Template talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 4

democrats and republicans
The dems and GOP seem to occupy multiple party lines instead of one line. Suggested change:

132.205.99.122 18:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Against such a change. Don't make the reader click twice for a collapsed template. Don't make the most commonly used names less accessible and less visible. -- Yellowdesk 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sure this violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV because it makes it harder to see the candidates for the major parties and makes the third party candidates more prominent.-- Southern Texas  01:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What about now? 132.205.99.122 20:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I like this version. It is more consistent in that each party has a single line, rather than the Dem.'s and Rep.'s occupying multiple lines, while still being compliant with the WP:UNDUE policy. Putting the info into "boxes" under the Dem. and Rep. headings is also less confusing, IMHO, than using seperate lines. It definitely has my vote.--JayJasper 13:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the template has been protected, someone else will need to add in the changes. (it's relatively simple to do) 132.205.99.122 19:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't like it because it's uneven. I'd rather the template be symmetrical.-- Southern Texas  19:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The current template is both simple and clear already. Let's not go over-complicating things for the sake of unnecessary subcategories. Chris Cunningham 11:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now it's fully tiered, but with more coding as well. 132.205.99.122 21:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, the clearest and most concise version thus far, IMHO. Don't forget to list the "Candidates" sub-heading after the Independents heading as well .--JayJasper 21:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, an older version of the template used the difference between bolding and plain text to show that the lines for "Candidates" and "Withdrawn" under "Democratic" and "Republican" were actually subgroups for the major party lines. The right-justification helped, too.  Why can't we go back to that?  It would eliminate the impression that each of the lines for Republican and Democratic are of equal importance, but would be minimally bulky. PubliusFL 22:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Restored, I restored the template to the revision listed above. This is the best version I have seen.-- Southern Texas  00:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the restored version, and vote to stick with it. How 'bout it, is everyone happy now?--JayJasper 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Redundantly having "Candidates" shown five plus times in row is needless, and amounts to clutter. They're obviously candidates, and the caption is not needed to distinguish something. the captions are needed for two major parties, which actually have different kinds of links to  distinguish. -- Yellowdesk 05:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The current version (with no sub-navboxen) is fine. Chris Cunningham 08:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Steve Adams
Independent Steve Adams has a decent following of supporters. Should he be on the template? 11kowrom 19:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course he does. That's why his article was created fourteen minutes before your comment here. See the comment above the article source. Chris Cunningham 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He has been added since he has an article and is a candidate.-- Southern Texas  21:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This candidate, Stephen Paul Adams,calling himself Steve Adams is a case in point for establishing minimum standards for this template. The Federal Elections reporting shows zero contributions or expenditures in their database, see http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_detail/C00438036.  Another web page shows receipt of $115 as of August 2007. See http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/candidates.phtml?sort=a. It's true he has filed with the FEC, along with about 200 or more other people. I don't think it makes sense to bother putting this candidate, and anyone who cannot raise enought money to staff a campaign on this template. This is not an index to all candidates, but rather for candidates of some significance. -- Yellowdesk 01:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong, if you have a problem with the notability of this candidate, nominate it for deletion. For now it should remain because he is a candidate and he does have an article for now.-- Southern Texas  01:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, that standard is not sufficient for this template. The leading reason is that the person's page may exist for other notability reasons, unrelated to candidacy. I think it's time for a policy discussion here on minimum standards.   -- Yellowdesk 02:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But what constitutes notability in a campaign is open for wide interpretation. If an individual is notable enough to have their own article regardless of their campaign they are a candidate and therefore shall be included on the template. Otherwise it will create edit wars over notability and will subtract from editors contributing constructively to the encyclopedia.-- Southern Texas  02:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are some notability standards that reflect public support and interest, and not really subject disputes of interpretation: the amount of donations received, and expenditures made, and these are quite nicely publicly available. A threshold like $50,000 would set a suitable standard that allows rather minor candidates, but excludes those that cannot figure out how to persuade 2,000 people to give $25 each to the campaign, for example. Recall that we're a nation of millions. This is the threshold where electonic filing is required, so the data is well organized and quickly available via the FEC's web site, here:  http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/pres_cf/2008filings.html -- Yellowdesk 04:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That kind of information is constantly changing causing us to constantly have to change the template and complicates matters and is sure to cause more disputes. It is also not the best gauge or way to categorize a candidate since it only reflects monetary aspects. I really don't see the problem with my criteria because it simplifies matters. Its not the template's job to determine what is notable but to present and provide a link to candidates that have articles on wikipedia. Let AFD sort out notablity.-- Southern Texas  21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As previosly stated, the Articles for deletion process does not handle individuals that have other notability besides being a candidate. Your argument on that point has made no progress. -- Yellowdesk 23:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Give an example of who this affects....
 * If they are notable and are running why leave them off since they are running?
 * The issue should not be as complex as you are trying to make it.-- Southern Texas  23:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I support SouthernTexas' reasoning on this subject. It was pointed out in an earlier discussion on this page that the navbox is intended to be an article map, plain and simple. Why make it more complicated than that?--JayJasper 13:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the deletion history on that person's article:
 * 03:19, November 4, 2007 MZMcBride (Talk | contribs) deleted "Steve Adams (Political Candidate)" ‎ (csd r1)
 * 07:00, August 15, 2007 Can't sleep, clown will eat me (Talk | contribs) deleted "Steve Adams (Political Candidate)" ‎ (speedy G4)
 * 06:37, July 13, 2007 Singularity (Talk | contribs) deleted "Steve Adams (Political Candidate)" ‎ (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Adams (political candidate))
 * Yellowdesk 18:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is good because it shows the system is working, we don't sort out notability but the AFD will. We put articles on this template that pertain to the presidential election and that includes all candidates that have articles.-- Southern Texas  20:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would call the "system" proposed a "cookoo-clock" listing. Whenever some also-ran candidate's volunteer puts up an article, it gets listed here for a few weeks until the article is expunged (and the bird goes back into the clock), until the next round of listing and delisting:  a demonstration that the standard proposed by Southern Texas is not up to the task at hand. -- Yellowdesk 22:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't create controversy and it works, so if its called a "cookoo-clock" system I will support that nickname because it is one of efficiency. It supports the belief that templates are to serve as an article map, directing readers to all articles that exist on a topic. For "candidates" if an article exists then it should be mapped, otherwise the template is failing to meet its objective. Articles are created and deleted everyday, this is wikipedia and we must follow the flow of the encyclopedia on this template.-- Southern Texas  04:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)