Talk:2018 Brazilian general election/Archive 1

Opinion polling
I've added a table tracking opinion polling for the next election. Feel free to add poll results if you stumble upon any. In the article French presidential election, 2017, we agreed that as long as there is uncertainty about who the candidate of a major party is, we should categorize the results based on parties, and not on individual candidates (hence the names of potential candidates in parentheses rather than as the column title). Also, I thought that this far from the election, there is little point in including candidates with less than 3% support in any polls; such minor candidates also have a relatively high chance of dropping out at some point anyway. Temer is an exception, for obvious reasons. In multi-scenario polls, it'd be nice if candidates from the same party are submitted alphabetically -- currently, it's Alckmin (A) in row 1, Neves (N) in row 2, and Serra (S) in row 3, for example.

Μαρκος Δ (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

PSDB's political position
I suggest that from now on, before making edits to PSDB's political position, you should see the party's main article. The information about its position here is based on what is provided in its main article. Therefore – do not change its position here before making sure that it is also changed on the PSDB main article. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Temer is not yet banned to run for office
“There are legal reasons to block an eventual candidature, but that decision can only be taken by brazilian electoral justice when/if he applies for the candidature.” - As well pointed in Michel Temer's talk page by Fbergo Rodericus Gartzea (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Lula was banned
http://g1.globo.com/pr/parana/noticia/lula-e-condenado-na-lava-jato-no-caso-do-triplex.ghtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.92.201.107 (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. A simple link is not going to help us. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Lula has appealed the sentence, and it awaits confirmations. Right now, he is not banned to run. Some possible future scenarios:
 * The sentence is rejected in the appeal. He runs without problem.
 * The sentence is confirmed before the elections. He is banned.
 * The sentence is confirmed in the meantime between the registration of candidates and the actual election. He becomes ineligible, and his candidate for vicepresident becomes the candidate for president in his ticket.
 * Lula runs and looses, with no sentence yet. He awaits the result as usual.
 * Lula runs and wins, with no sentence yet. The case goes up to the higher courts. Cambalachero (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Socialism and Liberty Party candidates
The Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL) has four potential candidates: Plínio de Arruda Jr., Nildo Ouriques, Sônia Guajajara and Hamilton Assis. Renan Rabbit (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Min. Joaquim Barbosa.jpg

Order of candidates in right hand box
Why is that the order of the candidates? It’s not alphabetical, it’s not according to results in opinion polls, it’s not chronological as per who confirmed their candidacies first... so why is that? It looks like Wikipedia is partial that way. Is there a rule for this? Fabiocralves (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The first three ones (Bolsonaro, Ciro and Lula) were put together due their "Born and Electoral" states to be different, so the box maintain the alignment Paladinum2 (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, Changed the order of politicians in the infobox, adaptating to the Ibope poll from June 2018, changing only Ciro gomes with Marina Silva due the alignment of the box. Boulos and Meireles could be at the 9th position, cuz both didn't reach 1%, but meireles have the biggest party, so he was maintained instead of Boulos. The box only goes till 9 candidates. Paladinum2 (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

voter demographics data
the voter demographics data in the related DATA FOLHA poll is not from the day of the election, because it's illegal to do polling in the day of the election! I think this information should be added or the information to be dropped at well, since the polling in the same week may ask question who didnt even voted in the day of the day, etc So I dont think it's accurate enough, but I understand if somebody thinks in a different way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.113.238.184 (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Correct image of Bolsonaro
This is a better image and it is also according to the context of the date of these elections, it is irrelevant and invalid if this image is not aesthetically pleasing with Haddad's, it is invalid and irrelevant because it is purely personal opinion. By all means Number 57, discuss on the talk page of the article you want to change instead of constantly keeping changing the photo. We're not under an obligation to use official portrait. Oli (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The official portraits of Presidents should only be used in the corresponding articles, not in the articles of general elections, they are no longer consistent with them. These presidential elections were in October 2018, the image of Bolsonaro that Number 57 posted is from April 2019, so it is incorrect for the article, being aesthetic with the photo of Haddad is irrelevant to the article, because it is the personal opinion of Number 57, not to mention that this user recently insulted me with the "pathetic" ad-hominen, so the comment you just wrote lacks credibility and neutrality.

Oli (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Bringing this to the Talk page to discuss the content disagreement was the right thing to do. Please (everyone) restrict your comments on this Talk page to how to improve the article, including which photo to use, and why; and please quote Wikipedia policy and guidelines, whenever possible. This is also a reminder to please refrain from commenting about other editors on this page (this goes for everybody, and it not aimed at any one user); and that this Talk page is strictly for comments about improving the article. If you have a valid concern about the behavior of another editor, you may raise a discussion at their user Talk page pointing out which policy or guideline you believe was violated, but comments about other users' behavior do not belong here. OliverDF, thank you for starting this discussion, hopefully progress can be made now to resolving the photo issue. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Before we get onto the quality of the photos, a few points about (the sadly usual standard of) behaviour by OliverDF here:
 * Regarding the "discuss on the talk page of the article you want to change instead of constantly keeping changing the photo" assertion:
 * I did not want to change the image. I was restoring the original one.
 * OliverDF is the one that wanted to change the image, and therefore the onus falls to him to start a discussion rather than constantly keep changing the photo per WP:BRD
 * I did not "constantly keeping changing the photo"; I restored the same one each time. OliverDF was the one who changed it to three different ones
 * The initial comment above, specifically OliverDF's view that one of the various images he has added (I lost track of which one) is that "This is a better image", but then goes onto say that my view that the original is better is invalid because it is "purely personal opinion". These statements are incompatible, unless OliverDF believes his opinion is worth something but mine is not.
 * Getting upset about an "ad hominem" after saying to the IP "You are anonymous, your edits and opinions are completely invalid" is hypocritical in the extreme.
 * But anyway, re the images in question, I still think the original one is better. While OliverDF complaints that it is from after the election, bizarrely so is the (latest) one he has added. Given there are only a few months between them, I don't really see the issue with the original. Number   5  7  23:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)