Talk:2016 United States presidential election

This talk page contains a Request for Comment subpage regarding the remodeling of major party candidate areas. Please visit it here: Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016/Remodeling_of_major_party_candidate_areas. Template:Friendly search suggestions

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)

• 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)
  • They overlap but are not precisely the same. This RfC is about ordering the candidates, that one is about how to break that order up into rows. (I encourage everyone here to participate in that discussion as well.) Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:34, 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:

1. Party's electoral vote in the last election
2. Party's popular vote in the last election
3. Party's ballot access in the current election
4. 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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.

Bernie Sanders did not suspended his campaign

Sanders did not suspend his campaign, in his speech he said he'll go all the way to November, but offered to withdrawl from the race. He is keeping his promise as to going all the way to convention. As this article says, he does not officially drop out of the race, but supports Clinton. It's like the case for Kreml and Jill Stein in the Green Party primaries. He's still a candidate, but endorses Stein. Sanders endorses Clinton to defeat Trump, but is still in the race. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

His speech today seemed as clear of a concession as any. It's true that his campaign technically is not suspended but it's really hard for me to understand under what criteria his campaign is continuing. The goal of the campaign (for Bernie Sanders to obtain the Democratic Party nomination and afterwards the presidency) was not met and this has been acknowledged by the candidate as well as the staff. It's hard for me personally to find a justification for continuing to describe the Sanders campaign as active. 50.27.101.171 (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It's just about official stuff. Sanders suspended his campaign months ago, in effectiveness. But officially, his campaign continues. 2601:283:8300:A75A:F975:1B35:C1D6:90F5 (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

My goodness, is that you Jonathan Tasini? Sanders lost, he endorsed Clinton, and it's done. Not sure how much clearer it can be. I can see the 2020 election page being drafted and people will still want to say "Sanders is still in it". Just let it go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4705:B31D:7971:F155:7037:D404 (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

[1] for those who believe Bernie sanders should be in the withdrawn category. Chase (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That article came in June, before he endorsed Hillary. Newer sources say he "ended his campaign". His campaign might still be "active" in technicality, but not in actuality. Isn't he looking to transition it into a new organization, much as Dean for America became Democracy for America, and Obama for America became Organizing for Action? Sanders will roll out the new format of the organization either later in the campaign or after the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Running mate format

So when Trump confirms officially that Pence as his VP and that Weld is the official VP for LP. Can we format running mates like this under the header Running mate on the party ticket header?

Republican Party (United States)
Mike Pence
50th Governor of Indiana (since 2013)
[1]

Libertarian Party (United States) Libertarian Party (United States)
William Weld
68th Governor of Massachusetts (1991–1997)
[2][3]

Good? Bad? Your thoughts Thoughts? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Just list the person and a photo. Why make it gaudy? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The VP candidates should be listed more prominently than they are now, but basically I agree with William S. Saturn; there's no need for overly fancy formatting. Incidentally, the list of "possible" Republican candidates nees serious trimming; not only is it out of date, but it appears to list every person who's ever been the subject of a ghost of a rumor. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I prefer this format:

Republican Party (United States)
Donald Trump
Chairman of The Trump Organization (1971–present)
Campaign
Mike Pence Running mate

Libertarian Party (United States) Libertarian Party (United States)
Gary Johnson
29th Governor of New Mexico (1995–2003)
Campaign
File:William Weld face crop.jpg William Weld Running mate

--Proud User (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I also prefer Proud User's proposed format, it i sensible and efficient IMO.--I.C. Rivers (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I support Proud User's proposed format as well.--JayJasper (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Showing a 23 pixel portrait looks silly. Most of the presentations I've seen in visual media show the two candidates side-by-side, something like this:

Republican Party (United States)
Donald Trump / Mike Pence
President CEO of The Trump Organization	Vice President Gov. of Indiana
Campaign

Libertarian Party (United States) Libertarian Party (United States)
Gary Johnson / William Weld
President Fmr. Gov. of New Mexico	Vice President Fmr. Gov. of Massachusetts
Campaign

Also, that shadowy pic of Weld is a bizarre pose with a an uneven crop; this one is (slightly) better. Sparkie82 (t•c) 08:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2016

Section 4.2 Green Party, Ballot access:

take out Deleware, change 339 to 336

see http://www.jill2016.com/ballot_access

174.22.242.183 (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, according to Ballot Access News, "only the August 2016 tally counts" [2], so the Greens cannot have ballot access before August 21. This should be changed. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. Thanks for pointing this out.--JayJasper (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016

Trump just won the vote at the RNC so he's no longer presumptive.

96.244.230.204 (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Already done --Majora (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Nominee or still presumptive nominee?

Hi, Trump isn't officially nominee until he accepts it, something that hasn't happened yet so I find it controversial to list him as officially nominee of the Republican party for President of the United States, and thus I think it shouldn't be displayed on Wikipedia since it isn't confirmed and he hasn't accepted the nomination yet. I'm not from the United States but ABC News says this: Trump will not officially become the Republican Party's nominee for president until he accepts the nomination, which is slated to occur as part of his speech on Thursday night, according to the RNC counsel's office. It's like a marriage: You need an "I do" from both sides to become the nominee. The Republican convention will offer the nomination when the delegates vote, and Trump needs to accept it. (SOURCE) What are your opinions? Thanks! Itsyoungrapper (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources say it is official. Therefore it is official. --Majora (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: I'm sorry I forgot to add source and quotation and I think you replied before I have fixed it so I'm just notifying and apologize. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it's now official. No going back. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"House Speaker Paul Ryan has formally declared Donald Trump the winner of the Republican presidential nomination. Ryan says Trump received 1,725 delegates in the state-by-state roll call." (Trump 1,725, Cruz 475, Kasich 129, Rubio 113, Carson 7, Bush 3, Paul 2, 1,237 needed to win). --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

48th

The 45th and 48th president of the United States...what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.57.124 (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The 45th president and 48th vice president. There have been presidents who had multiple vice presidents serve under them. —C.Fred (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Presumably you're referring to the last sentence of the article's lead paragraph. Look closer, it says "....the 2016 election will determine the 45th President and 48th Vice President of the United States". The statement is accurate.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's running mate selection

Should we remove the list of prospective running mates for Clinton, until her actual previous shortlist comes out? The media speculation was just that, and they were, in my opinion, quite baseless. The predictions were made without any insider information, so...

I think they should be kept until Clinton comes out at the convention with a few more on Kaine, or doesn't. Should it be changed?

Rep.donsman456 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump image (again)

Hi, I know that we have discussed a lot about Trump's photo, but I would like to propose you another one. What do you think about this image?

• 
  Proposed photo

Thank you. -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Trump's face is contorted in this picture and its out of focus. Ebonelm (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: The lighting seems strange in that picture. That being said, I do not like the current picture. Baconheimian (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: No better than the current photo of Trump. --Proud User (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Greens in Infobox

I really don't think they should be in there. Whatever your political position, I think we can agree that they will not be a major player this election. I support including the Libertarians, but the Greens I oppose in the wikibox. If support for them grows, it can be reconsidered, but I don't think they are important enough now. Baconheimian (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a consensus that any party with access to at least 270 electoral college votes should be included in the infobox. Your proposal violates WP:CRYSTAL. --Proud User (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to change image for Gary Johnson

Can we change the image for Gary Johnson to this one from a better angle. Perhaps crop it a little at the top? --Bensin (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it would look odd next to all the other potraits. --Proud User (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This portrait: , which is a high quality official campaign portrait (made available to use as a free-use file by the way) is of great quality and composition. It has a darker background like the other non-official portraits in the infobox. I made this change and it was removed for no good reason. The current image of Johnson is a candid shot, by no means professional, poor expression, angle, etc. We die for excellent quality recent photographs and here the campaign gives us their portraits as free-use and we don't use them in favor of inferior candid crops?   Spartan7W §   14:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

While it's a great image its too dark for the infobox. Because the images in the infobox are relativly small most of this images detail is lost and the shadow becomes a lot more prominent. While the current image isn't perfect it does a better job than the proposed image within the context of the infobox. Ebonelm (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No Spartan7W, I ignored that image even though its official because its dark, you removed a better image from his article because you did not like the 'color/contrast'..there is nothing wrong with the color or the contrast, It's your PC that cannot read color correctly (Are you on an intel video card by any chance?), anyways the image proposed by Bensin is from 2011, not 2013 so its over 5 years old, we should not use it if a much recent image is available..the image with black backgrounds is not suitable for use in infobox for politicians, the best images are those where the person is looking straight forward, not sideways..--Stemoc 16:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Stemoc's proposed image at 135px

Stemoc's proposed image is superior to the one currently used. It is also more recent than the one I proposed. I support changing to it. --Bensin (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump Picture

Is this a good picture to replace the hunched over the podium glancing off to the side one currently being used.

ShadowDragon343 (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This potrait is four years older than other potraits in this article, making it inconsistent. --Proud User (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

But it's not consistent... have you looked at the other three pictures? Take five seconds and do a google image search. 68.110.99.8 (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)