French presidential election, 2017) is editable and no edit request is required. (Also, those numbers don't line up with those published by the Interior Ministry thus far.) Mélencron (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is Le Pen in gray?
and not in her color dark blue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.137 (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2017
The last part of the last sentence of the last paragraph of the first section of this article (the part before the index) "their combined share of the vote, at approximately 26%, was also a historic low.[3]" is contradicted by the table of results in the very next section... this would suggest that the cited article is wrong or was mistranslated. I would suggest removing this part of the sentence unless approx. 44% is also a historic low (I have no information on the validity of that). 51.7.246.250 (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 19.94% for LR + 6.35% for PS = 26.29%. I don't see where you get the 44% figure from. Impru20 (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Maps for results
Placing these here until results are released. --RaviC (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on election maps. Any chance that you could instead use a map by communes (as with 2012)? Ex. File:2012 French presidential election - First round - Majority vote (Metropolitan France, communes).svg Mélencron (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I don't have a base map for communes in overseas regions and territories. For metropolitan France, I can. --RaviC (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed... for 2007 there's a version including overseas regions/territories, but it's a png, unfortunately. Mélencron (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work. I've simply changed Macron's colour to grey. The previous colour looked dark red, which made him appear far-left. Aridd (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed the colours to party colours instead, since we're using those for everything and it'd look weird to have the map coloured in a different way. Impru20 (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you share the link where you are getting the data from, please? Izitpajn (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * and also Le Figaro Mélencron (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Great work,thank you! Can you make a board with results by department like the one with the regions? Rafael Boutzikas (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, once the data from data.gouv.fr (from the Interior Ministry) conforms with the announcement of official results published by the Constitutional Council. Mélencron (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Post-first round demonstrations
SOS Racisme held an anti-FN demonstration on the Place de la République today (24 April 2017). They were joined by the French Democratic Confederation of Labour, the Union Nationale des Étudiants de France, the Fédération des associations générales étudiantes and the Fédération indépendante et démocratique lycéenne. Several hundred people attended: Where can we add this referenced info please?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Second round section seems logical to me. Any solid-number comparisons to 2002? Mélencron (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Mélencron: Would you like to add the info about the demonstration in the right place please? And no solid-number comparisons, no.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There was another demonstration in Lille yesterday:
 * User:Mélencron: Can you please add it too? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Mélencron: Can you please add it too? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Legal troubles over Bahamas Offshore Account
There was recent news after the debate that Le Pen's "Hopefully we won't learn you have a bahamas offshore account" was widely offensive to Macron and he decided to take action and sue. Should we include this on the Second Round section? WolvesS (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll add in a short summary of the debate later (but not now, I'm busy). Mélencron (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * wondering if we should add in info about the hacking of EM's email system? WolvesS (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What about the friggen' ILLUMINATI?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! The charge, while hilarious, was made on RT, and was mentioned on France 24. Methinks it deserves at least a sentence or two12:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the political position of En Marche!
Your input would be appreciated here. Mélencron (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation
Seen a couple of edits declaring the president. As far as I am aware, this has not yet been called. Badanagram (attempt) 19:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The estimations at 20h are basically considered the call. They're extremely accurate and essentially treated as fact – in 2002, the pollsters were in touch with Chirac, for instance, and despite the narrow margin, they were able to tell his team that he would be facing JMLP in the second round two hours before! Mélencron (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism
Okay guys, the name changes on here are really funny but lets keep the article normal so people can read about the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:47:4200:8AF6:AC17:C294:684E:6B82 (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Percentages don't add up
The second part of the Results table doesn't make sense because it's not clearly stated what the percentages mean. As they are, they add up to more than a 100% (even though the Total claims, reassuringly but redundantly, "100%"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.A.Schneider (talk • contribs) 05:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2017 French election article
Discussion regarding an article related to the French presidential election is taking place hereCasprings (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * honestly there isn't enough info to make something like that an article, it's still early days for the leak and we won't learn anything until after the election is done, our main source of news is wikileaks right now and even though they are credible here, people will whine about bias so, might as well wait for a bit. WolvesS (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

blablabalb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.93.92 (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request
[[File:Élection présidentielle de 2017 par département T1.svg|thumb|300px|

]] Please restore the map of the First Round to the article [[File:Élection présidentielle de 2017 par département T1.svg|thumb|center|300px|

]] This should be added to the section for the First Round.

-- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —   IVORK  Discuss 02:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

International reactions
Shall we add the international reactions? Where would we add this content please? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We have International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2016. Shall we create International reactions to the French presidential election, 2017?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice this earlier. I'm personally not a fan of these types of sections but I'll add one in anyway. Mélencron (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Mélencron (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Would you like to add Algeria too?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, Jesus Christ, can we please ditch this? Seriously, who on Earth is going to want to read this empty padding? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to ditch it too. Bulbbulb29054 (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would it be good enough for the US but not France? I think we should treat both countries the same way.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not "good enough" for either. Why do people create these things? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

World map
There's a map for the 2012 election that shows overseas voters preferences by country. It would be nice if someone could create one for the 2017 election. (first round, and second round) -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Detailed results by constituency are overkill
I arrived here by browsing the list of longest articles on Wikipedia. While I applaud the hard work involved in putting together comprehensive lists of results by constituency, I think this is overkill for this election. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a mirror of official statistics. Our readers are sufficiently well-informed with a breakdown of result by département, we can point to the ministry for more local details. Besides, even if we wanted to provide more local results to readers, the appropriate level would be the town, not the faceless constituency. Therefore I move to delete the results by constituency. — JFG talk 06:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's an optional menu. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed them already? Mélencron (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Six-months-later todo/main issues
Mélencron (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not satisfied with how the article is ordered; not exactly chronological. LR primary first, then Hollande's announcement, Socialist primary, Penelopegate, Bayrou's support, Jadot drops out, Mélenchon's rise in final few weeks (which as far as I can tell I never mentioned substantially).
 * A lot of the stuff in the "primaries" sections can simply be copied over to their respective articles (which could do with some work)
 * "Other incidents" is a hodgepodge which could simply be integrated into (1)
 * The second-round debate needs to be covered better
 * Penelopegate section is too long (contains everything that's "important", yes, but a lot of it, the "drip-drip", less pertinent to the election); similarly, the article on Penelopegate needs to be updated on post-election (i.e., post-23 April) events, when it fell out of public view

Color for FN and Marine Lepen
There seem tto have been a systemic replacement of the previous dark blue color by a grey one. Was there any discussion on this important change? I disagree with it. This candidate never used grey.--Aréat (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is currently a push for replacing dark blue with grey for the National Front. A discussion has been started on the template page after I asked. Everyone is welcome to give their opinion there as well. Template talk:National Front (France)/meta/color--Aréat (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)