Talk:2016 United States presidential election

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Heathercutajar.

A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle ( pre-election infobox inclusion criteria )

Should Presidential candidates Evan McMullin and Darrell Castle, who have enough votes through write-in access to win the presidency be included in the infobox alongside candidates with enough ballot-access votes to win the presidency?--Guiletheme (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

As a committed voter for one of the major candidates, I have no dog in the fight between including or excluding them. However, it looks extremely unprofessional of us here at Wikipedia for an average Internet user to come to this page as a reference and see Castle and McMullan here one day, removed the next, another user adds them back, another removes them, ad nauseum. We need to have a call for consensus, because it makes it confusing for our readers and most importantly, Wikipedia's credibility to have these candidates removed and readded for the same reasons, about the write-ins, ballot access, etc.--Guiletheme (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

More background: Castle and other write-ins are not currently in the infobox because of a consensus reached about four years ago. Here's a link to the original consensus for infobox inclusion in presidential election articles: [1] (Number of candidates in the infobox). The most recent attempts to add write-in candidates started with an attempt to add Castle to the infobox during a discussion on Aug 23 at 735891756, which was challenged (reverted) at 736056459. The addition of Castle and other write-ins have been proposed/challenged/discussed ever since at discussions on this article, including the thread #Infobox inclusion, again and several other threads without reaching a consensus to add them. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree! I consensus shall be put into order! I vote to keep Castle and McMullin in the info-box because they're both are able to reach 270 e.-v.'s, even though write-in states would be required. I also suggest, to make it easier to count votes, that everyone should make their vote in bold, like I did. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - If they have a potential to win the election, then I think they should be in the infobox, especially since further down on the page it indicates their ballot access and how many write-in votes they have access to / would need. jmcgowan2 (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - I am officially neutral in this matter, but I do have to pick a side and I'll pick keep since deletion does not create a better article in this instance. Everyone interested in the topic the article relates to has heard of Clinton and Trump by now, and most have heard about Stein and Johnson, but Castle and McMullin can theoretically win the election and they should be listed alongside the other candidates with enough access as well. Six candidates balances the infobox nicely, we aren't adding undue weight and it does protect Wikipedia from accusations of bias, along with providing voters and interested parties information about every candidate with a theoretical path to victory. My goal for this page is to be a neutral, authoritative source for information going into the election since many people use Wikipedia as a "starting point" to learn about the topic. --Guiletheme (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

We still need a bit more input (and debate, if necessary) for true consensus.--Guiletheme (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Guiletheme: What do you mean by that? Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus is the policy that guides implementing a consensus regarding an article. I have asked other editors to add their input and their opinions so we can achieve a true consensus. Unfortunately, we cannot have a definitive consensus with just three votes and not even a day to debate. In the meantime, I would suggest that Castle and McMullin stay unless a consensus is determined otherwise.--Guiletheme (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Guiletheme: Oh, I see. Thanks. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Guiletheme: Also, can you please the edit the area where you wrote about the consensus so that it'll tell people to write their vote in bold? Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep In 2012, the Constitution and Justice Parties were both included in the infobox prior to the election, both of which needed write-in access to reach the 270 EV threshold. The message at the top of the 2012 article's talk page stated that "any candidate with a mathematical chance of winning 270 pledged electoral votes, and thus the election, is included in the infobox... including write-in access in states that have had full electoral slates nominated and certified." I support continuing this approach. It is for voters to determine who will get the electoral votes, and we should not act as gatekeeper and deny infobox inclusion to any candidates who have a possibility of winning the Electoral College. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Don't Keep -- Literally any American old enough could be listed if we're going to count people who could hypothetically win through write-ins. If a candidate is not on the ballot in enough states to get 270 Electoral Votes, they don't belong in the infobox. Mizike (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

In most states, candidates must file in advance in order for write-in votes to count, and we additionally require that they've named a full elector slate, which doesn't always happen. That being said, I think it would be reasonable to require that all infobox candidates must have actual ballot access in at least one state and/or be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, just in case someone unnotable happens to file for write-in access in the requisite number of states. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jmcgowan2, Guiletheme, Antony-22, and Mizike: thanks for voting! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not a vote. See WP:NOTVOTE. Also, the running totals aren't really necessary. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete, as they (along with Johnson & Stein) will be eventually deleted, after November 8. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Don't keep per GoodDay. Also Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin a few things. We do not need a running tally as I'm assuming we are all at least moderately intelligent human beings who can count. Please stop doing that. Also, Wikipedia is not a vote.

  Guiletheme, RfCs run for an entire month. Putting the end of this one a few days before the actual election, making the entire process pretty much moot. I've already mentioned this previously on this page as a reason why a RfC on this is going to solve nothing but meh. Whatever. --Majora (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I think an abbreviated RfC would be appropriate in this case, lasting perhaps a week. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @GoodDay, Majora, and Antony-22: That's not a valid reason. We can't just assume that none of the third party candidates will meet the already agreed upon post-election inclusion criteria of receiving at least 1 pledged EV or 5% of the popular vote. This reasoning goes against WP:SPECULATION. This RfC is about pre-election inclusion criteria so it doesn't matter which candidates will or will not remain after the election. As for the RfC end date... one month is the suggested length, but we can certainly request that it be closed before then. I'd say 2 or 2.5 weeks is more realistic than 1 week. But even if this RfC doesn't close until a month and becomes moot, at least in 2020 we'll have a thorough discussion we could look back on. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Well, I understand why you might want to keep them in for now, but I am one of those most stanchly opposed to putting Castle and McMullin in the 'infobox', as much as I respect all of your viewpoints. My opinion is that, in order to preserve all of Wikipedia's "neurality and lack of bias" that you mentioned above, I vote to remove Castle (as well as McMullin) from the infobox, as well as the major parties section, the debates section, and the conventions section. From what I can see, simply getting to a 'mathematical majority', as the Constitution Party has done, does not equate to endorsements from a powerful sitting president and actually being considered a viable contender – what do the people here think is the likelihood that they, or any third-party, for that matter, will win? I think that it's just not right that Castle and McMullin get, in essence, the same treatment from us as Clinton or Trump do. And, in the very least, if they're included, I'd suggest that there be three rows, with the current ordering, as I have done multiple times before. The first would constitute Clinton, on the left-hand side, of the incumbent Democratic Party (she's generally the one with the highest support). Trump is there as well – as a major-party nominee, he has received full ballot access. The third one is Johnson, who finished short of only Obama and Romney when he got his party's nomination in 2012, is completely over the map, and usually gets inside of the high single-digits in polling. Then comes the last 'major' third-party candidate, Jill Stein, who, I believe, received one-third of a percent last time around and is also frequently mentioned in the media (both of them are in about a quarter to a third of the articles that I read). After that would be Darrell Castle, who actually belongs to a party and has more 'ballot access' than McMullin, the independent who just recently entered and also has more than 300 – when you count write-ins, of course. Again, I wouldn't much mind if most editors let all of them in, against my wishes, as long as the intent from a lot of you is clear. However, I'd highly recommend that you consider, and implement, this proposal. I also completely agree with Guilletemme that we should keep the top part consistent, though I wouldn't care whether or not we left them – that is, of course, until a consensus is reached. Antony-22's approch looks fair, too, but just because it happened four years ago doesn't mean it should again – even if we can't agree. There was also quite a bit of debate around how we should organize it at that time, as well. And, just for the record, this new system hadn't been implemented, or even brought up, prior to 2012. Similarly, Mikaze, although my vote goes in the same direction as yours does, I just can't see how every adult would be included as of yet. In fact, it will probably be just six of them – for the entire rest of this year. Finally, I don't think a simple 'majority-vote' would amount to a consensus, but, then again, if I'm the only one advocating for four candidates, I guess that would be sufficient to keep all of them. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• After the election is over, keep Johnson and Stein with their total number of votes listed. For now, Castle should not be on the infobox because he will not be on the ballot. Surely he will receive votes as well, so after the election is over, re-add him his number of votes. McMullen should be removed for now and re-added once someone can get a picture of him to put in the infobox. As of right now, I add to the consensus of "don't keep" for Castle. BrendonTheWizard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

People yelling at me for using a term that's "not appropriate" for a consensus and for counting "votes", which is supposedly "not good". Also, I'm getting a picture of David Evan McMullin that I posted on this site deleted due to "non-fair-use" reasons. Maybe we should have a consensus about if I should or shouldn't quit Wikipedia. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yuri, I've removed your running tallies of !votes. That is entrely inappropiate for a lengthy and contentious Wikipedia discussion. Softlavender (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, please. This really isn't something to get that worked up about. Wikipedia does a lot more damage than this. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

In what way are we doing damage? MartinZ02 (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean it that way. Sorry if you took it offensively, I regret it that my comment rubbed the wrong way with some editors. That's not what my message was in explaining it to Yuri, but I'm sorry about that, and I take back my positions. I apologize for any inconveniences caused. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nobody was yelling at you. Just informing a new editor who, understandably, may not know the inner workings of Wikipedia how things function around here. Constructive criticism is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. Right up there with collegiate collaboration. It is not malicious. It is purely informative. --Majora (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand, and my opposition to Yuri's comments are the same. Perhaps you could've done that in a more polite way, though? And, as a sidenote, not everything has to be bolded or italicized.

• I don't know who wrote the comment above but I'd like to provide a link that explains why it is a good idea to avoid excessive emphasis. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - they appear to meet the inclusion criteria from the 2012 presidential campaign page, which was adopted by consensus here earlier.XavierGreen (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This, to me, is the best argument for keeping these candidates. But I definitely think that in future elections the inclusion criteria should not include people who can only win via write-in -- doing so just looks silly and opens things up to including Vermin Supreme and the like in the infobox (no offense to Vermin Supreme intended). Mizike (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Castle and McMullin are not currently in the infobox because they don't meet the criterion, which is to be on the ballot in enough states to reach 270. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, but renegotiate who should remain after the election. JC · Talk · Contributions 06:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. 1. The standard should be to include those candidates who have a mathematical chance of winning 270 electoral votes. 2. For determining the previous, write-in access should be counted in those cases where a candidate has named a slate of electors, those electors can be voted for, and the votes for those electors would be counted. That includes some, but not all, forms of access to the write-in mechanism. 3. I am personally dubious that McMullin meets the preceding standard (Castle does meet it). However, in this case editors are edit warring over those two as a bloc, and voting here over those two as a bloc. As Castle ought to be in the infobox, I support the option that puts him in the infobox. 4. None of the preceding matters. This RFC will not conclude until near election day. The edit warring will not cease before election day regardless of the RFC outcome. The revert restriction that exists on this article to prevent such edit warring will not be enforced before election day either. After election day, Castle, McMullin and Stein will all be removed from the infobox regardless of the outcome of this RFC. It is therefore pointless. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it simply wasn't. Firstly, you're lying. And, more importantly, everyone involved here here has told you to stop. Please respect the Wikipedia guidelines. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• These decisions are made based on the quality of arguments, not the raw vote tally. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, then, in that, case, my humble opinion brings me to accept all of your arguments, but it doesn't seems like many of you are interested in reading my stances. I really respect all of you and how you conduct yourselves here, so please do think about reforming how this page, and others like it, function. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• • • @Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin:. Yuri, please stop keeping a running tally of opinions. It's disruptive and makes it look like a popularity contest, which we have explained it is absolutely not. We are not taking this to a vote. We're soliciting reasoned opinions to create a consensus. Both sides have made cogent points and when we reach consensus, I will respect and do my part to enforce it. To be brutally honest with you, I've been a political consultant and I can guarantee Evan McMullin and Darrell Castle will not win the election. They won't swing the election one way or another unless decisive states come down to hundreds or tens of votes. If it were up to me, I'd have Clinton and Trump in the top of the infobox, Johnson and Stein in the bottom and nobody else there. However, the closest thing we have to a consensus includes Castle and McMullin being included on virtue of their write-in access and their presence there hurts nobody.--Guiletheme (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree on that part, Guillemme. I'm very doubtful that Castle will get even a thousand votes, perhaps just a hundred or two, from actually informed people who actually want to vote for him (what I mean is that they understand his positions, researched him, at least somewhat agree with him, etc.), rather than just randomly selecting one at the ballot box or making a 'protest' vote without even knowing who their vote will go to. I do think, however, they'll be especially unlikely to tip the states. Firstly, in places where he, or the slightly more popular McMullin, are eligible to receive votes (even with write-ins included, which are states where their count will very possibly be zero), only represents about 30 percent of America's population when you count not just filing for it, but also the submission of a slate of electors. So it's virtually impossible for them to do anything. And, of course, I see what you're saying about a 2012 consensus, but firstly that wasn't really a consensus, as Sparkie82 pointed out, secondly it's outdated (four years ago), thirdly I don't think it's the right idea, as do many (that's just my opinion though), fourthly it's been refuted by this thread, proving that the majority of us want Castle and McMullin removed (although I completely agree with those of you, who have told Yuri to stop counting 'votes', and . But from what I can see this certainly does not represent any real popular support – or otherwise – for whatever "consensus" you've been bringing up, and so, in the short term, until we reach a real agreement (which may be [[2]], of course) there is absolutely no reason why we should be keeping them on the article. As not-very-well-constructed-or-formed an idea as it was for Yuri to turn the discussion he thankfully started into a plebiscite of sorts, it certainly shows that the majority (not that that's the standard, but supporters of inclusion have less than half) here would not want them in the infobox. And I think it should be changed to reflect that, because I think that everyone who has voiced their thoughts this past week here have all had good arguments, and ideas as to how they support them and why (thanks Shumogul for helping) on both sides. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Don't keep The 2012≥ election page has Obama and Romney only, and that's how most of them are. Nader isn't included in 2000, in spite of his real impact. Why include people who aren't on enough ballots for 270 EV? They're not gonna get the write ins in the states that allow it. I am sure Stein will be removed after the election, and Johnson probably will too. Why keep McMullin and Castle now? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • That's because we have one criteria for pre-election inclusion and one for post-election inclusion. The post-election inclusion currently is to keep candidates that get at least 5% of the popular vote and/or 1 pledged electoral vote. The pre-election inclusion does not need to match the post-election inclusion (in fact it didn't match in 2012). Saying we should keep candidates off the infobox because you speculate that they will be removed after the election goes against WP:Speculation. That's why including all candidates in the infobox that can theoretically win 270+ Electoral Votes seems less arbitrary and less subjective. The only problem I can think of with including write-in status for the inclusion criteria is the possibility of the infobox being overcrowded. So far that doesn't seem to be an issue though. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
    • As I've seen mentioned above, this whole RfC doesn't matter much anyway, because it'll close a few days before the election, after which point all third party candidates except for Johnson (if they pull in the votes current polling suggests) will be removed. So I generally look at this clutter and think, what's the point? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - This really is no big deal, they each now have a way to 270 votes so why not include them? Everyone except possibly Johnson is going to be deleted anyways per the 5% consensus mark. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep JUST McMullen and Castle - Amended my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - --Ariostos (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude write-in candidates - Castle and other write-in candidates are not currently in the infobox because of a consensus reached at [3] (Number of candidates in the infobox). The reason given at that consensus and at other discussions since then is that it is too easy to get write-in status -- all it takes in most cases is to file a form. To get on the ballot, however, generally requires nominating signatures and is a better gauge of notablity/weight. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Sparkie82: I'm sorry, but a viewpoint in 2012 that was not enforced does not override a unanimous consensus in 2016 that actually took place on this article's talk page and not another article's talk page. You do have a point about notability/weight though. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Do not keep They don't have a chance of winning, and unlike Johnson and Stein, they don't even have a chance of affecting which major party candidate wins. Putting footnote candidates in the infobox is confusing to the many users of Wikipedia who are almost entirely ignorant of American politics. Our criteria for inclusion in the infobox should be based on polling, not on ballot access. Earthscent (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • • Castle and other write-ins are currently not in the infobox because that Aug 23 proposal to add Castle was challenged (reverted) at 736056459 and has been challenged continually since then. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
      • You're wrong about that. Castle and McMullin are in the infobox, and have been for a week. I don't want them there, but I can't understand why you keep to say that. And I don't think those blurry and unclear photos of Castle and his running mate look that good, either. He shouldn't be on there, as there is no source saying anything about Mindy Finn being McMullin's VP pick. Just doesn't seem right to me. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Earthscent: In a close election *any* candidate can affect the outcome. Basing the criteria on polling is very arbitrary and can be inaccurate since sometimes polls get things wrong e.g. Bernie won Michigan even though the polls predicted a Hillary landslide. In fact, your argument is not very popular on this talk page as most people either fall in the ballot access criteria or ballot & write-in access criteria camps. Many Americans don't even know the names of the Vice-presidential candidates. Nonetheless, Wikipedia articles are meant to inform people about stuff they don't no, not reflect the ignorance of the readers. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Prcc27: I'm not saying to exclude them from the article entirely, just the infobox. Putting them there gives them undue weight. If we include McMullin and Castle in the infobox we ought to have a picture every single third-party and independent candidate, including write-in candidates. Our infobox should have dozens of pictures in it. These two are no more important than any of the others.Earthscent (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
      • @Earthscent: While you do have a point about us possibly giving undue weight by including Castle and McMullin, I disagree with the last sentence you made in that paragraph. Being able to theoretically win a majority of electoral votes makes you way more important than someone that does not have that theoretical chance. Including anyone in the infobox that does not have a theoretical chance of winning 270 electoral votes would unquestionably violate WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Winning a majority of electoral votes is the most common way to be elected President of the United States. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
        • @Prcc27: Is either Castle or McMullin polling enough in a single state to possibly tip the outcome? I don't think so. (But if I'm wrong please let me know). Polling is a much better criteria than ballot access. Earthscent (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
          • @Earthscent: Bush won Florida and thus the presidential election by just over 500 votes and 8 third party candidates (including those without 270+ EV ballot access or even 270+ ballot/write-in access) in Florida got more than 500 votes. Thus they arguably had an effect on the outcome of the 2000 election. It doesn't take that much to tip a swing state and thus the presidential election from one side to the other. Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view whereas polling agencies do not which is why they pick and choose which candidates to poll. If polling is better criteria than ballot access then why would we include Stein or even Johnson when they aren't even polling high enough to be projected to win at least 1 electoral college vote? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball which is why your proposal to use polling as criteria for inclusion hasn't gained that much popularity. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Earthscent: "Is either Castle or McMullin polling enough in a single state to possibly tip the outcome? I don't think so. (But if I'm wrong please let me know)." In case you haven't been following this RfC and/or the statewide polls- McMullin is currently polling within the margin of error in Utah. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• • • Being able to effect the outcome of the election can't be a criteria because it relies on WP:Crystal_ball, based on unreliable polling. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Any citizen 35 years old or older can theoretically get 270 electoral votes if the courts are brought into the process. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Do not keep most have already been said. I am all for having more than two major parties candidates in the infobox even though it has never happened that any other have become president. But only those who have their name on enough ballot so they will win. With the interesting and growing problem of ballot access this show a certain importance and organization, simply adding write-inn oppertunities does not. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude write-in candidates: only those with ballot access should be included. Technically anyone can be a write-in candidate, if people wanted they could vote for me as a write in and I'm not 35 or even an American. If Castle and McMullin are included then I should be placed in the less than 270 electoral votes section. Ebonelm (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This is off base as we are talking about candidates that achieved MORE than 270 EVs through both normal, and write in means. As JC points out below, this isn't an easy thing to do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Apart from Castle only has 207 potential electoral votes with ballot access and McMullin only 84. The point is that the established consensus has been the need to have ballot access to 270 electoral votes and neither of these candidates have this. Castle and McMullin shouldn't even be in the infobox while this discussion is taking place as they do not meet the current consensus. It is only a small group of editors who have repeatedly added them that has resulted in this bizaare situation where anyone who tries to revert to the established consensus is told they are violating consensus. Ebonelm (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If consensus was established, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There are two sides: candidates must have ballot access to 270 electoral votes versus candidates must have ballot or write-in access to 270 electoral votes. When did the former suddenly become established consensus and don't bring up 2012, because that was 2012. Precedents can be overturned. JC · Talk · Contributions 20:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The reason why Castle and other write-ins are not currently in the infobox is because the consensus has been, since 2012, to include candidates who are on the ballot to 270 EV, not write-ins. A proposal was made on Aug 23 to add Castle and it was challenged (reverted) at 736056459 and we've been discussing it since then. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess not, but I'm pretty sure the "write-in" candidates can't get there. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ebonelm: Which consensus are you referring to; the unanimous consensus that said write-in access should be part of the inclusion criteria? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Sparkie82: If it's so easy to get write-in status, why is it that there are only two people who have clinched access to 270 electoral votes without ballot access? The first person that is under 270 electoral votes is Kotlikoff with access to 218 electoral votes. When you say that consensus has been against including them, you are wrong, because we are in a heated debate today. JC · Talk · Contributions 18:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @JCRules: I agree, there is no consensus here to change the previous criteria from 2012, which states that only candidates who are on the ballot to 270 EV's are included. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Don't Keep - Remove Castle, Macmullin and write-ins Ballot access qualification is over except for several lawsuits which are not likely to change any ballots. Having candidiates without access to 270 electoral votes in the infobox is just waste of time, as they will be removed after the election anyway. (Undue weight.) KingAntenor (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, both candidates do have access to 270 electoral votes (through ballot access and write-in access). "They will be removed after the election anyway" isn't an example of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT- it's an example of WP:SPECULATION. I could speculate that Jill Stein or even Gary Johnson will be removed after the election so why not remove those two while we are at it? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you continue to do this, a handful of editors have already told you to stop as it is getting disruptive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

KnowledgeKid87 puts it exactly right: I am telling you now, firmly, to stop. As I have told you many times already, it is not a Wikipedia policy to count votes, especially on a talk page (anywhere, in fact). In addition, you've miscounted quite a few, which adds to the inaccuracy and simple illegitimacy about this. I understand that you might not yet be fully acquainted with the rules so far, and I am woefully unequipped, as well. But when multiple experienced role models tell you why you shouldn't be acting in this way, I would highly encourage you to listen. I very much value your contributions, and those of everyone in this community, so it would be very unfortunate if you had to lose your editing rights. This is my last time telling you to do this – I don't want to warn you again, or lodging a complaint about you. Again: please stop doing this. Thank you for your respect. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - I do think we should keep both candidates. Even though they can only win with write-in votes, it's still mathematically possible for them to win. Also, consensus from 2012 stated that "The candidates will appear on enough state ballots [to have a mathematical possibility] to actually win the election (270 electoral votes)". To add on, Wikipedia should be a reference for the public or those interested in the topic, thus should be impartial. If only the 'major' candidates are included, viewers wouldn't get the complete picture of the candidates available and it would seem like Wikipedia already predicted loss for the 2 candidates even before the election. Thus, I do support keeping them in the infobox until after the election and I don't see why they shouldn't be if Johnson and Stein is there. ~ Appleseed w (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, most of the argument against what you're saying is that Libs and Greens has 270 without write-ins, while Castle and McMullin would bead them. That's where the uncertainty lies, and as you can clearly see – a lot of heated debate over it. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Strong don't keep - The infobox looks ridiculous right now. Castle and Macmullin aren't featured in polls like Johnson and Stein, even if they have access to 270 electoral votes (only by write-in -.-) that makes them even more unlikely to win. Ghoul flesh • talk 21:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, both candidates have been featured in polls- just not as many polls as Johnson, Stein, Trump, and Clinton. Johnson and Stein have been featured in significantly less polls than Clinton and Trump so should we remove Johnson and Stein from the infobox as well? Moreover, Johnson being featured in significantly less polls hasn't stopped him from appearing in the same row in the infobox as Clinton and Trump. There is already consensus on this talk page not to use polls as criteria for inclusion. And appearing in more polls doesn't necessarily increase your chances of winning like you say it does. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

But Ghoul Flash specified 'like'... 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, with this argument, one can also say that Johnson and Stein might as well be removed too since none of them qualifies for the debates (similar argument to polls). In my opinion, I still think that those who has a mathematical chance of winning the presidency should be included as Wikipedia should be impartial and I do not see any harm in keeping all 4 of them. ~ Appleseed w (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I certainly do want to keep the four candidates who actually have 270 votes – not Castle and McMullin! If you're talking about the debates, that would be a good criteria – the candidates who make the CPD-sanctioned ones should have the necessary support to get in the top row on the article, while the candidates who have gotten into the minor "Free, Fair, and Equal" ones (which I hadn't ever heard of but have existed on this site for an eternity) would be places in the second row. Now the others who I don't know of write-ins I studiously oppose – but they will not be in even those four-party debates like last year, according to sites added on their website, so if they're in – which they probably won't be – they'd just have to be put in the second row. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• • They are included... Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where they are, but wouldn't they be nationally shown? 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• • By the way, the infobox looking "ridiculous" is not a valid argument. JC · Talk · Contributions 00:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I kindly ask, that, you give a reason for it? In my opinion, anything that's sensible, true, not overly offensive, etc. is a valid argument. I'd like to hear your ideas on this. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Do not keep - The infobox looking ridiculous IS a valid argument, in the sense that if you are going to include McMullin, you need to have a photograph of him. There is a photo of Castle. The way it looks now, at first glance, I thought there was a formatting error. If McMullin is so obscure that no one who contributes to Wikipedia can even find a photograph of him, e.g. from his campaign manager, then I find it absurd to include him as a presidential candidate. I don't know anything about Castle, but he has a decent separate Wiki bio article and a photograph. If I had to keep one, it would be Castle. One more point to consider: If you do NOT keep Castle and McMullin, which is how my RFC should be counted here, as DO NOT KEEP McMullin and Castle (and by Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin's running total, which doesn't bother me), then Jill Stein should get moved up to the top row with the other three. I don't like to see Hillary, Trump and the Libertarian candidate guy together on top, and Jill Stein on her own, on the bottom. With four candidates, there would be enough room to fit all four of them in one row in the infobox. Someone above, I think it it was Prcc27🌍, rhetorically asked whether Stein or Johnson should even be included. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are third-party candidates that receive mainstream press coverage, have national name recognition (whether positive or negative isn't the point, rather, the fact that they are interviewed on television and discussed widely), and definitely are above the radar online, e.g. on Twitter and reddit. reddit is no great arbiter of notability, but Twitter mentions and trends and visibility IS monitored and used for indications of significance. Both are included in polls, but some of the prior comments says that should not be considered, although the fact is that there are four and only four candidates who show up in the polls. Given that we are so close to the election now, and no one can even find a photo of McMullin for his WP bio article or here, I think it is needlessly confusing to include him in the info box. Castle has a photo but none of the other attributes that I mentioned with respect to Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, so I think it causes confusion to include him in the infobox. Just please, please don't make the info box a 2x2 grid for the photos, with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on top, then Jill Stein and Gary Johnson below, if at all possible.--FeralOink (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @FeralOink: Hey, could you strike out your "do not keep" text in order to avoid confusion? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Im sorry but this is sounding a lot like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@FeralOink: Finding a photo for McMullin is a separate issue being covered in a separate section of this talk page. Let's please focus on the issue this RfC is addressing i.e. inclusion criteria. FYI, the current consensus is to only reserve the top row for candidates with ballot access in 50 states & D.C. So if the other two candidates are removed Jill Stein will remain in the second row and Gary Johnson would likely remain in the first row. Once again, the claim that McMullin and Castle don't show up in the polls is false. There have been polls that include those candidates. The infobox is supposed to inform the readers, not just tell them what they already know. Including candidates in the infobox that many Americans haven't heard of isn't such a bad idea since infoboxes are a good way to give a brief overview of the the information in the article. Yes WP:UNDUE WEIGHT is an issue, but since Castle and McMullin have a theoretical path to 270+ EVs, have been included in polls, and have been invited to a debate I'd say including them in the infobox doesn't violate that policy. In fact, not including them in the infobox could violate WP:NPOV since excluding them would imply that they don't have a reasonable chance at winning. It's not up to Wikipedia to make this assumption per WP:CRYSTAL. So for now I'm going to have to say that we should keep Castle and McMullin in the infobox. For the record I also do not have a problem with Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin's running total. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

There wasn't really a consensus for that, and if I'm right, it was revoked. I don't think that Gary Johnson should be in top row (again, just my opinion). And you always keep talking about how they've been included in polls, but I couldn't find any! There have been thousands of polls this cycle, I'm not exaggerating, that have featured Johnson and Stein. All of the major pollsters do it, and even all of the usually recognized ones, more than 80% of the time talks about both of them. Whereas none of the major pollsters (CNN, NBC, ABC/WP, Fox, etc.) have ever mentioned either Castle or McMullin in them, and none of the ones I have ever looked at do, either. It just goes against our role of undue weight. When you say it should be an overview of the election, it's completely false, because whether you look on our own Wikipedia page, or online in the media articles, which is where most people get their information from – television, newspaper, radio, etc – it doesn't talk about either candidate at all, in much detail, and I've read hundreds upon hundreds of articles – very likely, thousands – that at least talk about Johnson's or Stein's candidacies. On the other hand, I've gone to maybe only about ten or perhaps less about McMullin, all in the duration of two or three days. Even more, I haven't come across a single one about Castle, rated more highly, and the one time I found him, I had to search him up in order to get some feature form like the 'Atlantic' or something like that. And, also, since when have those two been "have been invited to a debate," as you say? I thought the site specifically gave only Johnson and Stein (and the other two major ones as well, of course). And I just really don't see how their removal would violate any other guidelines here, either, now. So there really isn't any reason why that should continuously happen. Also, I didn't really have any grudge against Yuri's "vote-counting" either, but since so many established authorities oppose it and feel it doesn't go well with Wikipedia, I'd just recommend against it. It's actually helpful, though, and think it at least gives a picture of this situation, and as to how much support we're getting for Castle and McMullin here. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• You can find polls that they have been featured in by reading Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016 and Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. The Free and Equal foundation announced on Facebook that Castle was invited to the debate. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

On [page you mention] there are more than a hundred polls that include Johnson and Stein, while only three include McMullin, two others "Independent", and none Darrell Castle or the "Constitution Party".

• Okay, your point is well taken about this RfC topic being inclusion criteria, and also that it has already been established who will appear in the top row and the bottom row, based on ballot access and so forth described above by Prcc27 and others. I still object to leaving the infobox as it is now, without a photo for McMullin, because it is confusing. Put something in place of his photo if you can't find one, but please don't have the information about McMullin crammed in next to Castle, making it not immediately apparent that they are in fact two separate individuals, not one with a really long name or party or description. Yes, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that McMullin is actually a separate candidate, but having an infobox that is asymmetric and incomplete is not up to our standards on articles. This is an important article, and we should do our best here. I will withdraw my prior "Do Not Keep". I am not advocating for or against inclusion of one or both of McMullin and/or Castle. I do feel strongly that someone MUST make that infobox be at an acceptable level of clarity for readers, and maintain consistency with our WP infoboxes in general. My motivation for initial comment on this RfC was to provide corroboration in response to Ghoul Flesh's observation that the infobox looks ridiculous, so I don't think I am totally not constructive in having commented. The infobox currently looks amateurish and unencyclopedic. It could even be misinterpreted as vandalism, as that could be an initial reaction to seeing photos with proper aligned captions for five of six candidates, yet a blank space for the sixth one (McMullin). There, I've expressed myself, and will not interfere further, as I don't want my peripheral concern to distract from the quite important goal of reaching a consensus soon, certainly before the election!--FeralOink (talk) 09:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll stop. Quite a few of you have asked me to stop counting "votes" in this consensus. I was just trying to show how many people were on this side, and for the other. I'm still not totally sure why you guys are saying what I'm doing is not appropriate for the consensus, though. But, in a democracy, the majority rules, and the majority has told me to be quiet. (Still need a bit more clarification on why what I was doing was wrong, though.) Thank-you for taking the time to read this. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Very well. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's okay. He's apologized. And he wasn't referring to Wikipedia as a democracy, though you are certainly right that this isn't the place to count votes. I do think, however, that as long as it wasn't too repetitive, disruptive, or distracting, or really harmed the editing environment here, it wasn't all that bad an idea. There were just a lot of pleasure over it, and Yuri didn't acknowledge that until now. Again, thanks for following the wishes of the many users who have disapproved of your actions, it's responsible and helpful on your part. I don't know that much about the rules here, though, so I can't help much. But definitely someone who has been here for a time can tell you. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Since we're no closer to reaching a consensus, I'll propose one of my own. Since every Presidential election is different and we pretty much have Clinton, Trump and Johnson with full ballot access in the top three, Stein with 480 leading off the second row followed by Castle and McMullin being included on virtue of write-in access, I move that the infobox stay as is. I believe it is fair because the three candidates with full ballot access are on the top three positions of the infobox according to previous election results from 2012, the one with 270+ ballot access leads off the second-tier of the infobox and the other two who can theoretically win through write-ins round out the field. Remember, this will change after the election. It's not our job to determine who can or cannot win before the election for eligible candidates, since I can guarantee one major-party candidate will lose, seeing how both rabid Clinton supporters and rabid Trump supporters will lay down their arms on November 9th because their candidate either won or lost (barring a repeat of 2000.) I am now convinced through the arguments above that a candidate is at least serious enough if they have a path to 270 through write-ins and a slate of electors. Castle and McMullin are at running serious campaigns in terms of policy and getting access and neither of them are perennial or frivolous candidates, such as Deez Nuts, whose inclusion I would definitely challenge even if he managed to get 270+ write-in access due to his ineligibility (age) and his fake name. Once again, I have no dog in the Castle/McMullin fight, I'm voting for a major candidate who I feel is in their appropriate place in the infobox. Can we reach this as a compromise knowing that the infobox will change post-election and will most likely only include Clinton and Trump, barring Johnson, the most likely of the rest, or one of the other three getting 5% or > and/or an electoral vote?--Guiletheme (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but this is a resolution that I would have to oppose. It doesn't seem neutral at all to just say that Castle and McMullin be left in the infobox, when a clear majority (though, of course, that isn't a threshold – but it's far from a consensus, as many of the write-in proponents say) oppose their inclusion. As I have said, and a few others have supported, there are many reasons why it should be split into two rows, with Clinton/Trump in the first (qualified, presumably, for all 3 of the most likely presidential debates), Johnson/Stein in the second (the other candidates who have 270, and in fact far more, just through ballot access and without needing write-ins), and definitely Castle/possibly McMullin in any potential case involving write-in candidates being included in the third row (just look at any of my above comments regarding how candidates in the infobox should be placed. And, again, if Castle an McMullin are indeed removed, they would have to be taken off of the major candidates section, the conventions sections, etc. But, no grudges about it, if they are in the infobox, they should be included in all the above sections, and vice versa. So as much as I would respect any decision on your parts or a consensus regarding inclusion prior to this election, this resolution is, in essence, widely opposed, and I am one of those who have contributed the most to that idea, and results of an official RfC.

Agreed. The election season ends in exactly a month from now (or less in a month, depending on your timezone) and we should be forming a consensus on post-election criteria, which is currently: a candidate must receive at least five percent of the national popular vote or receive at least one electoral vote. Up to this point, nobody has challenged the post-election criteria. JC · Talk · Contributions 01:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm opposed to it, although I guess there is already a consensus about that. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Do not keep Imo, we should only include such candidates when they are routinely featured in national polling. Orser67 (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • How many times do they have to appear in national polls for it to be considered "routinely"? Whatever number you come up with is very arbitrary. 270 EVs is not an arbitrary number which is why we should either use ballot access or ballot access/write-in access as criteria. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • To add to Prcc27's comments, let's take Russia for example. The government runs the polls and can include/exclude candidates and fix the numbers. When Russia conducts its "elections", would you decide by the polls who would be included in the infobox? JC · Talk · Contributions 16:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that we don't live in Russia, and, by all accounts, we have free and fair elections where votes are counted legally and properly (at least it's what we have to assume, in case anyone else disagrees with even that). The major news corporations aren't really owned by, or beholden to, the government, and when Castle or McMullin were included, they were from minor advocacy groups (and got very low support, compared to Johnson and Stein). 198.84.229.179 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Can we all please wait for this RfC to close before implementing any possible consensus? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, please stop adding write-in candidates to the infobox. A neutral administrator has already determined that there is no consensus to add write-in candidates to the infobox. See: [4] Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    • They said that your edit seemed (their emphasis) to have consensus. The only discussion pertaining to write-ins with a clear (and unanimous at that) consensus is the one in August which actually favors including the write-ins with access to a majority of electoral votes. All the other discussions since then have been very divided including this one. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    • P.S. it's a little hypocritical of you to continue to revert the infobox after you reported me for supposedly edit warring. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Strong keep for numerous reasons. Castle and McMullin have the ability to win the election, as they have access to over 270 votes. Whether they can/will shape the election is irrelevant, and we should follow WP:CRYSTAL. Also, they have been invited to the Free & Equal Elections Foundation along with the Trump, Clinton, Johnson, and Stein. In addition to this, there is no reason to remove them from the infobox. Leaving them in the infobox will inform voters more about the candidates in the election, that there are two more choices on the ballot in many states. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I just asked for full protection of the page, the edit warring isn't helping anyone as it appears this issue needs to be addressed/closed soon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Additional note – Adding on to what Knowledgekid87 has said in his request, remember there is a WP:1RR in place, and as editors we should seek consensus before changing as per the "ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES". Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Remove The arguments for inclusion are hard to follow and fleeting. These candidates barely meet WP:NOTABILITY, let alone infobox inclusion. Only Gary Johnson and HRC/DT are polling above 5% nationally. I agree that the infobox looks ridiculous. Keep Trump, Clinton, Johnson and Stein only. Remove all others. KingAntenor (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @KingAntenor:Redundant: You have already bolded "do not keep" a few days ago. While discussion is helpful, bolding your opinion twice is very unnecessary and it could make it seem like the "remove" camp has more supporters than it really does. Barely meeting WP:NOTABILITY still counts as meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Show me a Wikipedia policy on infoboxes that says these candidates cannot be included. Funny how you bring up 5% national polling but argue that Stein should remain even though she (along with Castle and McMullin) average below 5%. You haven't even proposed any criteria for which candidates should be included (unless you think Stein should also be removed). Prcc27🌍 (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Prcc here, above you did place in bold "Don't Keep - Remove Castle, Macmullin and write-ins". Giving your opinion in bold twice on the matter is generally frowned upon here on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • The consensus seems to be to remove Castle and Macmullin since they receive little to no media coverage and/or support per above. I did not realize I had already voted. I would have thought this discussion would be over by now. People will attempt to add the lesser candidates until election day regardless. KingAntenor (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
      • @KingAntenor: You must have selective attention, because there is no consensus. Half says remove, half says keep. Saying that Castle and McMullin shouldn't be included because of "little to no media coverage" is not a valid point, because that is arbitrary. Go to Google News and you will find that Politico, CNN, and the Los Angeles Times, among many other sources have covered McMullin. JC · Talk · Contributions 18:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Well, JC, that was only for a few days, when McMullin was in the news. I still don't know why they did it, but you certainly won't find Castle on any major news networks, or, otherwise, some news networks. In the meantime, while this dispute is being resolved by the lead editors, I'm of the opinion that McMullin and Castle should be removed, if only temporarily. Their inclusion, although acceptable the first time in, was immediately objected to, and it's been a contentious issue – ever since then. And since you mentioned it, the portion who want them removed is a majority of the editors here (or at least it was a few days ago, although that doesn't really mean much). Also, Prcc27, I think your views are a bit misleading, as Castle isn't in any polls of the states included in the Wikipedia page you continue to reference. And only two pollsters ever included McMullin nationally, both within a week of each other. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
          • Please re-read the article and you will see that he was polled in Nevada and Utah. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
            • I intended to respond to the user @JC earlier but my link was broken. It was essentially his same link but replaced with the Constitution nominee. Darrell Castle has not been covered by Politico, CNN, or the Los Angeles Times. (At least not broadly, and certainly not in polls.) He has received attention in sources such as Deseret News, which is owned by the Mormon Church, and also this post in May from the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judy-frankel/trump-hillary-haters-take_b_10110720.html But other than that I know of exactly two polls he has ever been in (1-2% at best), usually included w/ Macmullin or other obscure figures. I affirm that he should be removed due to WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. KingAntenor (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion will likely not be resolved before election day, so it relates more to unknown candidates and parties in the 2020 election cycle. Please consider what criteria should hold beyond the given names and particular circumstances for the current election. Bcharles (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Don't keep: The 270 electoral vote threshold for ballot lines obtained is a standard that demonstrates campaign strength and potential. The inclusion of write-in states, masks the lack of support and organization sufficient to achieve ballots for half of voters. The pretense that one could win a state with write-in votes, in spite of the inability to gain that ballot line, is sophistry. Bcharles (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • An Alaskan senator won a senate race as a write-in so that viewpoint is not "sophistry". Prcc27🌍 (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Alaska is represented by a single congressional district. That analogy could hold in 2008 when castle had ballot lines for 49% of the electoral vote, he would have needed to win all states that he was on the ballot and any small state by write-in. This year he would need to win states representing 63 electoral votes by write-in, with no signs of broad support, funding, or organization. That is not a remotely plausible scenario. McMullin is even farther afield. Bcharles (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• What does Alaska being represented by a single congressional district have to do with anything? All senate elections are statewide elections. I hate to repeat myself over and over but we aren't supposed to make decisions based on speculation per Wikipedia policy. You keep speculating that these candidates won't win the election, but that's your point of view and we're supposed to edit articles in a neutral way. If we used "signs of broad support, funding, (and) organization" as criteria for inclusion then Stein and/or Johnson would possibly fail this requirement also. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Update: for everyone arguing we should use polling as criteria for inclusion I would just like to point out that McMullin is the *only* third party candidate polling within the margin of error in a state. So McMullin is more likely to win the presidential election than Stein and Johnson according to polling. I'm not saying we should use polling as criteria, but this refutes the argument that McMullin isn't polling high enough. If McMullin does in fact win Utah then he will also be included in the infobox after the election per the current consensus on post-election inclusion criteria. This proves how silly everyone is for saying "McMullin should be removed now since he is going to be removed after the election anyways." Well, we don't know that, and even if we did it's not up to us to speculate. And for everyone saying he hasn't received enough coverage from the reliable sources... him polling this high in Utah has given him more news coverage than he had before. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah this is big, I would say if McMullen is tied for winning a state he needs to be included. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

A consensus notice should not be added to the talk page until after this RfC is resolved. We should refrain from adding a consensus notice that links to a discussion that took place on a separate article. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Remove. The infobox looks ridiculous and is totally inconsistent with past election articles. (I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @DrFleischman: Actually, the infobox is very consistent with past election articles. In past election articles there were 2 separate inclusion criteria: one for before the election and one for after the election. This was probably done in order to avoid violating WP:CRYSTAL. In 2012 before election day, Virgil Goode was included in the infobox even though he could only theoretically get 270+ EVs with the help of write-ins (Castle and McMullin are in the same situation). You can go through the article's history to see who was included in the infobox before the election. Castle and McMullin would have been included in the 2012 infobox since they would have met the pre-election criteria. The current consensus for post-election inclusion is getting at least 5% of the national popular vote or at least 1 pledged electoral college vote. Although polls are not entirely accurate, according to polling Johnson has a good chance of meeting this criteria by getting 5%+ popular votes and McMullin (a candidate you support removing) could also meet this criteria for post-election inclusion if he wins Utah (he is polling within the margin of error in the most recent Utah poll). Why should McMullin be excluded and Stein included when McMullin is more likely (according to polling) to be in the infobox after election day than Stein is? Saying the infobox looks ridiculous is an I don't like it argument. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. I'm not going to do the research myself, but if you can produce evidence that we're using the same criteria that we did in 2012 (with diffs and/or links to 2012 consensus) then that will go a long way toward convincing me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• @DrFleischman: As you will see in this discussion (please read all the subsections as well), there was a consensus to include all candidates with a theoretical chance of obtaining 270+ EVs and users in that discussion agreed to include Virgil Goode in the infobox. You'll also see the post-election criteria discussed as well. Here is the article in Nov. 2012. Notice that Virgil Goode and Rocky Anderson were included in the infobox. Scroll down to the "Major third parties" section and you'll see that both Goode and Anderson had less than 270 EV ballot access but had 270+ EV access when you include write-in access. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussions in 2012, as well as edits to remove Goode and Anderson, which were reverted, show that there was not consensus to include candidates based on write-in votes. Bcharles (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The following notice is at the top of this talk page, but an editor keeps removing it, so I am adding it here because it is pertinent to this discussion:

Write-ins (including Castle and McMullin) are not currently in the infobox. The most recent attempts to add write-in candidates started with an attempt to add Castle to the infobox during a discussion on Aug 23 at 735891756, which was challenged (reverted) at 736056459. The addition of Castle and other write-ins have been proposed/challenged/discussed ever since. Since the addition of write-ins to the infobox is challenged, they should not be reinstated (re-added) to the infobox. If you see them there, just remove them. Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• A consensus on a related article isn't necessarily applicable on this article. However, many people in that discussion actually supported including candidates with a mathematical chance of winning (which is evident with how many supported including Virgil Goode). Your consensus notice is very unnecessary and redundant. A link to the discussion you are referring to has already been included in this RfC many times. And you need to stop picking and choosing which consensus discussion to bring up. The most recent consensus discussion was the unanimous decision to include write-in access for inclusion criteria. So you should stop POV pushing by either including the unanimous discussion from August in your consensus notice or don't include a consensus notice at all. Calling me an "ass" for removing your POV-pushed consensus notice is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Your disruptive behavior is getting really irritating to say the least. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The two day discussion in August of this year was not a "consensus", which requires notifying editors of the discussion and allowing time (usually 30 days) for varied positions to be expressed and addressed. There has not been a formal consensus process on this issue before now, but a consensus on one article would hold for related articles. Bcharles (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• There is no official procedure for achieving consensus because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Notifying editors of a discussion is only done when consensus isn't clear, but at the time consensus was very obvious. It is quite clear that consensus was achieved in August per WP:CONACHIEVE: "Ideally, (consensus) arrives with an absence of objections". There were no objections made on the talk page for several days. Also, the consensus in 2012 was to include write-in access as inclusion criteria. When an edit like Virgil Goode being included in the infobox remains on the article for several months without being disputed on the talk page, that edit has consensus per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. So if consensuses on other articles are in fact binding on related articles then that means the current consensus is to include Castle and McMullin per what we did in 2012. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - it does not seem WP:OFFTOPIC and at the moment not exceeding due WP:WEIGHT too much by including. Otherwise --- First, this is in advance of the event so the perspective may shift later and ... for now I'll just prefer to err on the side of being encyclopedic bit too much info and bit too inclusive rather than too short. Second, precedent here that Ross Perot appears in United States presidential election, 1996, and further back in United States presidential election, 1912 individuals are included at small percentages. Third - possible significance to the story as in if McMullin takes Utah, or if Florida is so close that the other party candidates make the difference, as Ralph Nader did in 2000. Markbassett (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Remove - Neither Darrell Castle nor Evan McMullin have been featured in any of the five (5) major polls selected by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD): the ABC News-Washington Post, CBS News-New York Times, CNN-Opinion Research Corporation, Fox News, and NBC News-Wall Street Journal. So as such, neither Castle nor McMullin qualified for the first step in debate participation. I vote to remove the candidates from the infobox. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Charlesaaronthompson: Please keep in mind that this is not a vote (see WP:VOTE). Polling is not a fair way to decide whether candidates should be in the infobox because the pollsters choose not to include the other candidates, only giving the people answering these polls only four choices, which is not fair at all. A few months ago, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were not even included in the polls that you speak of, but were brought in because of the coverage that they were getting. However, they should remain in the infobox until the election because it was already decided in this discussion that, if a candidate achieved ballot or write-in access to 270 electoral votes, such a candidate shall remain, and Darrell Castle and Evan McMullin have already crossed the threshold. JC · Talk · Contributions 07:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @JCRules: Does that mean we have to include all other candidates then? That would really clutter up the infobox, IMO. I only said I wanted to remove Darrell Castle and Evan McMullin because only having write-in access to 270 electoral votes is not a good indicator of the viability of a presidential candidate. Common sense says that none of the four third-party or independent candidates currently listed in the infobox will in all likelihood win any state's Electoral College votes in 2016, because no third-party or independent candidate has won any electoral votes since 1968. My opinion is to only include candidates who will receive electoral votes. Unless McMullin wins Utah's six (6) electoral votes (or Castle wins any state's electoral votes), there is no compelling reason to list either candidate in the infobox of the main article. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
      • @Charlesaaronthompson: No, there are only six candidates that have ballot or write-in access to at least 270 electoral votes, so there shall only be six candidates in the infobox and others shall be added if they cross the threshold. By the way, Lisa Murkowski is one example of a candidate that was elected to the U.S. Senate after running a write-in campaign, so it is arbitrary to assume what "is not a good indicator of the viability of a presidential candidate." Taking WP:SPECULATION into account, it is unfair to presume that third-party and independent candidates will not receive an electoral vote. Current consensus for post-election criteria for inclusion in the infobox is that a candidate must receive at least five percent of the national popular vote or at least one electoral vote, and neither you nor I have results of the November 8 election. JC · Talk · Contributions 07:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
        • @JCRules: BTW, those polls I listed are a reliable indicator of the overall level of national support each candidate enjoys. Also, it is not unfair to presume that third-party and independent candidates will not receive any electoral votes, because recently past elections have consistently demonstrated that third-party and independent candidates won't receive any electoral votes. History is a pretty reliable indicator of how the vote will turn out on November 8 and how it will be tallied afterwards. So, according to your logic, the only third-party candidate who should be listed in the infobox then is Gary Johnson, because he's the only one who is currently polling higher than five (5) percent right now (Jill Stein is at about 2.2 percent, so I say remove her from the infobox, because she is currently failing to poll higher than 5 percent.) Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
          • @Charlesaaronthompson: First of all, they are only given four options in those polls and are not allowed any other options. With regard to "[my] logic," I said "post-election criteria for inclusion in the infobox." Post-election. This is the month before the election, and neither you nor I have the final results of the election. If we were back in time during the Iowa caucus and took the media's word for it that Donald Trump would fail, would we snub Donald Trump? The analogy is, nobody knows the end result. A third-party candidate could be the first in decades to win an electoral vote, but we shouldn't remove them on the notion that they will not out of pure speculation. JC · Talk · Contributions 07:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I have placed Evan McMullin ahead of Darrell Castle because of ballot and write-in access totals. McMullin has access to 465 electoral votes while Castle has 409 electoral votes. JC · Talk · Contributions 20:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

McMullin's total is only that high if you include anticipated states. Read the source carefully. I have revised his total to reflect that. Bcharles (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Is this page about the US presidential elections? Is it about the likely winners? Is it a page that speculates, like news media do, about the 'major' candidates to the the exclusion of candidates who, conventional wisdom says, cannot possibly win or even influence the outcome? The page is entitled to suggest it is about the presidential election, not a sub-set of it. That suggests to me even if the field included 50 candidates with little chance of winning, they should all be listed. By all means also include concise text explaining the factors that make the chances minimal for minor parties and independents to have any chance at determining outcomes. But don't pre-suppose these outcomes; to do that makes you a pundit, not an encyclopaedic editor. This goes to the question of whether political attitudes in the USA, as shaped by news media that are seen elsewhere in the world as largely propaganda organs for corporate owners, are reliable guides to what is and what is not a 'fact'. The page here either joins the propaganda route, or reflects a reality in which this election is being fought by more than two contenders. Think of it in historical terms too: if African or Chinese readers, 20 years from now, want to know who ran in this presidential election, would it be accurate to say there were only two candidates? Four? Six? I came here via an invitation from Legobot to comment; I am not an American and have no right to vote in the coming elections. Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Peterstrempel: I agree with your perspective for inclusion in the article, but inclusion in the infobox featured at the top of the article needs more limited criteria. The requirement of ballot lines for a majority of the electoral vote is somewhat inclusive but focuses on major candidates (4 in this election). It seems that including states with ballot access and write-in filings adding up to a majority, dilutes the focus, and is more difficult to maintain, with new write-in filings coming in until election day. Bcharles (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like discussion is starting to slow down significantly given the above comment came 3 days after JC's comment. Furthermore, the level of support for the "keep" and "remove" camps doesn't look like it will change that much especially since the margin between the two camps hasn't been changing that much throughout the duration of this RfC. Many people have expressed concern that the election will be or will almost be over by the time this RfC is over which would render the discussion here moot. As a result, we should definitely consider having this RfC formally closed by an admin ASAP. If nobody objects, I'll make the request myself. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd say do it. There's not much new being said here, and closing this early is the only way it will mean anything. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As two weeks have passed and discussion does not seem to be evolving further, it may be time to close. A resolution will help in future presidential election articles, even if decided late in this cycle. Although the title mentions Castle and McMullin, De La Fuente and Kotlikoff may reach the threshold being discussed before the election. Bcharles (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

So my inclination is to remove, so that we include only those with ballot access to 270 votes not as write-ins. I'd like to add a further question before we close though - does McMullin's potential to win electoral college votes change things? Multiple polls have him over 20% in Utah, and multiple independent reliable sources have discussed this possibility ([5], [6], [7]. On that grounds, I may be inclined to keep him as an exception despite absence of ballot access; perhaps we need to add a caveat that anyone regularly polling over 20% in any one state should also be included, even if they don't have requisite access, as they may win electoral college votes? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As someone who worked in politics, there will be many more candidates becoming eligible for 270+ electoral votes the sooner the election approaches and the infobox will get out of control. It's not fair for Kotlikoff to be left off and Castle to be left in since they have the same criteria for eligibility.

1. 270 or more electoral votes through ballot access OR 2. 10% or more national support through reputable polls OR 3. 20% or more support in a single state from reputable polls

Ordered by the results of the 2012 election, which means you'd see Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and Evan McMullin. Personally, I'd like Clinton and Trump to be in the top part of the infobox seeing how Democrats and Republicans won electoral votes in 2012, and Johnson, Stein and McMullin in the bottom since they did not win any.--Guiletheme (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Polling isn't entirely accurate so I'm not sure if we should use it as criteria. I don't like your proposal for infobox ordering because how could McMullin win electoral votes in 2012 when he didn't even run? We should focus on achievements from this election like ballot access (the current criteria for being in the top row) not achievements from the last election. But this RfC isn't even about infobox ordering. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That's fine if you don't like it, but do you have a better idea? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'll support any plan that can get consensus and will stop the infobox from turning into a fiasco with 10 or more candidates.--Guiletheme (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Compromise. I'm reversing my earlier decision. I dreaded the day that a seventh candidate would be added to the infobox, but that day has come. It's crowded and the criterion is just going to lead to more candidates being put in the fold. Here is the compromise that I am offering for everyone.

1. A candidate must have ballot access (not write-in access) to at least 270 Electoral College votes.
2. A candidate must be polling at least five percent in a state poll conducted in October.

The following are the post-election criteria:

1. A candidate must receive at least five percent in the national popular vote.
2. A candidate must receive at least one Electoral College vote.

In this discussion, both sides are holding their ground, so everyone has to make a concession. This is the compromise that I'm offering, similar to the one above. With this as the criteria, only five people qualify to be in the infobox pre-election: Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Stein, and McMullin. The order would be decided by the number of Electoral College votes that the candidates have ballot access to. This compromise is not perfect, but this is probably the best we can do concerning a compromise. The following is just speculation, so don't give me a link to WP:SPECULATION. These five candidates are the ones with the highest probability to remain post-election. Clinton and Trump are guaranteed spots, Johnson will if he remains over five percent, Stein if she can gain more support, and McMullin might win Utah. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 17:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I mean, in response to your statement, I do believe that a lot happens before Election Day, and, generally, there are indeed more readers visiting this page in the years prior to the election than those who come here after. I've seen that these results have been skewed by the opinions of similar editors on local, regional, and national elections across the world. It's just not fair that it could – and probably would – happen. Upon reading JCRules' compromise, it does seem reasonable, though I don't understand why, in both cases for the less certain pre-election inclusion, a candidate must reach both of your criteria (you used the word 'must'). Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any major polls with Stein above 5% in any state, so I don't think she would be included under your standards. Additionally, unless a candidate, in your view, could get into the infobox by meeting just one of your ideas, McMullin would have to be taken off, too. I'm really appalled that eight candidates, and probably more, could be coming – in fact, it's been happening quite a bit, not least in recent days. As of right now, I'd honestly be okay with McMullin being in the infobox, given that he's shot up to within the margin of error in most Utah polls. Castle really isn't doing anything right now, though. And I am indeed quite sure that whoever is ultimately in the infobox will get to be included in the 'major candidates' and 'conventions' (if applicable) sections, as well. But, although it's a creative idea, removing the infobox just really won't work. It's supposed to give some essential information about the election, and an overview of the entire article, which is why people like Kotlikoff and de la Fuente shouldn't be in there. As for FiveThirtyEight, I guess we can use their default (polls-only) percentages in the forecast, but only for states that one or more of the projections list as competitive. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm no fan of the current seven-person infobox either, even though I am a fan of Kotlikoff. Under my preferred standard (count write-in access only if there is an official slate of electors to be voted on, named before the election - so not counting the nine states that allow blanket write-in access) Kotlikoff wouldn't be there - though McMullin wouldn't either, and Castle still would be there. I can't support a polling requirement, though. Polls can be shaped to ensure a particular result, or to prevent one - such as by not polling any third-party candidate at all. By your standard, offered in good faith, Castle would rank below Deez Nuts. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Strong Keep - I have come to see no reason to discriminate on the basis of Write-In Access given the only difference between that and physically being on the ballot is a lack of visibility, and the vote for such a candidate is itself equally valid in both case whether written in or checked from the provided list (and thus the votes for electors for said candidate). To do otherwise is to set a standard above what is technically the minimum requirements to seek the Presidency, and a violation of the Neutral Point of View Wikipedia is meant to express. --Ariostos (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There should be one criterion and one criterion alone. A third party candidate must have at least 5% in a statewide poll taken in October. That's it. There are three minor party candidates who qualify, Johnson, Stein and McMullin. I'd go with the "must be able to theoretically win the election" but McMullin is WINNING Utah at the moment. Should he actually do that, Johnson and Stein should be removed from the from the infobox entirely even though the Johnson will most likely get far more votes.

We should look at previous election pages for guidance. Look at 2000. Ralph Nader isn't there, even though he got over three million votes. In 1960, Harry Byrd (okay, unpledged electors who had previously said they would support him) won two states, and he's not in the infobox! Write-ins actually winning sre very rare. Several people here were very much against even mentioning write-in results in the primary pages. leave it as it was....please?Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Note: the RfC was closed at this point on 19 October. The result was as follows:

Keep write‐in candidates: There is a rough consensus for keeping the write‐in candidates. However, most of the arguments for keeping the write‐in candidates was made before the addition of Rocky De La Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff to the infobox—some write‐in supporters might now reverse their position. Therefore I personally recommend that a compromise acceptable to both sides—such as those proposed by User:Guiletheme and User:JayCoop—be made in a new discussion. —MartinZ02 (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The closure was challenged and overruled on 31 October after an AN/I thread.

NOTE: The closure was challenged (reverted), the reversion of the closure was taken up at the admin noticeboard.

It was determined at the admin noticeboard that the closure was improper and that the discussion should continue... Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of early closure

The subject of this RfC is whether or not to change the criteria established in 2012 [8], i.e., whether to add write-in candidates to the infobox. Because of the ambiguous wording of this RfC, editors who have written "keep" in their comments may want to "add" write-ins, or may want to "keep" the original criteria, you need to read the full comments to figure it out. (Although I think that nearly all of those who wrote "keep" meant that they wanted to include write-ins, while those who wrote "exclude" or "remove" or "don't keep", didn't want write-ins.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the criteria established in 2012 on a related article isn't binding on this one since there was a unanimous consensus achieved on this talk page in August that says otherwise. So when users say "keep" they are referring to "keeping" the most recent consensus achieved on the matter which is not the discussion from four years ago that Sparkie82 keeps linking to over and over and over again. Keep in mind that many of the people in the 2012 discussion might have used the term "ballot access" loosely when they were actually referring to both on-ballot access and write-in access. Otherwise, Virgil Goode might have been kept off the infobox if Sparkie82's interpretation of the 2012 consensus was correct. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I apologize for having earlier implied bad faith on the part of Sparkie82; I now believe he honestly thinks that the August consensus (which said the Infobox should include everyone with access to 270 votes, including write-ins) was invalid due to procedural irregularities. But it's now less than seven calendar days before the polls close, and so I strongly oppose reopening this issue. There are six photos in the Infobox, and I would welcome a vigorous debate about whether to include photos of some of the remaining candidates who can reach 270, but the six photos already in the box must remain there until election results are counted. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lawrence King: We are currently discussing the issue of whether or not to add write-ins -- some of us are even using bold type to discuss it, so the issue is still open. It's a little disingenuous to say that you don't want to reopen an issue as we're in the midst of discussing it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

* I wrote, "I strongly oppose reopening this issue." That's simple English: it means that I consider the issue closed, and don't see the need to re-open it and discuss it. You disagree, and therefore you have re-opened it, and now there is a discussion about it going on. Neither of us is being disingenuous; my claim contains no self-contradiction and neither does yours. "John opposes robbing a bank" does not logically contradict the statement "Fred is robbing a bank." In the same way, "Lawrence opposes re-opening the discussion" does not contradict the statement "Sparkie82 is re-opening the discussion." And now they are both in the past tense; the discussion has been reopened and I lament that fact, as I was quite happy with the earlier near-unanimous consensus. But I will no longer try to fight re-opening it; I will instead argue that this new unfortunate re-opening terminate in a reaffirmation of the earlier 2016 status quo (270 votes including write-ins), not a reaffirmation of some ancient 2012 rule that (per what Antony-22 writes below) wasn't even reflected in the actual article in 2012. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 00:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This description of the 2012 consensus is inaccurate. In 2012, photos of the Constitution and Justice Parties' candidates were both included in the infobox for the entire period prior to the election, both of which needed write-in access to reach the 270 EV threshold. The message at the top of the 2012 article's talk page stated that "any candidate with a mathematical chance of winning 270 pledged electoral votes, and thus the election, is included in the infobox... including write-in access in states that have had full electoral slates nominated and certified." The verified elector slate method of filtering write-in candidates has been grandfathered in since we can't seem to get consensus on anything else, and it's consistent with what's in the infobox right now. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The 2012 consensus was explicit and clean. You can read it for yourself. It explicitly says that the candidate has to appear on the ballot. Here is a verbatim quote:

• The candidate will appear on enough state ballots to actually win the election (270 electorial votes)  Done (concensus reached)

That consensus has stood ever since then, in fact, editors have continually cited that consenus and no other editors that I'm aware of have even suggested changing that consensus on talk pages until four years later when someone decided they wanted to put Castle in, which is what triggered this discussion about whether or not to add write-ins. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

That was not the final consensus; that quote is from an older discussion in 2012 whose result was later refined. I've posted a detailed account of the 2012 consensus as a response to your talk page thread on the subject. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Section break

I just reverted an attempt to close this discussion early. Although it may seem like a consensus on this is not possible, I think we should continue the discussion, perhaps with more suggestions for compromise. Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Sparkie82: There was already a consensus to close this RfC. If you didn't want it to be closed early you should have said something before. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Compromise - Throwing out a suggestion for a compromise: Since the reason for differential treatment of candidates lies in the WP principle of weight (and notability), maybe candidate weight could be more clearly indicated in the graphical treatment within the infobox. For example, candidates with 50-state ballot access on the top row, then in a subordinate section show candidates with 270 EV ballot access, and then subordinate to that show the names (no photos) of other candidates who are distinguished somehow by press coverage, write-in filings, etc. Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Considering you just put Gary Johnson in the 2nd row, why are you saying candidates with 50-state ballot access should be at the top? If you truly believed that, you wouldn't have moved Johnson to the 2nd row against consensus. Anyways, everyone should check out my sandbox to see if they like the compromise. If you have any suggestions let me know or make a version at your own individual sandbox. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Point of order: is it at all proper to unilaterally revert the closure of a discussion? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Not at all, which is why I am re-archiving this RfC. If anyone wants to propose a compromise feel free to make a new discussion. But in the meantime, the consensus is to include write-in access. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Antony-22: Re point-of-order, RfC's run for at least 30 days unless everyone agrees to end them. There is interest in this discussion and other editors have explicitly requested above that the discussion run at least 30-days. There are a couple of compromises on the table. What do you think? Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sparkie82: "Contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard." Also, "Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." There has been little interest in this RfC for a while and users went without commenting for a several days. There is nothing that says everyone has to agree for the RfC to end; there was a clear consensus to end the RfC early. Other editors have not explicitly requested above that this discussion run for at least 30 days. In fact, they were actually complaining about it. I suggest you go to the closer's talk page and resolve this issue and if that doesn't work go to Admin noticeboard. But you aren't supposed to undo an RfC closure without first doing these things. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Please don't close this RfC early without agreement from participating editors. When you close it in the middle of discussion, it causes editors to open other discussion sections on this talk page and disrupts continuity. There are now about a half-dozen separate discussions on the same topic because you tried to close this RfC. Let's work toward a consensus here in this RfC. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, the claim that there is a consensus to add write-ins to the infobox when half the editors in this discussion have challenged it (with good reasons) is simple false. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that their is clearly not consensus, as evidenced by the continuing discussion, and edit warring. Having candidates listed in the title is misleading, as this issue relates to a half dozen candidates now, as well as to unknown names in the future. The complications of arbitrarily restricting which write-ins count, as well as the difficulty of tracking all of the write-ins (many more candidates and much less accessibility of the full lists), are good reasons not to include them. The lack of notability or distinction in clearing the low bar of filing as a write-in is another reason to exclude them as criteria. Bcharles (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The attempt to prematurely close this RfC was the subject of an admin noticeboard incident report [9]. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep Evan McMullin post election if he wins Utah. Don't keep now because, if we are counting by write ins, we'll have to add every one in the major party section. That would be 10 candidates total, which is too much. Billythekid314 (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The discussions on this talk page have moved way past this particular RfC, with several active proposals that deal explicitly with the candidates other than Castle and McMullin. Could an experienced admin please close this RfC promptly on way or the other? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

  No. Those discussions were started after this discussion was improperly closed by an inexperienced editor who gave the impression that there was a consensus here (which there is/was not). All those other discussions were started under the pretense that write-ins were in the infobox (which they are not -- the addition of write-ins was/is a challenged edit without consensus.) Also, several of those "discussions" were forced into archive by changing the auto-archive to a 3-day cycle) before others had a chance to even participate. @Antony-22:, why don't you actually participate in a legitimate discussion on the issue here rather than trying to force something through process manipulation?

There are a couple of compromises on the table here at this RfC. Please comment on them here pro or con with reasons as to how they would improve the article. Sparkie82 (t•c) 11:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I already commented in this RfC on October 3. The discussions about compromises are currently going on in other discussions, not here. Most of the !votes here only apply to Castle and McMullin since they were the only ones in dispute at the time, and most of those discussions depend on whatever the outcome is here. This discussion should be closed promptly based on the existing comments so that discussions elsewhere about compromises can continue. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sparkie82: An administrator added Castle and McMullin to the infobox. You just can't go around and subvert consensus by claiming there is not consensus. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@JayCoop: You know damn well that that admin was misled by a staged talk page (this discussion was deleted from this page right before the edit request he answered). If you have any constructive comments about the topic of this RfC, they are welcome. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sparkie82: First of all, vulgarity! Secondly, this discussion was not deleted, it was archived. The administrator would simply view the archive. You have no evidence to support the claim that the administrator was misled. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 00:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep, -- but this RfC is illegitimate because this question was already decided.

Sparkie82 simply deleted the record of this conensus from this Talk page's header: [10] In any event, even if revisiting this issue were legitimate, the Keeps have the majority anyway (if you look at all the spin-off discussions elsewhere on this page). Finally, given that McMullin has a greater chance of winning a state than any other candidate per all the respected polls, keeping Stein and removing McMullin is clearly POV. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 02:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to point out that at this time multiple reliable sources are saying that McMullin has a significant chance of winning electoral votes, and thus meeting the post-election criteria for the infobox. This is not reflected in most of the discussion above because it was not yet the case when nearly all of the comments above were made. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 16:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ariostos' proposal

Alright so in reading this discussion I have noted there are concerns regarding those cases where more then nine candidates through the Write-In method have cleared the threshold and therefore meet the proposed requirements to be displayed, and what the minor requirements should be for even being considered. In light of that I propose the following compromises -

• Minimum Requirements for Consideration - That a Candidate be visibly on the ballot in at least a single State, and that their combination of Ballot and Write-In Access is equal to or exceeds (270) electors with said electors having been appointed by the Candidate.
  • This would prevent pure Write-In candidacies from ever being displayed with some sort of organization needing to be required, both in the terms of having the public and financial support necessary to get such Access, and support within those States in terms of Resident Electors.
• In the Case of (10) or More Candidates Meeting the Threshold - Candidates will be ordered on the basis of visible Ballot Access, with those falling below the total of the (9)th candidate being excluded. In the case of a tie between Candidates that would fall above and below this threshold, those Candidates would then be ordered on the basis of Confirmed Electoral Slates, with those falling past the (9)th position excluded.
  • This would hold the idea that visible Ballot Access IS more important as some posit, but would still allow Write-In Access to be considered.

--Ariostos (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agree, although at this point I've lost track of how many RfC's are in progress and whether this is one of them. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Keep in mind that two states (Colorado and Louisiana) allow a candidate on-ballot access solely by paying a fee, without any petition of signatures required. If the goal is to prove that the candidates have some level of organization, these two states should be excluded from the first criterion. (See my previous proposal on the subject.) I'd like to think about it some more, but with this change I might be okay with this compromise. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Antony-22: I think there are even more states that will put candidates on the ballot (or wave nomination signatures) for candidates who are willing to pay extra. I don't think the 270 EV ballot-access criteria should get into the weeds and have separate criteria for each state. The states are all over the map in terms of ballot-access rules. The 50% (270) criteria kind of evens it all out and it's not arbitrary. What about the three-tier compromise? Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I was actually unaware of the buy-in, I could have sworn it required signatures, though that appears to be solely in regards to Party Ballot Status. I'd still be opposed to exclusion on signature basis, as in the case of Louisiana you would still need file (8) Electors from the State to even allow the Independent petition to be considered, and the same requirement is made with (9) Electors being needed from Colorado in that State. That's a far cry from signature requirements such as in Louisiana (500), but it's not quite like he paid for access with no people in those States connected to his campaign at all, and he is still visibly on the ballot as compared to Write-In status. --Ariostos (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sparkie82: You are incorrect; Colorado and Louisiana are the only states that do this. Source. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ariostos: It's not that hard to find a few friends or colleagues to serve as electors. Under this proposal as currently worded, anyone with a few tens of thousands of dollars to drop and a handful of friends in a few states could qualify to be in the infobox. I think the requirement for an actual petition prevents it from being that easy. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Antony-22: I suppose you're right, despite still feeling uneasy excluding States on that basis. So how about this; what if they can still qualify as having Ballot Access, but they in cases of States where they did not undergo a signature requirement they aren't accounted for as "Visible Ballot Access". A candidate who was on the ballot in say Tennessee and with smaller but minimum required range of appointed Electors would then be given preference over candidates like Laurence Kotlikoff or Tom Hoefling. So buy-in access is still considered applicable and legitimate, but is weighted below petitioned access. --Ariostos (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ariostos: Well, I mean, I could literally start a Wiki Party, put down $1500 to get on the ballot in Colorado and Louisiana, file for write-ins in enough other states to get to 270 (which doesn't seem to require a fee at all in most states), and ask my friends in various states to be electors, and then you'd have to put my picture in the infobox in 2020. I'm being sarcastic, but it's really not that hard. I'm very devoted to inclusivity, since we should not be acting as gatekeepers to candidates who can actually win, but we also don't want to overwhelm readers with large numbers of candidates with literally no organization. Requiring one state where a petition is required is a super low hurdle to surmount, and three of our current candidates haven't even achieved that. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Antony-22: That's why I made the suggestion for keeping the Infobox to (9) candidates, as it has always been structured for the Presidential articles, and that the candidates who have no ballot access but have done no petitioning draw the shortest stick in terms of placement IN the Infobox. To be clear I do see the merit in your argument, but I wouldn't want to exclude candidates on that basis if there still are slots in the Infobox not designated to superior candidacies. --Ariostos (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think the infobox should either be how it is right now or how it was right before this page was protected (except with the political parties listed like they are now). Any other criteria would be more arbitrary. For the record I prefer things how they are right now. By the way, this RfC is about to officially expire. I will make a formal request for this RfC to be closed when this happens. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Sparkie82's proposal

• I see that @Guiletheme: and I have each independently proposed a similar compromise, i.e., that the candidates be presented in three tiers: those with 50-state ballot access, those with a least 270 EV ballot access, and those with some form of write-in status. Because the candidates who only have write-in status (or some combination of sub-270 ballot access plus write-in status) are numerous and because they generally have substantially less notability/weight, I suggested that photos be included only for the top two tiers of candidates. Something like that seems like it might work as a compromise here. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Sparkie82, thanks for the compromise you proposed. However, I must oppose it. Guilletheme's compromise (which would keep McMullin's picture in the box) is much preferable. Even so, my personal preference is neither of these: I think the infobox should have the top nine candidates, because that's what the software allows. Any lower number is blatant POV, based on the assumption that write-in votes won't be cast in 2016 (an election that has already defied many predictions). As you have explained on my talk page, the RfC that says all candidates who can reach 270 including write-ins was not actually a complete RfC, but nonetheless, regardless of whether that RfC was unanimous, I agree with it: we need more candidates, not fewer. If we weren't limited by software, I would strongly insist on having all ten candidates who can reach 270 in the Infobox. Many of the suggested compromises are based on testing how much organization each candidate has -- but why would that matter? It matters if you assume that more organization is a predictor of votes on November 8, but that violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Another argument you made was based on a policy crafted in 2012, but in 2012 we didn't have an independent candidate (who threw his hat in the ring only a couple months ago) leading in the polls in a usually-reliably-red state. If that had been the case in 2012, a policy that kept such a candidate out of the infobox would never have been accepted. I already voted keep above, and see no reason to change that vote. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

That just simply wouldn't work, I think – and it's pure speculation, too! There's no reason why we can't adjust the infobox to fit more than nine candidates, anyways. And you at the monthly page all have too much information in the section at the bottom. I believe that we'll be able to see what we can do about Johnson, Castle, McMullin, etc. after the election. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The reason why I suggest not including photos of the lowest tier is because there are so many candidates that could fall into the write-in category and if we just list the names (or maybe the names with some minimum info) then we would be able to get more candidates into the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lawrence King: The limit of nine candidates per infobox, or 3 per row, or four per row or any other formatting is completely arbitrary and we can change it to whatever we want -- or not even use an infobox if that's what we decide. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

In that case, including all ten who can get 270 votes in the infobox would be my preference. But if the folks who say that it's limited to nine by software are correct, then it should have the top nine. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no guarantee that candidacies will adhere to those tiers; if Johnson had missed the ballot in New York or New Hampshire for example he would have been relegated back to the second tier. That would inevitably be followed by calls from editors to move from three candidates in a row to two candidates on the basis of the infobox being stretched, as well as additional fairness concerns when a candidate would normally qualify for a tier but has to be bumped down or eliminated outright. It would particularly effect your proposed Third Tier. As a whole, I don't think we should be reserving tiers for particular levels of Ballot Access, and should just organize it (1) to (9) on the basis of Voting Access, with caveats, and potentially condensing/reordering based on the number of candidates displayed. --Ariostos (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with just organizing the candidates 1 through 9 like the infobox is intended to be organized. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The infobox holds nine, so it should have nine. I'd be happy with any reasonable way of choosing the top nine candidates out of the ten who can reach 270 electoral votes. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 00:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record, this was someone else's idea and our comments have nothing to do with inclusion criteria. We were referring to having 3 candidates per row instead of 2 candidates per row; we weren't suggesting that the infobox has to have 9 candidates. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Lawrence King's proposal

There are ten candidates who can reach 270 votes, so all ten of them should be pictured in the Infobox. If software limitations prevent more than nine from being included (a disputed matter according to the various editors on this page), then the top nine of the ten should be pictured. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

JayCoop's proposal

Here is my new proposal for a compromise with regard to pre-election infobox inclusion:

• To have an image and spot among the Democratic and Republican nominees,
  • a candidate must have ballot or write-in access to at least 270 electoral votes and
  • a candidate must consistently register at least five percent in a state poll.
• To be mentioned in the infobox,
  • a candidate must have ballot or write-in access to at least 270 electoral votes.

With these criteria, there are only five candidates that would qualify for infobox inclusion: Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Stein, and McMullin. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 06:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose We have consistently rejected polls as a criterion, and we have always included photos of candidates who have 270 EV of on-ballot access. Polls raise all sorts of problems about which ones to include and how to average them. Ballot access has been exclusively used in the past because it is easy to verify and requires no interpretation. In general, it is for voters to determine who will get the electoral votes, and we should not act as gatekeeper and deny infobox inclusion to any candidates where we've verified they have a possibility of winning the Electoral College. (That being said, it's still unclear whether write-in candidates can actually win electors in some states.) I prefer something closer to Ariostos's compromise above. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Sparkie82's "new proposal" for two reasons. First, I think the Infobox should have more, not fewer, candidates than it currently does. Second, I reject the idea that we in 2016 can bind the 2020 editors by any specific system. (I'm willing to bet my $100 against your $1 that during 2020, there will be at least one RfC by the editors of United States presidential election, 2020!) I agree with Antony-22 in all of his further comments. If there is evidence that a candidate who appears to have 270 including write-ins doesn't actually have a slate of electors chosen in those states, then they don't belong in the Infobox. But our default assumption, absent conflicting evidence, must be that when a state officially certifies someone as a write-in candidate, the employees of that state's government have done their due diligence to make sure that the candidacy is legit, and it's not our job to second-guess them absent solid evidence. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 18:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

MartinZ02's proposal

I propose that we only include candidates that get into the latest presidential debate, because:

• They are, according to reliable sources, the only ones with any reasonable chance to win (so WP:CRYSTAL does not apply), and it’s not Wikipedia’s job to decide who has a chance to win.

• The current criteria set by the Commission on Presidential Debates states that: “Under the 2016 criteria, in addition to being Constitutionally eligible, candidates must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College, and have a level of support of at least 15% of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recently publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.” This means that, due to the 15% threshold, no more than six persons can currently get into the debates.

Under the this criteria, only Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would qualify for infobox inclusion pre‐election. —MartinZ02 (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, the Commission on Presidential Debates has a board of directors run by Democrats and Republicans. 15% is too high of a threshold. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 05:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons JayCoop stated. Also, because winning an election is not the only aspect of its notability. Ross Perot didn't win in 1992, but as a result of his campaign, the two major parties realized that a sizeable minority of voters were furious about the deficit -- and as a result, a Democratic president and a Republican congress worked together to create the only balanced budget in the past half-century. George Wallace didn't have a chance of winning in 1968, but he showed that the "law and order" issue motivated a sizeable minority of voters, and as a result, the Nixon Administration adopted this issue, leading to Republican dominance of the White House for twenty years. Just so, if either Johnson or McMullin were to get 5% of the vote in 2016, that would totally alter the presidential campaigns in 2020, because the entire Republican quest in 2020 would become "How do we pull the Johnson/McMullin voters back into the GOP fold?" In other words, even candidates who are very unlikely to win can have a notable effect on U.S. history. And Wikipedia's inclusion criteria is notability. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 07:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Meta discussion

Meta - Regarding the continuation of this RfC... after the election, this RfC will no longer apply to this article, however, it needs to be decided for future U.S. presidential general election articles. So we might as well work it out now. Also, I think it will be easier going once folks are no longer thinking about specific candidates that they want to see in there. It might make sense to start a new RfC at some point, but lets first get to a point where we can figure out what the question of that new RfC would be based on working toward a compromise here. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• It was getting confusing who was responding to what proposal, so I tried to split the discussion best I could into subsections. It's possible that one of these will get support, but if not, perhaps we should move to a straight up-or-down on each candidate or group of similar candidates individually. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I just made a formal request for this RfC to be closed. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we should continue discussing the issue (even if we close all these threads [RfC's] that are currently open), however, any closing on this page needs to be done by adminitrators after carefully reviewing all of the discussions going back to 2012. Here is a brief history I wrote up on it which I think is unbiased (or at least as unbiased as one can write after being part of the discussions through all of this) [11]

It's probably best to take it up again after the election when all the editors who are just promoting one candidate or another have left, so we can see if any changes need to be made to the 2012 consensus. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Antony-22 has just revealed on my talk page a number of 2012 discussions that have not been previously mentioned on this talk page that are directly related to this meta discussion. They are:

• Archive 10#Applying due weight to the top row of the infobox
• #What to Do with Constitution Party/Virgil Goode
• #Regarding Counting Write-In States
• #Third candidates
• #Conformity with other election pages

With the exception of the first one (which was not actually a discussion, just a single post), a search for "infobox" in the archives doesn't find those discussions. Based on this "new" information, it appears that a consensus was reached in 2012 to include certain write-in candidates with EV's to 270 from states requiring pledged electors for write-in status. In those discussions, the question of how to present the write-ins in the infobox to indicate their appropriate weight was discussed, but it doesn't appear that a clear consensus was established on how to do that.

I suggest closing all the RfC's and discussions related to the (pre-election) criteria for infobox inclusion [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] and any other related discussions that aren't already closed because they were largely based on incomplete information; then opening a new discussion or RfC (with the above 2012 links referenced in the question) about how to convey the relative weight of the various types of candidates, e.g., top row, middle row, bottom row; listing without photos; asterisk next to name; or whatever.

It would have been nice to know about those 2012 discussions before hand, as it would have saved a lot of discussion and edit-warring. Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned below, I support the moratorium on infobox changes. Sparkie82 suggests that if we had known about these 2012 discussions, some of us would have made different edit decisions and had different infobox preferences in 2016; that is certainly possible, but at this late date, newly discovered 2012 RfC's should have no weight on what we do with this page in 2016. I support Sparkie82's decision to put links to these 2012 discussions in the banner boxes at the top of this page, but I would request that he stop deleting the link to the 2016 consensus. I removed the word "unanimous" from the 2016 consensus in the banner, as Sparkie82 has persuasively argued that this RfC didn't run to its conclusion, but it was still a significant measure of 2016 sentiment. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course the establishment of a consensus in 2012 for criteria for infobox inclusion for presidential general election articles is applicable to this article. Unless and until a consensus is reached for any new criteria, that's what we use. I'm not sure what you mean by "2016 consensus." If you're referring to [17], I don't think it changed anything. It was not a complete discussion, and the comments in that discussion that referred to the 2012 consensus -- in light of the newly revealed discussions in the set of links I just posted above -- could have been referring to the consensus at [18] (which is how I read them without the benefit of knowledge of those newly revealed discussions) or they could have been referring to the later 2012 consensus to include write-ins. So I don't think that discussion changed anything, but I have no problem including it in the list of links in the notice.

As to a "moratorium" to any changes to the infobox, if some new information comes to light that shows that a candidate meets the inclusion criteria (or fails to meet the criteria), we should always be ready to objectively apply that new information and make changes as necessary. Sparkie82 (t•c) 22:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course, new information (such as Joe Biden suddenly being listed on all fifty state ballots, or Jill Stein dropping out of the race) would justify changing the infobox. But that's not what we have been debating on this Talk page. We are debating whether the infobox should be revised now, given what we know now. Arglebargle79 and JFG proposed a moratorium on such revisions, and I agree with them, as explained below. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 00:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lawrence King: said:"explained below"??? Huh? This is the last comment in this thread. What we were debating was whether to add write-ins to the infobox (or keep them in the infobox). Since it was just revealed above that the existing consensus for (pre-election) inclusion criteria does indeed allow for write-ins who have pledged electors and/or ballot access to 270EV, and since editors were evenly split in this discussion, we're done. They stay in there until the election as long as they meet the criteria. Now let's close all these RfC's/discussions and work on the best way to present the candidates in the pre-election infobox (for future elections) so that their relative weight is conveyed to the reader. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record, this isn't "new" information about 2012; I've repeatedly stated that we counted write-ins with verified elector slates. What changed is that I took the time to actually go back and pull out the original threads and write up a history. That being said, there have been some complications with that method this time around, and I haven't seen much support for continuing it this year (which is okay, because consensus can change). The current compromise effectively preserves it, but more because it's been grandfathered in since we can't seem to get consensus for anything else. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Sparkie82, you seem mystified by my phrase "explained below". The term "below" is universally used for text that is lower on a webpage than where you are reading now, as you must be aware. Search for the words "support moratorium" and you will find the discussion I was referring to, below. — Aside from that point, I totally agree with your statement that "the existing consensus for (pre-election) inclusion criteria does indeed allow for write-ins who have pledged electors and/or ballot access to 270EV". But when you go on to say (1) "let's close all these RfC's/discussions" and (2) "let's ... work on the best way to present the candidates in the pre-election infobox", you seem to be contradicting yourself, because many of the current RfC's in fact are about how to present the candidates in the pre-election infobox"! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Lawrence, as the talk page changes and various threads get archived asychronously and maybe someone else uses the word "moratorium" in some other thread, then relative references like "below" and "search on this page" become useless. If someone reads this thread in an archive three years from now they won't know what you were talking about. It's a common mistake that I make all the time, but I rely on my fellow editors to remind me. (smiley) However, you can use the word "above" as a reference in a discussion (as I did above) if you are referring to something recently mentioned in the same thread because that probably won't get lost. With regard to the actual discussion you are referring to [19], there are already editors who oppose the removal of the infobox (and the "moratorium"). Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I just refactored the title of this RfC so that it can be more easily located three and a half years from now we do this all again... Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

If there's no objection, I'm going to archive all the sections on pre-election infobox criteria to /Archive 13 late evening on Election Day, so that it's all collected in one place. Perhaps future generations will write Ph.D. dissertations about it or something. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Antony-22:, You've already had your wrist slapped for prematurely archiving threads, which is why an uninvolved editor set the auto-archive to 30 days. If you want to archive a thread early, put a notice on each thread you want to archive and then wait at least five days, and then allow another [experienced] editor to do the actual archiving. Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Who "slapped my wrist"? Anyway, all these discussions on pre-election criteria will become completely irrelevant by tomorrow morning when we switch over to the post-election infobox. Conversation on these threads has died down anyhow, and I think it's important to preserve them in one place so it's easy to look back at them in the future. Any follow-up discussion is better suited to occur at Talk:United States presidential election, 2020 as it will have no consequence here. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone else really want to keep these discussions active at this point? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 08:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for clear consensus regarding the infobox (4, 6, or 8 candidates?) ( pre-election infobox inclusion criteria )

Both the 2012 and 2016 articles for the United States presidential elections showed clear consensus that any candidate with enough ballot access can be displayed prior to the election and those that reach at least 5% of the popular vote remain after the election takes place. Whether or not to show candidates with write-in access remains disputed with rough consensus for continuing to show Castle and McMullin. As of now, eight candidates are being displayed, two of which may need more citations to determine if they can theoretically win. There was no consensus for this. While Wikipedia is not a vote, the infobox has been topic of controversy on this talk page. The addition of the seventh and eighth candidates requires a consensus.

Who should be displayed before the election? Who should be displayed after the election?
Until the general election results are known, which of the following options should Wikipedia decide on for the infobox?
Option I. Four candidates - keep Johnson & Stein, remove the rest

• (Top two: Clinton, Trump)
• (Bottom two: Johnson, Stein)

Option II. Six candidates - keep McMullin & Castle, remove the rest

• (Top three: Clinton, Trump, Johnson)
• (Bottom three: Stein, McMullin, Castle)

Option III. Eight candidates - keep all

• (Top three: Clinton, Trump, Johnson)
• (Middle three: Stein, McMullin, Castle)
• (Bottom two: De La Fuente, Kotlikoff)

My opinion is inclusive of any who can theoretically win; while I would prefer that it shows only those with ballot access, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. That being said, if even write-in access is not enough for one to win, they should instead be displayed later in the article as non-major third party candidates.

Additionally, I would like to discuss post-election inclusion and exclusion.

The current consensus for post-election results is to display any candidate that either takes a minimum of 5% of the popular vote or a minimum of 1 electoral college vote. This is a reasonable position though I would consider lowering it to 2% as in recent elections (such as 2012's presidential election) no one third party candidate achieved one full percent; only when combined did they surpass 1%, making anything higher unusual and by extension significant. Additionally, despite only receiving 2% of the vote in 2000's presidential election, many believed that Nader played a role in the election (and some even criticize Nader as the sole cause of the election's outcome). For that reason, I believe 2% is a viable threshold for a candidate to be displayed in the infobox after the election's results are declared, but I acknowledge the current threshold of 5%. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC) .

The current consensus is fine, if the candidate gets less than 5% of the vote then we should not include them in the info-box. As for before the election, we just had a huge discussion regarding that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Third candidate scores in US presidential elections.svg

• Here's a chart that shows the scores obtained by the third best candidates since 1900. I think it shows very well that 5% is an adequate threshold to separate the few truly significant 3rd candidates. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The question is not how many candidates, but what objective criteria should be applied regardless of specific names. Bcharles (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This chart is convincing that 5% does show a truly significant candidate, though I must ask if the 5% threshold applies to continuing to have sections for these candidates later in the article as well.

Is there consensus on if we should keep information regarding these candidates and/or their campaigns later in the article even if not in the infobox?

I understand that only significant information is to be displayed on Wikipedia but in this election I find the third parties collectively to play a more significant role than they have in decades. BrendonTheWizard (talk)

I don't think anyone has suggested third parties should be completely omitted in this article. I also agree they deserve mention. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 11:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

5% is appropriate since federal funding is available once obtaining that percent in a presidential election. KD0710 (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This discussion should not revolve around which specific candidates should be in the infobox, but what objective criteria we should use. There is already discussion going on above at #Write-in qualifications for infobox on whether De La Fuente and Kotlikoff actually have enough qualifying write-in access to be in the infobox in the first place. Even if they do, I'd support instituting additional criteria for such candidates who need write-in access to get to 270. Some choices would be to require on-ballot access in some number of states or electoral votes, or that their campaign is notable enough to have its own campaign article.

In our case, De La Fuente is on the ballot on more states than even McMullin, and he has the support of the long-established Reform Party (even if it is much reduced from its former prominence). Kotlikoff on the other hand is on the ballot in only two states, has the backing of no established party, and has almost no press coverage. Subjectively, I feel like we should set the threshold higher than that. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll vote for option I with the criteria being 270+ electoral votes ballot access. This is getting out of control. We can put McMullin/De La Fuente/Castle/Kotlikoff in their own special section of third-party candidates with write-in access for 270 or more electoral votes later in the article.--Guiletheme (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely any criterion needs to be an objective standard, not a means to set the line in one place. I think at this point the only standard that will get agreement is "wait two more weeks". 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about the 5% popular vote requirement for keeping candidates in the infobox after the election: there is actually a nonzero chance in this election that McMullin could win in Utah while receiving a miniscule percentage of the popular vote (Fivethirtyeight currently pegs his chances in Utah at 13.6%, but there isn't enough polling to know if that is accurate). I think we have to include any candidate who wins even one electoral vote, no matter their vote percentage. Is there a consensus for this?--Danaman5 (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly the current consensus. 5% popular vote or 1 electoral vote. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Be sure to note the 1 electoral vote does not apply to faithless electors. Otherwise John Hospers would be in the infobox in '72, Ronald Reagan would be in the infobox in '76, and John Edwards would be in the infobox in '04.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ballot access seems like a reasonable, objective standard for determining the candidates who go in the infobox for a presidential election that's in progress. So I would favor option 1. For infoboxes after an election, I strongly favor the current precedent of 5% or at least one electoral vote (discounting faithless electors), which seems like a great number for capturing whether a candidate was a truly important force as more than just a spoiler. Orser67 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the top six candidates Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Stein, McMullin and Castle should be in the info box. Everyone else is irreverent in the election and does not have enough original ballot access to win and than anyone who gets over 5% can be listed post election.LuckyLag360 (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Everybody, keep in mind that Option I was ruled out by the previous RfC. We're only deciding between II and III here. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

How was this ruled out and also what are the "qualifications" to be in the info box. At the very least Johnson has to be there as he has 50 state ballot access and polling well above 5%.LuckyLag360 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

We had a very long discussion which we recently closed that showed a consensus for keeping Castle and McMullin in the infobox. See #A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle above. This discussion is a follow-up to that one on the inclusion of De La Fuente and Kotlikoff.

In general, the rule is that in order to be included in the infobox, it needs to be possible for a candidate to win a majority of the votes in the Electoral College. The ongoing discussions are about what sort of ballot access counts. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Antony-22: The attempt to prematurely close that RfC was the subject of an admin noticeboard incident report [20]. The RfC is ongoing and there no consensus to add write-ins to the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Structured discussion

Let's move to collecting !votes so we can actually determine what the consensus is on inclusion of Rocky De La Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff in the infobox. Keep in mind the previous consensus that the fundamental infobox inclusion criterion is that it is legally possible for the candidate to win a majority of the votes in the Electoral College, and that write-in access counts in principle (see #A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle above). This consensus is not being revisited here. The question here is what kind of write-in ballot access counts. The main considerations are:

• Should we continue to require actual documentation that electors have been selected, as was done in 2012? (See #Auditing the write-in access above.)
• Should we count the 54 electoral votes from the six "free write-in" states (AL, NH, NJ, PA, RI, VT), which do not have a process for advance filing as a write-in candidate?
• Should there be additional requirements for candidates who need write-in access to get to 270 electoral votes, such as requiring that they have on-ballot access for a certain number of states or electoral votes?

Please !vote whether to include or exclude De La Fuente and Kotlikoff, and explain your reasoning. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• If polling above a certain percent is not included in the criteria, the whole thing is fairly meaningless from the point of view of creating an article that will actually inform someone who doesn't already know much about the election. Including barely notable people like Castle and De la Fuente could cause readers to completely misunderstand the election. Putting these people in the infobox gives them undue weight. If all we're looking at is ballot access we will include a lot of people who technically could win but definitely will not win. Including them in the infobox gives a false message to uneducated readers.

But since I've already presented this argument and no one cared about making an article useful for the general public, I propose that the only criteria for inclusion in the infobox is having an article on Wikpedia and having a reliable source stating that you're running for president. An infobox of 20 or 30 is just as useful as one of 6 or 8.Earthscent (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I assume this is an exclude !vote. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. But if they are not excluded, I'm not being sarcastic about increasing the infobox to a few dozen people, for this election and for 2020. Earthscent (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You may not be sarcastic, but your position illustrates why it is important to keep fairly restrictive inclusion criteria for the infobox. If we are actually going down the road of including over a dozen candidates, I would support removing the infobox altogether until the election day, and stop this never ending tedious discussion. The infobox is not a substitute for the whole article, merely a summary of the most important information. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, the infobox is a summary of the most important information in the article. Castle, De Fuente, etc are NOT important. Ballot access without a poll indicating even a few percentages of support means that he, or any such candidate, is not important for the average reader of the article to know about. People come to this page to learn about the election. Offering them trivia at the top of the page is confusing and stupid. I would say that criteria for the infobox should be national ballot access, plus polls indicating somewhere between 2-5% support. Earthscent (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hi guys, I know that couple of days ago I was angry with some of you and I apologize if you got offended by any comment I made. Now let me share with you what I think. Elections in our beautiful country are all about voting for the person that we think that is the best option. Now in a more objective way, of course for him or her to be able to become the POTUS needs to have the mathematic chance of accomplishing it. This year that amount is 270. That is all they need. It doesn't matter if they are write ins or if they are in the ballot is about being able to win. Wikipedia is the #1 source of information and the beauty of it is that it usually gives all of us a transparent access to information. We can all agree that today people read less, and this is a pretty big article, so if we send candidates to other areas of the page is not giving them the chance to be seen. Media we know that have always controlled what we see and is subjective, here we have the chance to be fair for once. So bottom line is not just about placing the main candidates (Hillary and Trump) is about giving the ones who have the chance to get more than 269 the right of being seen, they have made a huge effort, lets not take it away from them. The info box is the most seen area of the article, why are we going to make it so exclusive? This is about us being better than the media, is about being good. Probably Hillary or Trump are going to win, but this is not about odds is about merits. After the 8th of November this is just going to be history, today is alive. Love you fellas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I assume this is an include !vote. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude. We do not currently have documentation that either of the candidates have actually selected 270 electors, according to #Auditing the write-in access. I would support including either candidate if we can document the requisite number of electors, clarify the situation in the "free write-in" states, and/or they gain access in additional states. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude. Agreed, So we can keep the current six but for the other two they shouldnt be added until they have the proper amount of write in access. LuckyLag360 (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC).

I concur. Kjack1071 (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, here are some info sources from where you can see that they (the ones currently in the infobox, Kotlikoff and De La Fuente) have access to more than 269 votes.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates, according to this source; ¨An individual can run as a write-in candidate. In 34 states, a write-in candidate must file paperwork in advance of the election. In nine states, write-in voting for presidential candidates is not permitted. The remaining states do not require write-in candidates to file paperwork in advance of the election.¨ Vote Smart, "Government 101: United States Presidential Primary," accessed August 15, 2015. This means that if they are write in they had to apply and fulfill the requirements.

A good link to double check ballot access for the candidates; http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president

Wikipedia Article on third party and independents; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third-party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2016

Arizona; http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2016/10/14/16-hopefuls-seek-presidential-write-in-votes-in-arizona/

More info on write in candidates; http://ballot-access.org/2016/08/27/august-2016-ballot-access-news-print-edition/

Aside note: If someone wants to update McMullin information on that link will be amazing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 05:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• They qualify with the criteria: Electoral + Write Ins > 269. I don't know if any other editors are continuing to take comments on this, but I'm in favor of only listing the candidates who either receive more than 5 percent of the nationwide popular vote, or who receive any Electoral College votes. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I suggest listing only 5 candidates right now: H. Clinton, Trump, G. Johnson, Stein, and McMullin. McMullin is only included in my suggestion because there's a strong possibility that he could win Utah's 6 Electoral College votes. If it turns out he doesn't win Utah, then it's obvious he should be removed, but I think McMullin should be kept until at least after the popular vote totals and Electoral College vote totals are publicly known. Also, I don't believe a candidate should be listed in the infobox just because they can reach 270 or more Electoral College votes with the majority of them being write-in votes. I believe a candidate should be listed if the majority of the possible Electoral College votes comes from the ballot, not write-in votes. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: please put a bolded "include" or "exclude" at the beginning of your text, to make it clear which you are supporting. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Sure, but only if we can think of a way to do this while also avoiding a WP:SYNTH violation. But if we do indeed exclude these candidates there would need to be something in the article and/or infobox explaining who does and doesn't have a slate of electors filed for each jurisdiction. Maybe add new colors on the map to indicate which states a slate of electors has been filed for. Otherwise, the readers would probably be pretty confused about what the criteria for inclusion is.
2. Yes, we should count the "freebie" states unless there is a good enough reason to believe that there is no post-election process for filing a slate of electors.
3. 100% no. This would probably contradict the consensus we came up with in the RfC. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This discussion is too broad, including multiple questions and involving tenuous prior decisions. I recommend focusing on a singe question with no mention of specific candidates. Bcharles (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bcharles: I was hoping to get a quick up-or-down on the extra candidates while mentioning the nuances of the various issues. However, everyone seems to be more interested in changing the infobox themselves rather than having a cogent discussion. We will really need to revisit this early in the 2020 cycle to get an actual consensus, but I'm not sure what we should do to get consensus for the next two weeks. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Unless there is a reasonable reason to believe that there isn't a post-election process for a write-in that wins a state without a slate of electors, I think we should include the other candidates. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit:We should include the candidates that haven't filed electors in a majority of EVs in a footnote- not necessarily display their image. Per WP:CALC I'm dropping my WP:SYNTH argument. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude We need to draw the line somewhere here otherwise we could have over 15 candidates in the infobox next time around. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • From what I've heard the infobox can only hold up to 9 candidates. I proposed a compromise here. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude I agree with the suggestion above to include only Clinton, Trump, G. Johnson, Stein, and McMullin. But I see that there was consensus earlier to also include Castle, and I guess we'll have to wait until after the election to remove him. People who visit this article are looking for information relevant to the 2016 presidential election, and De La Fuente and Kotlikoff do not belong, other than as part of a paragraph (text only, no pix or maps) acknowledging their attempt to have an influence on the election. Any details about the states where they qualified for the ballot can be included in their own bio articles, and in the articles pertaining to their parties if applicable. NameIsRon (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Include the named candidates as well as the others who meet the current requirements. Because the infobox only takes 9 candidates, we should remove the pictures of everyone but the two major parties. The whole issue of whether these candidates can actually win because they haven't filed electoral slates is making this overly complicated. I don't trust the legal OR going on here where people are trying to determine whether these candidates could actually win. --JFH (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Include. Guys you can´t change the rules of the previous consensus, a lot of people voted. The consensus on the infobox lasts until the elections. It is just 12 days. After that we will make a new one to see who gets included but for now, we got to keep that way. The only ones going crazy about this are the same 3 that want to change it. Take it easy. Check this article: we are looking bad for things like this, we can´t be pulling double agendas into this site, is the most important source of information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illdecifrador (talk • contribs) 03:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude all candidates that fail to achieve ballot lines representing at least 270 electoral votes. That would be four candidates in this election. Note that the related discussion on Castle and McMullin has been reopened above. Bcharles (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

*Exclude all candidates that will not appear on enough state ballots [to have a mathematical possibility] to actually win the election (270 electoral votes) -- which is the current criterion, notwithstanding statements claiming that write-ins shoud be there. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Based on newly revealed consensus discussions from 2012, and recently proposed compromises on various threads in this (2016) talk page, I'm revising my !vote:

• Include all candidates that are on the ballot or have any kind of write-in status (i.e., their votes will legally be counted) in enough states to mathematically reach 270 EV, but only list their names, no photo, in the footnotes of the infobox; those who are on the ballot in enough states to mathematically reach 270 EV get a photo and are listed in the main section of the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude, candidates should be included only if they have ballot or write-in access to at least 270 electoral votes (which is the actual criterion and contrary to Sparkie82's comment above) AND register at least 5% in a state poll. The infobox is crowded as it is. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 18:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Include, the standard (before the election) of access to 270 electoral votes should include write-in access as well. Therefore, Kotlikoff and De La Fuente should be included at this time.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Include, for much the same reasoning as William Saturn, though I'm willing to compromise on the matter of validation for Electors. --Ariostos (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Another Legobot invite to comment. After commenting on the closed RfC above, I see this new one as a resurrection of an issue that should have been resolved already. To me it has the appearance of lawyering that will continue until a certain determined group has achieved a politically partisan outcome. Loath though I am to say this, a randomly chosen group of no less than three administrators with deep experience should now step in and just close the issue out for good. In doing so, I recommend adopting a foreign perspective: will exclusion or inclusion make it more clear what is being said on the page to someone with no immediate interest in partisan American politics. Peter S Strempel | Talk 09:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the closing of all these RfC's should be done by uninvolved administrators. It's very complicated with all these threads and RfC's going simultaneously. I've been trying to direct folks to primary RfC at [21]. Also, I've written a brief history of what has happened with these infobox discussions since the 2012 consensus: [22] Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I just refactored the title of this RfC so that it can be more easily located in the future. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Limit the infobox to people who have ballot access in at least five states ( pre-election infobox inclusion criteria )

Extended content

Laurence Kotlikoff and Mike Maturen have on-ballot access in only two and one states respectively. Given the ease of registering as a write-in candidate in many states, I believe the threshold for infobox inclusion should be set higher than this. I propose that, regardless of any present or future consensus on whether and how to count write-in states, candidates must be listed on the ballot in at least five states to be included in the infobox. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Support - But make the criteria 10 states, this is getting crazy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Why five? Why ten? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Five seems like it would exclude people who get on-ballot access in the few states where's it's very easy to do so. If there's a consensus for another number, I'm happy with that. For comparison, McMullin has access in 11 states. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Why base the criteria on how many states they have on-ballot access in instead of on how many electoral votes they have on-ballot access to? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC) My feeling is that each state represents a certain amount of labor to qualify for the ballot, and filing in multiple states rather than large ones is a better demonstration of a campaign's organization and reach. In other words, getting access in CA/TX/NY/FL would be "too powerful" in qualifying candidates for the infobox relative to others who qualified in many small states. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose -With only a week and a half before the actual election, the point is going to be moot anyway. So leave it as it is for that short period of time and remember the infobox may very well have only two or three candidates on November 9th. I understand that this election is giving everyone here agida, and this argument over the infobox is digital figiting while waiting for the ninth to arrive. The argument is for the most part pointless at this stage. The light at the end of the tunnel is fast approaching! Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose. There is one week till the election, let the article be as complete as it can be, the 270 limit makes sense because that is what a candidate needs to be President, but other limits are kind of arbitrary. We should be talking about the after the election criteria, rather tan trying to take candidates out of sight. User:ClarinetCousin —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Agree strongly with ClarinetCousin/User:Arglebargle79. Let's let the election happen, then have a discussion of the issues in a few months time so we have a clearer consensus for future races. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Recommend we limit the infobox to Clinton, Trump, Johnson & Stein. GoodDay (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose. The infobox has room for nine candidates, and your proposal -- although it is phrased in a neutral way -- removes from the infobox the third-party candidate most likely to win at least one electoral vote according to the best polls (e.g., [23]. Your crystal ball tells you that candidates on ballots will beat write-in candidates, and FiveThirtyEight's crystal ball says McMullin will have more electoral votes than Johnson and Stein. But Wikipedia forbids all crystal balls, and therefore we can't ban candidates we don't like from the infobox. It's unfortunate that we are limited to nine, but given this software bug, we are stuck with nine. Any number less than nine is POV. — Lawrence King (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC) McMullin is on the ballot in 11 states, so he would stay under these rules. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose - The current criterion for inclusion in the infobox is that a candidate will appear on enough state ballots [to have a mathematical possibility] to actually win the election (270 electoral votes). There is an RfC asking whether or not to add write-ins to the infobox (Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#A_call_for_consensus_on_McMullin_and_Castle) which is ongoing without any consensus to add them at this time. Please comment at that RfC. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC) I just refactored the title of this thread adding "( pre-election infobox inclusion criteria )" so it can be more easily located in the future. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 October 2016 (3)

The consensus in which a lot of people participated and it is supposed to be active until the 8th of november stated this:

¨Order of candidates in the infobox: It has been agreed by consensus from an RfC at the article United States presidential election, 2016 that US presidential election articles will use the following criteria for ordering candidates in the infobox [pre-election]: order based on results of the candidates or their parties from the previous presidential general election.¨

You can see it on the yellow boxes describing the talk page at the beginning of it, but a lot of people made changes disrespecting that agreement.

I request that the edit of Sparkie82 at 04:49, 29 October 2016‎ is reverted, since he made it claiming that is under discussion, but something can´t be removed until a new consensus is reached.

He made the change and now the article is blocked, so is unfair that they are kept out. Today and until the november 8th, the article is the most important source of information, so it needs to be as complete as it can get and it needs to respect the consensus. I know that this must be exhausting for you, but those guys have been doing whatever they want. Thank you.

Illdecifrador (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

— Illdecifrador (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2016

November 8, 2016
538 members of the Electoral College 270 electoral votes needed to win
Opinion polls
Nominee Hillary Clinton Donald Trump Gary Johnson Party Democratic Republican Libertarian Home state New York New York New Mexico Running mate Tim Kaine Mike Pence William Weld   Nominee Jill Stein Darrell Castle Evan McMullin Party Green Constitution Independent Home state Massachusetts Tennessee Utah Running mate Ajamu Baraka Scott Bradley Mindy Finn
The electoral map for the 2016 election, based on apportionment following the 2010 census. These candidates can be legally voted for in states representing a majority of the Electoral College, but have not yet appointed enough electors to win: Rocky De La Fuente (Reform Party) Laurence Kotlikoff (Independent) Tom Hoefling (America's Party) Mike Maturen (American Solidarity Party)
Incumbent President Barack Obama Democratic

I support this change. We recently ran an RfC that supported Castle and McMullin being pictured in the infobox: see Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle. Literally all versions of the infobox have included them since October 20, until a user unilaterally removed them just before the page was protected. The inclusion of other candidates is currently disputed, but it seems there is support for keeping them in the text in the infobox. The infobox should be edited to appear as below. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• IMPORTANT NOTE: That RfC was incorrectly and prematurely "closed" by an inexperienced editor who had no business "closing" it. It has been re-opened and restored to the top of this talk page. Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, except for the final sentence. Another previous RfC concluded, ""It has been agreed by a unanimous consensus discussion as well as a discussion at an RfC that this article will use the following criteria for inclusion of candidates in the infobox: candidates that can theoretically win 270 Electoral Votes through ballot access and/or write-in access shall be included." Therefore, somehow including the additional candidates (Rocky De La Fuente, Laurence Kotlikoff, Tom Hoefling, Mike Maturen) in the infobox is mandatory, unless we revisit the unanimous consensus of the earlier RfC, which no one has proposed.

So the question is, how will these four be included? I believe that a single sentence as you have below, which doesn't mention their party affiliations or running mates, is too meager: it makes the gap between the six with pictures and the four without pictures far too sharp. I understand we can't include pictures of the other four due to software limitations, but they should at least have their parties and running mates included, and perhaps even their home states. Can this text box within the infobox support a bulleted list? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy for the presentation of the additional candidates to be changed. I just tried to make something succinct for now. The important thing here is that Castle and McMullin should be restored, and we can revise the wording of the footnote later. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I've made a possible revision to the text box. I tested a bulleted list, but the text is centered, so the bullets look silly. I don't love my new revision but at least it makes the candidates stand out more clearly. Feel free to improve it however you like. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Your edits are fine with me. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I have deployed this version — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 19:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I see it's already in the article, so just for the record I support this change. It should make for a reasonable compromise, and a reasonably-sized infobox. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The current consensus is:

That notice had been improperly removed from this talk page when this edit request was requested. There is an active RfC to discuss whether write-ins should be added to the infobox, which was also mislabeled prior to this edit request. (see my first edit at the RfC labelled 'more background' and my comment at the Admin noticeboard [24] for more details). The addition of write-ins into the infobox is currently a challenged, bold edit and there should not be write-ins in the infobox until a compromise is reached in the RfC. Also, a uninvolved admin reviewed the status of write-ins in the infobox and concluded that their addition is a challenged edit that should be reverted [25]. Therefore, the most recent edit that added write-in candidates to the infobox [26] should be reverted so that write-ins are not in the infobox. (Also, the editor notes embedded within the page should be changed to reflect the consensus notice here -- or just remove the editor notes althougher.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, the only candidates that should be in the infobox are those who are on the ballot in enough states to obtain 270 electoral votes, i.e., Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK Sparkie. It is starting to get old and the page was locked for this very reason. The other version was added to the page by an admin. It isn't likely to change. --Majora (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you participate in the discussion mentioned. If consensus develops I will make any needed changes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Well, there was a previous consensus not to include write-ins in the infobox, and there is an RfC ongoing to see if they should be added, but your answer to this edit request added them. (In fairness, this talk page had been staged -- including the closing/archiving of the RfC -- prior to the edit request to give the impression that there was support for the edit you made, when there is no consensus to add write-ins to the infobox). To make the edit you did to add the write-ins to the infobox is to conclude that there is a consensus to add them, but now you say that you want to wait for a consensus to develop? Also, other admins had examined the situation and concluded that that the addition of write-ins was a challenged edit that should not be in the article while the RfC proceeds. Sparkie82 (t•c) 12:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• IMPORTANT NOTE/CLARIFICATION: That RfC was incorrectly and prematurely "closed" by an inexperienced editor who had no business "closing" it. It has been re-opened and restored to the top of this talk page. Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sparkie82: Stop using a 2012 discussion in a consensus template as a justification not to include write-ins, because a more recent discussion in August 2016 nullified that argument.

Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 23:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus at that discussion. After 28 hours of discussion, an editor tried to add write-in Castle to the infobox during that discussion on Aug 23 at 735891756, which was challenged (reverted) at 736056459. The addition of Castle and other write-ins have been proposed/challenged/discussed ever since. This is why the addition of write-ins is a challenged edit and why there is an open RfC (A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle) to try to get a consensus to add them. It's also why every uninvolved admin who has carefully examined the history has determined that write-ins should not be in the infobox while the RfC is in progress. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because you went against the unanimous consensus and reverted the newly implemented consensus does not change the fact that it still was a unanimous consensus. Starting an edit war is not the way to form a new consensus. When a consensus is being disputed, the most recent consensus i.e. the one from August is what is displayed in the article until that consensus is nullified. You keep making the same misleading argument over and over. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if Castle is removed, I support McMullin's inclusion because he has been leading or closely trailing in the polls in one state. MB298 (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I'm content with the status quo. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

So how is that you apply that to McMullin and not De La Fuente and Kotilkoff, what is the objective criteria? Here is the proof that you are against them.

The difference is that we've verified that McMullin has appointed 270 electors, while De La Fuente and Kotilkoff have not, so it's unclear that they could actually win enough electors to win. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove the info box

I propose to remove the info box. It is very cluttered. Currently, every American over the age of 35 has the ability to win the US Presidential Election of 2016, as there are enough Electoral College votes from write-in states that require no prior registration for a totally random American (Kenneth Bone for the sake of it) to win the US Election and become President-elect.

I thus suggest we either remove the info box or simply only have one entry: Name: Every American. Party: All.

This is the most ridiculous election I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The amount of vandalism is extreme, and the amount of political bias is extraordinary. The idea that we should add every person "who can win the Presidency using their ballot access" (as per current consensus) to the infobox is just inexplicably - if you don't mind me saying it - cretinous.

This situation is simply crazy. It would work much better if Wikipedia simply followed the guiding of the Nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates - where any third party/candidate must have at least 15% support from a miserable 5 national polls (there's about 5 a day anyway.)

We don't even show candidates who won a couple of Electoral College votes (like Bentsen in 1988) so why are we putting candidates here that will achieve much less?

I think this is a mixture of people who are trolling Wikipedia by showing masses of useless information, and people whose political tendencies are forcing them to suggest that we put people like Stein and Castle on the infobox with the subliminal hope to present their candidate to the world through a medium of communication (Wikipedia itself)

Sure, Wikipedia is not "a crystal ball", so we cannot predict who will win. Heck, McMullin can win. But you know what else can happen? Trump can die and Clinton will be jailed. Two new candidates will be needed, so their faces aren't needed on the info box yet, and if anyone wants to add their faces before November 8th then what they are doing is using a crystal ball and making assumptions, no different to those of 'no chance of winning'

Unless a miracle happens, then on November 9th the info box will only be reduced to 2 candidates. So why, do I ask, are we cluttering this damn box up with useless information that is incredibly unaesthetic? 'REMOVE THE INFOBOX UNTIL NOVEMBER 9th!' — Preceding unsigned comment added by PantherBF3 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

That is factually incorrect. There are only 54 electoral votes from six states (AL, NH, NJ, PA, RI, VT) where there is no process for advance filing as a write-in candidate. It is still unclear whether electors could be legally appointed if a write-in candidate were to win the popular vote. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the infobox has been suggested before, but editors don't want to do that. I'll note that it was the suggestion that we add write-in candidates into the infobox that precipitated all the other requests and disputes to add all those minor candidates. It was fine until someone asked to change the criterion from the 2012 consensus. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Leave the infobox at six. November 9th is only FIVE days away, and the controversy is basically nervous fidgeting. So while it's too much to just say "chill out people," as no one will actually DO that, Just put a ban on ANY changes until the election is over..we can wait four days, can't we? Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support moratorium on infobox edit wars until after the election. — JFG ^talk 12:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support moratorium on infobox changes until the election results are counted. Oppose removal of the entire infobox. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: My phrasing was misleading. I didn't mean a moratorium until all election results are counted. The moment we have a single provisional election result, the infobox can and should be updated. All I meant was that the current endless argument about who gets their photo in the infobox prior to election day should be tabled, and the current photo arrangment should stand until some results arrive. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support moratorium, it's an acceptable compromise. We will need to work on more permanent guidelines either after this election, or at some point in 2019. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose moratorium on infobox changes. First of all, we are going to have to add a footnote to the map caption explaining that the results are only projections and that the electors don't actually vote until December. Furthermore, there's a good chance that we're gonna have to add a footnote about Maine and/or Nebraska since nobody seems to have a split congressional district map ready to upload. We need the infobox to be able to be edited on election day. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose moratorium -- Leave it as it is. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Description of Stein's status in the Lead

The lead states that, "Green Party nominee and former physician Jill Stein has ballot access in enough states to win the electoral college." Given that Stein is not likely to actually win the electoral college, that seems like a rather unusual statement to make. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to simply mention how many states she has ballot access in? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. Something like: "Green Party nominee and former physician Jill Stein had ballot access in 48 [45 states plus the Disctrict of Colombia] for a total of 480 [493] potential electoral votes." The article says that her ballot status in one state (Oklahoma) is pending, but that's probably resolved by now. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I refactored the title of this thread from "Lead" to "Description of Stein's status in the Lead" Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, refactor it however you like. The point is, there is no rationale for the lead to say something like, "Jill Stein has ballot access in enough states to win the electoral college". Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have ballot access in enough states to win the electoral college too, but the lead doesn't point that out in so many words. Why, then, is Stein being picked out in this way? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why it's the way it is -- possibly an artifact of some sort. I just updated the proposed wording above with the actual numbers. Does that read right? Sparkie82 (t•c) 08:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

That should be 44 states plus DC, representing 480 electoral votes, or 89% of voters. A line about having filed as a write-in for three states could be added, but does not strike me as important enough to be in the lead. Bcharles (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing has been done to make this change. Could it be formally requested? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit protection is scheduled to be removed tomorrow, then you can make the edit yourself (rather than bothering an admin to do it) if it can wait until then. We also need a reliable reference(s) to verify the exact numbers. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done

McMullin's image + infobox color

United States presidential election, 2016

November 8, 2016
538 members of the Electoral College 270 electoral votes needed to win
Opinion polls
File:Evan McMullin.png Nominee Evan McMullin (current version) Evan McMullin (proposed version) Party Independent Independent

The image on the Wikipedia article for Evan McMullin has been replaced recently and it looks rather nice compared to the current one that we have. I do not know if the new image is free but I saw it added to his article so I'm assuming that it could be a viable replacement for what we have now. What do you think we should use?

File:Evan McMullin.png

Option 1 (new)

Option 2 (current)

Additionally, his color currently is a reddish orange that appears similar to the color being used for Trump, so I am considering changing it to an orange that leans neither to red nor yellow as to more clearly distinguish him. The infobox on this section compares the current version of how McMullin appears to my proposed change. Please respond with opinions. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Option 1. Light orange line. It looks a LOT better. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• If the image is actually free (the file page currently says it is, but the source is not well provided), I suggest you go ahead and replace the image. This is not controversial in any way since option 1 is superior to 2 in every way. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• The image should not be used until it is demonstrated to be free--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

In response to William S. Saturn, I tried doing a quick search for this image. This tweet from the verified TeamMcMullin account utilizes the same image, which leads me to believe that not only is Evan McMullin the copyright holder but that he also agrees to release it under free license. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Still, the copyright on this image is unclear. This should be fixed before we use the image. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The copyright holder is usually the person who took the photo unless there is some other arrangement made. We need proof that an arrangement was made with the photographer and that the copyright holder agrees to release it under a free license.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• I must add that this image will need to be cropped to be in the infobox. I previewed what the infobox would look like with the image replaced, and it's a little too wide. For now, I've changed only the color in the infobox. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• I've cropped it. This won't be added to the infobox yet. I'll attempt to find more information about its copyright. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added it to the info-box ONLY because it'll get people more aware of it and more will look into its copyright status. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Posting a photograph to Twitter does not automatically place it under a free license. The image will likely be deleted. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

In case we cannot find sufficient information regarding this image, I've found two more potential replacements on Flickr. This is the first and this is the second. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

When looking at the version of the article with the new & cropped image, it appears that it is not wide enough now. I'll post an updated version when I can get the dimensions exact. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard: A photograph needs to be under a Creative Commons license that allows commercial reuse, or in the public domain (e.g. because it was taken by a federal government employee) in order to be used. Neither of those Flickr photographs fulfill those criteria.

McMullin formerly worked for the House Republican Conference; perhaps they published a public-domain photo at some point in the past? Also, McMullin has a number of public events coming up: Saturday in Boise, Idaho, Monday in Jackson, Wyoming, Tuesday in Lakewood, Colorado, and Thursday in Richmond, Virginia and Buena Vista, Virginia. Perhaps someone living close to one of those locations can show up and take a photo. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I attempted to find pictures of him from government sources by searching through the websites associated with his past government jobs. The most I could find was a pdf confirming his position as a policy director, but I could not find a photograph. His events could generate photographs of him, there's also the possibility of him showing up at the F&E third party debate on the 25th of October soon, though his campaign has not confirmed the invitation. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

One possibility is to contact Anthony Trueheart at [27]. He's the author of the current portrait and he may be willing to publish a better quality portrait that we could use. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Does this look good? Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Better than what we have now, though a less blurry picture would be even better if we can get one. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This is certainly much better than the original image. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a photo of him on the Hickly Institute website here, the institute is part of the university which is an agency of the state. While works of the federal gov. are public domain, not sure if that applies to states.Kjack1071 (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a very nice image similar to the one considered at the start of this discussion; if we can verify that it's free to use then it would be excellent once cropped for the infobox. Being that utah.edu is the official state university website and is not registered for commercial purposes, we may be allowed to use this photo, but I'm not sure yet. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I emailed the McMullin campaign press secretary who said that they had other pictures up on wikipedia but were taken down. conversationscreenshot here.Kjack1071 (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

My question about the infobox color is this: who decided it had to be orange? Shouldn't it be a color that reflects his campaign logo? Also, shouldn't consensus be reached as to what the HTML or HEX color code is? Personally, I think that the infobox color for McMullin's campaign should be something like this:  reddish-orange  Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should use orange, because if he wins Utah - a real possibility according to the polls - it wouldn't stand out very much on the map in comparison to the Republicans' red. I think we should go for the shade of purple being used in FiveThirtyEight's Utah forecasts for McMullin - http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/utah/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabot Cat (talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

!Vote on Evan McMullin's Infobox Color

November 8, 2016
538 members of the Electoral College 270 electoral votes needed to win
Opinion polls
Nominee Evan McMullin (Option I; current) Evan McMullin (Option II; former) Evan McMullin (Option III; new) Party Independent Independent Independent   Nominee Evan McMullin (Option IV; new) Evan McMullin (Option V; new) Party Independent Independent

As a result of increased interest in McMullin's color, I'm adding a new infobox right here comparing the colors.

• Color Option I:  Light orange  (We replaced the reddish orange with light through consensus due to it being similar to the color used for Trump.
• Color Option II:  Reddish orange  (We previously had this)
• Color Option III:  Magenta  (high contrast to other colors, not purple to prevent being similar to Castle)
• Color Option IV:  Black/Grey  (Symbolizes being independent but not too light to go unnoticed)
• Color Option V:  Cyan/Turquoise  (While somewhat blue, clearly different from Hillary Clinton and Rocky De La Fuenta)

I'm fine with any of these except for II as we already agreed to get rid of it. Please cast your !votes below.

The preview of how the infobox would look with each of the colors can be found to the right of this post. I will also add that I agree that orange wouldn't stand out enough, so options I and II are not my favorites. Magenta could work nicely; I !vote for  Magenta . BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I vote for  Cyan/Turquoise  LuckyLag360 (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

As the person that changed McMullin's infobox color to orange I wouldn't be opposed to magenta (although I don't see why we would need to change his color since orange seems to be working just fine). I am however opposed to gray because on election day as the map is being filled in people might mistakenly think that the blank states (which would be a lighter shade of gray) have been won by McMullin. I oppose cyan (blue-green) because I feel like we should avoid colors that are somewhat similar to other candidate's infobox colors i.e. Clinton's blue and Stein's green. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd be okay with orange so long as it is not reddish as it was barely distinguishable from the orange/red color being used for Trump. In the first call for consensus on McMullin's image and color in this section, I changed his color from reddish orange to a lighter orange as to make the distinction more noticeable, but I have heard from others that an orange would not stand out as much in the event that McMullin won a state. You bring up a good point with the gray. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That's probably true, so in that case I support magenta as well. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I propose orange, which seems to be the color used for the 3rd candidate to win electoral votes; ex. Wallace 1968, Thurmand in 1948. Not saying he'll win a state, but he seems the most likely of all the 3rd party/independents to win one. Kjack1071 (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I also propose orange. However, the HTML color code I propose is  #FF5800 , which is Color Option II. I just want the infobox color to be consistent with the HTML color code used in the section of the article discussing McMullin's candidacy. As long as the infobox color code matches the color code used in the section discussing his candidacy, I will support whatever the consensus is. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The color on his section is also subject to change. McMullin's color was previously a blue; it was changed to orange and can be changed again for the purpose of consistency. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that orange is the least desirable choice to use for McMullin because orange is the official color of Christian Democracy and the Christian Democratic party in the United States is the American Solidarity Party. As McMullin is a conservative, his color should be closer to red than other third party candidates. I vote for Option III (Magenta) as he is conservative, but not a hardline conservative, so the softer color is appropriate. Dhalsim2 (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2016

But the American Solidarity Party's official color isn't orange. And you're probably the only person here that associated orange with Christian Democracy. You could probably look up some random political ideology and find that magenta is the official color for it so that's not a good enough reason to avoid using orange. Since orange is a color mixed with red I disagree with your reasoning. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Saying he's "probably the only person here that associated orange with Christian Democracy" is not an argument. It is true that Christian Democracy traditionally uses the color orange. "You could probably look up some random political ideology and find that magenta is the official color for it so that's not a good enough reason to avoid using orange." is also not a valid argument as there is an established system of political colors. Pink/Magenta has no one established use and is used for everything from liberalism to feminism to homosexuality (point being that it has no consistent meaning unlike orange) (additionally, all three examples used for pink can also be used for purple). Another reason to avoid using orange is while we may dismiss any possibility that any independent or third party candidate could possibly win an electoral college vote, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the polls have shown that an electoral college vote for McMullin may not be as inconceivable as it seems. If that does happen, a magenta color would stand out far more than an orange. If we do use an orange, it shouldn't be reddish as that would be almost indistinguishable from Donald Trump's color. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Orange is not associated with Christian Democracy in the United States and this article is about the United States. The orange seems to stand out just fine [28]. Maybe magenta would stand out more (I don't know). But, I don't see the point of changing his infobox color right now when it's very possible he will be removed after election day anyways. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 31 October 2016

Change the color & party for Evan McMullin from "Independent politician" and "E78C00" to "Independent" and use the color shading template "Party shading/Independent".

Elisfkc (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose the yellow color is already used for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: this was my attempt to establish a consensus. Elisfkc (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

As of now, the consensus seems to be closely split between orange and magenta. I also oppose use of yellow as Yellow is used to represent Libertarianism. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Evan McMullin's candidacy

Currently this section (and the infobox, for that matter) simply lists Mindy Finn as McMullin's running mate. This is not true. In the 11 states he has ballot access to Nathan Johnson is the listed Vice President with McMullin. I am aware he was a filler candidate. However Finn is on the ballot in 0 states. This fact should be added to the article in a more prominent way. I do not know why only administrators can only edit this article. I assume it is due to consistent edit wars. That seems abuse-of-power-y. (But that's just my opinion.) KingAntenor (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, Finn is McMullin's running mate, all the while Johnson is a placeholder. However, a note should be left to mention this. By the way, I am the one who requested full protection at WP:RPP due to edit warring. There is no abuse of power Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 23:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The section on McMullin's candidacy should mention both Johnson (as the gentleman whose name will be on ballot lines and who any electors will in principle be pledged to vote for) and Finn (as McMullin's intended running mate). Note that there's no realistic path for either person to serve as Vice President - if there's a three-way split in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives will select the President from among the three candidates with the most electoral votes, but the Senate selects the Vice President from the top two. In that sense it doesn't really matter. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support any elector that votes for Mindy Finn is a Faithless elector. Johnson was supposed to be a placeholder, but that ultimately failed. We should explain the situation about both Nathan Johnson and Mindy Finn, but Nathan Johnson should be listed in both the infobox and in the candidate gallery. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Question: You say that the placeholder plan "ultimately failed". I'm wondering what that means: does McMullin now consider Johnson his running mate? Or are you saying that they had hoped to have Finn's name on the ballots, and that failed?

For what it's worth, McMullin's website says, "In the event that the election is pushed to the House of Representatives, Nathan Johnson would then resign as the Vice Presidential nominee to be replaced by Mindy Finn." I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I think this is nonsense -- for two reasons. First, the Twelfth Amendment limits Congress to voting for candidates who have received electoral votes; it says nothing about such candidates being allowed to resign and designate their replacements. Second, while the House must choose the president from among the top three candidates, the Senate must choose the Vice-President from among the top two. So even in the fanciful McMullin-becomes-president scenario, the VP will be either Kaine or Pence. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

They wanted to have Finn's name on the ballots, but they are stuck with Johnson. Even if Johnson made it to the top two on the Senate ballot I'm not convinced that they would be able to give Mindy Finn the vice presidency. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support using Johnson's name, while keeping Mindy Finn's name somewhere as well. Based on what Prcc27🎃 explained, Johnson needs to be listed here, since he's on the ballots (and even the write-ins require his name, not Finn's, to be written). However, we do need Mindy Finn's name, if for no other reason that people who have heard of the McMullin/Finn ticket will be very perplexed and think we simply made an error. It would be nice to have both names in the Infobox, but if that's not practical, Johnson's should appear there. Both names should be mentioned -- and the situation explained -- in the §Evan McMullin's candidacy section of the article. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that the presidency/Vice presidency is an INDIRECT election. Everyone is voting for presidential electors. Should McMullin win Utah, then Ms. Finn will get the states electoral votes, not Johnson. In 1912, Vice president Sherman was dead when the election happened, and the electors voted for someone else for VP. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Arglebargle79, that is quite true. However, many states have laws requiring electors to obey their pledges, and many have laws requiring electors to vote for the candidates named on the ballot. Exactly how these laws are worded, and what the McMullin electors in each state have publicly said about their vice-presidential vote, is unclear. Prcc27🎃 suggested that any elector that votes for Finn would be a "faithless elector", but that term is usually reserved for electors who break their public pledges, not for those who break the law -- because these laws are a relatively new development. If someone actually knows what the over 400 McMullin electors have each publicly said, we could solve this matter (albeit by violating WP:NOR). But since we don't know, I don't see how we can simply ignore what the official ballots and official state write-in rules say, in favor of a VP swap that McMullin personally supports. Comparison: If Hillary Clinton publicly requested her electors to vote for Joe Biden instead of Tim Kaine for VP, such a request would have no legal status. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support keeping Finn's name in the most prominent places but mentioning the situation with Johnson somewhere in the article text. Finn has been appearing with McMullin extensively at events, and the campaign and reliable sources refers to her as the vice-presidential nominee. Johnson's spot on the ballot is a legal technicality ultimately of little practical consequence, but since his appearance on the ballot may confuse voters, perhaps putting "Nathan Johnson (placeholder) under Finn's name would be a good idea. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 16:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • At this point Nathan Johnson is no longer just the "placeholder" running mate anymore. Nathan Johnson is the de jure running mate and Mindy Finn is only the de facto running mate (essentially just a figurehead). Prcc27🎃 (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Opposed to changing out Finn's name for Nathan Johnson's, though I'm aware with the problems regarding the faithless elector laws. The last time in "recent" history where this might have come up was in '68 when George Wallace carried Georgia, where his legal running-mate there was former Georgian Governor Marvin Griffin. They would later cast their electoral votes for Curtis LeMay, thus being "faithless", but there weren't any laws in Georgia forbidding that, nor to my knowledge have there been any such laws to that effect. I suppose instead we can look to the Republicans of 1912 for a compromise, with the situation regarding Nicholas Butler and James Sherman. True Sherman died and was technically replaced entirely, but we could use the format used where Sherman is mentioned to say that Mindy Finn is "represented by Nathan Johnson". --Ariostos (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: I'm not seeing any consensus here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request: McMullin

Please make these updates and changes to McMullin's section: drop "additional endorsements" from parties without wikipedia pages; add write-in states KS and MO; drop "write-in anticipated" list, as no significant states left; add WY to "no ballot access" (at this time); add and update refs; update total EV to 451; as below: Bcharles (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Swing states?

The table of swing states seems to omit a couple. Most political sites including 538, Politico and BBC America News include Michigan and Virginia as swing states, and 538 even throws in Minnesota as well. Granted, given the current polling these states seem unlikely to go into the Republican column, but there still seems to be a consensus that these are swing states.86.160.47.112 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

538 does not label states as swing or safe, but just rates them on a continuous scale. BBC attributes their labels to RCP. Politico lists "battleground states" a little broader than the term "swing state". They include MI and VA which their polling average lists as 9 point and 12 point spreads. Hardly swing states. Bcharles (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Minnesota is included in many maps because of a couple polls conducted by KSTP, a station owned by Trump donor Stanley Hubbard, which made a point out of only polling land-lines. I recently read an interesting article [[29]] which explains how there are far fewer polls being done in Minnesota and other states due to rising costs (including cell phones costs more money because those numbers have to be tied to an address), standards (in-person interviews are more accurate than robocalls and legally required by the FCC for cell numbers, but cost money in labor), and changes in the newspaper industry mean much less money in their budget for polls. Additionally, there are fewer polls done because of fewer statewide races this year. Ironically, MN no longer being considered a battleground after 2012 also has led to fewer polls being done here, so a few outliers like KSTP that show Trump beating Clinton in MN can skew the results to make MN look like a battleground when it most likely isn't. National pollsters like Rasmussen & PPP have pulled back considerably as well. IMO Trump's got about the same odds of winning NY as MN, but it is what it is. From what I've read, Michigan and Virginia along with NH and CO were considered swing states, and after the debates and sex assault thing were moved to "lean democratic" and were no longer considered toss-ups. Personally I'd argue for comprehensive inclusion and have all of them in the table, but at the same time there are probably good reasons to omit VA, MI, MN, NH, and CO. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This was discussed here. Until a different consensus emerges, states that do not have at least one of the included ratings indicating them as swing states, don't belong. Bcharles (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request: swing states table update

Please replace the "swing states" table with the updated table below. Ratings from the four sites included have been updated to the most recent reports.

Extended content

State Electoral votes 2012 margin Cook PVI Cook Nov. 2 2016 RCP Nov. 4 2016 Roth. Nov. 3 2016 Sabato Nov. 3 2016 Last swing Arizona 11 9.1 R R+7 Lean R Tossup Tilt R Lean R 1996 Colorado 9 5.4 D D+1 Lean D Tossup Likely D Likely D 2004 Florida 29 0.9 D R+2 Tossup Tossup Tilt D Tossup 2004 Georgia 16 7.8 R R+6 Lean R Tossup Lean R Likely R 1992 Iowa 6 5.8 D D+1 Lean R Tossup Tossup Lean R 2004 Maine CD-2 1 8.6 D D+2 Tossup Tossup No rating Tossup 1988 Nebraska CD-2 1 7.2 R R+4 Tossup Likely R No rating Tossup 2008 Nevada 6 6.7 D D+2 Lean D Tossup Tilt D Lean D 2004 New Hampshire 4 5.6 D D+1 Lean D Tossup Lean D Likely D 2000 North Carolina 15 2.0 R R+3 Tossup Tossup Tilt D Lean D 2008 Ohio 18 3.0 D R+1 Lean R Tossup Tossup Lean R 2004 Pennsylvania 20 5.4 D D+1 Lean D Tossup Lean D Likely D 1988 Utah 6 48.0 R R+22 Lean R Likely R Lean R Lean R 1964 Wisconsin 10 6.9 D D+2 Lean D Lean D Tilt D Likely D 1984

Bcharles (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hoefling

For Hoefling (Americas Party), add AK, KS, KY, MO, NE, WI, making his EV total 369. Add refs and "not on ballot:" list, as below: Bcharles (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Code removed for readability — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Add Maturen Muñoz 2016 campaign logo to their panel.

The other major candidates have campaign logos. Theirs is: <fair use violation removed> Dhalsim2 (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No. That would be a violation of our fair use policy. --Majora (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I am the campaign manager of the Maturen/Muñoz 2016 campaign. The work was commissioned specifically for the use by the campaign. Does putting it on Wikipedia not qualify as acceptable use? Dhalsim2 (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I found the creator of the logo and he released it under a free license. Please add it to the Maturen section.

File:Maturen-Muñoz 2016 Bumper Sticker.png

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhalsim2 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

As the campaign manager, you should not edit the candidate article nor related campaign and election election articles, as that would violate Conflict of Interest policy. Please review WP:COI.

I should be clear that my edits focus on discrete, objective facts such as map updates, electoral vote updates, providing citations for write-in access, etc. Dhalsim2 (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The creator of the campaign logo can upload the image to wikimedia, declare it as his own work, and specify a CC license for it. It would then be available for use. Alternatively you can provide documentation of the license as described at WP:PERMISSIONS. Bcharles (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that the image is already uploaded with a CC licensed by its creator. Bcharles (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Add File:Maturen-Muñoz 2016 Bumper Sticker.png to the box for Maturen. This should be uncontroversial regardless of whether the user who uploaded it has a COI.

JFH (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Also, the file link is a redlink — Andy W. (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Mike Maturen

Required edit

Maturen now has confirmed write-in access in Kansas. Please move Kansas from the anticipated list and put it in the confirmed list with the above reference. Increase the electoral vote count from 326 to 332 and move his whole section to the section above America's Party, as he now has higher ballot access than Hoefling.

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Also desirable edit

Change Maturen reference for Virginia to Dhalsim2 (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add KS for Hoefling as well, same ref. That makes his total EV 333, thus keeping him above Maturen. Bcharles (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wish I'd read this earlier — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Now reordered again — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Major Third Parties

Are we listing third parties in order form ballot access with write ins or no write ins? Billythekid314 (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There has not yet been a discussion specifically about this. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe it should be by electoral vote for ballot lines, then for write-in states. This would be consistent with the "other third parties and independents section, and would make sense generally. Bcharles (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI, that would put De La Fuente above McMullin. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

McMullin has demonstrably appointed 270 electors, while De La Fuente has not. Of De La Fuente's write-in slates, only AZ, CA, CT, IN, MD, and VA require an elector slate, which isn't enough to get him to 270. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the article takes elector slate filing into account especially since that information isn't provided in the article. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that we have to explain in the article why Rocky is behind Evan or not on the info box, even though he's on more ballots and can reach 270 votes with write-ins. Billythekid314 (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The title and opening post to this thread is misleading. There is a section deep in the body of the article titled, "Major third parties and independents" which is what the opening post appears to be about but then the OP adds a post at near the end about the infobox, which has already been discussed elsewhere. This thread is useless and should be disregarded. Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

De La Fuente

Democratic section

Rocky De La Fuente has lid so much passion in everyone here that I was doing some research on him and found out that he qualifies to be in the other democratic candidates section. Let me explain why.

First it says: ¨The following candidates were frequently interviewed by major broadcast networks and cable news channels, or were listed in publicly published national polls. Lessig was invited to one forum, but withdrew when rules were changed which prevented him from participating in officially sanctioned debates.¨

- If you search in Google Rocky has around 21.500 news results, more than Lessing 19.600. - Then he was invited to national broadcast networks, examples; Univision, CNN, Tv.Azteca and Telemundo. - He has more votes than Lessig, Webb and Chafee together. Way more. - The only thing that he falls way shorter than the other candidates is on the polls thing because he was just included in one, but it says ¨or¨ so it means that is either one thing or the other.

Clarinetcousin (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support: This has, for some reason, been a controversial edit. I believe participating in most state primaries, and coming in fourth place by total votes, is worthy of inclusion in the Dem primary candidate gallery. Bcharles (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. If he was both a Democrat primary candidate and a general election third-party candidate, then he should be featured in both categories. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 02:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Administrator note Please tell me exactly what change to make — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This was proposed, with code, here. The image needs to be updated. So, add a column after Bernie by inserting each of the following (updated) lines:

! scope="col" style="width:3em; font-size:120%;"| [[Rocky De La Fuente]]

|[[File:Roque_De_La_Fuente_(cropped).jpg|center|120x120px]]

|<center>[[Entrepreneur]]<br /><small>(1984 to present)</small></center>

|<center>[[Rocky De La Fuente presidential campaign, 2016|Campaign]]<center>

|<center>''LN: July 26th 2016''<br/><small>67,457 primary votes and 0 delegates</small></center>

|<center><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D |title=Democratic Delegation 2016 |first=Richard E. |last=Berg-Andersson |editor=Tony Roza |website=thegreenpapers.com |year=2016 |accessdate=September 24, 2016}}</ref><center>

Bcharles (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay that's done. Should he be removed from the section lower down the article now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

No, he ran both in the democratic primary and as a third party candidate for the new ADP and Reform Party. He still has an active campaign for the general election. Thanks for making the addition. Bcharles (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove lawsuits from ballot access maps

Shouldn't we have removed the pending lawsuits from the maps by now? They won't be decided early enough to put these candidates on the ballot, as most (if not all) of the states have already begun early voting. --Mr.Election (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Rocky De La Fuente's outstanding lawsuits have all been deferred until after the election, and I haven't heard anything at all about the Green Party lawsuit in Oklahoma for months. Representing these as a possible electoral path is wishful thinking at this point. If something specific does happen to affect electoral access on those states, the article can and should be edited to add whichever state is relevant at that point, but there's no need to mark them out now in order to do this. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The lawsuits will have significant implications for independent candidates in future elections. They also provide some context regarding the efforts and disputes keeping candidates off the ballot in those states. This I think they should remain as indicators beyond current ballot access. Bcharles (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Rocky De La Fuente's candidacy

In the "Rocky De La Fuente's candidacy" section, on the "Ballot access to..." line, 284 shouldn't have a closing bracket, and should be italicised, just like all the previous sections. Thanks. -- numbermaniac (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Moved discussion on further edit to new edit request below. Bcharles (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Updates

De La Fuente's section needs multiple updates and corrections (in addition to the one mentioned here). I have included a revision to his full section below. Bcharles (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Content removed for readability — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Please detail the changes you are proposing and get consensus on them before making the edit request — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: There are updates needed nearly daily for write-in access, as states publish their lists. The changes included above are updates for a write-in states and the EV total. Added references for added states, ordered refs by state, and clean up of duplicate refs. Dropped "pending states" as last state was added to write-ins. Updated states with no ballot access (at this time), including California, which rejected his filing, and other "lawsuit states" without write-in filings. See sources for clarification. In "nominee" box: changed campaign logo width to match other candidates. Bcharles (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Well there have been no objections so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Prohibition Party

Add File:Prohibition Party ballot access (2016).svg above of third party candidates table. Include write-in and on ballot colors in the style of maps already there.

MB298 (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the map. Please include a link to the map under the electoral vote total in the table as well. The multi-image "caption" could read:

Ballot access for James Hedges (Prohibition Party)

  On ballot

  Write-in

  Not on ballot

Bcharles (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Logo for Clinton Kaine

Change File:Clinton Kaine.svg out with the more commonly used File:Clinton-Kaine blue.png. Elisfkc (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Done No objections so done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: someone reverted it without seeing this discussion. Can you put the light blue one back please? Elisfkc (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Kotlikoff

For Kotlikoff, please add MO and WI, and remove them from "no ballot access", increasing EV total by 20. See below: Bcharles (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, yet again. Please fix comment bracket (missing <) at top of candidate box, after ballot access info. Bcharles (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry  Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for talk page etiquette

I am an uninvolved admin attempting to impose some order on this talk page and attend to edit requests. It would be helpful if folks could use a useful title when starting new discussion sections. Five sections all called "Protected edit request on 3 November 2016" is not very helpful. Please consider posting in an existing relevant section rather than starting a new one - it can be quite disruptive to split discussions across sections. I have done some consolidation above so that all discussion relating to a particular candidate is in one place. That makes it easier for people to see what has been discussed previously. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The "request edit" button on the view source page creates new sections with the dated title and protected edit request template. There will likely be more such sections generated. I think the logic of the system is to keep request in date order so they can be handled sequentially. Bcharles (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I know the request edit button produces that heading by default, but it can be changed. It is far more logical to keep threads in line with the same topic, rather than chronological. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Newspaper endorsements

Could somebody include that "The Crusader" endorsed Donald Trump? Should be mentioned in the section newspaper endorsements. --Cartinal (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cartinal: First off, that would be something for Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2016. Second, according to this Washington Post article they aren't officially endorsing him. Elisfkc (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Newspaper endorsements: "top-100"

The statement "Trump ... has a historically low number of endorsements from top-100 circulation newspapers" is an understatement and not supported by the source. The source mentions "major" newspapers, and never talks about "top-100". Based on the cited sources, the statement should be "Trump ... has not been endorsed by a major newspaper." --JFH (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

This statement is also misleading: "Trump's major support in media instead came from sources such as 'alt-right' website Breitbart, outside the traditional media sphere." The source only mentions Breitbart, and I found another source which states that non-traditional media have shunned Trump as well. It's also misleading because you would think based on the section that this Breitbart endorses him, but that is not the case. The statement should be "Trump has received favorable coverage, but no explicit endorsement, from Breitbart, an alt-right news and opinion website." The following sources, copied from the Breitbart WP page, may be added for calling Breitbart alt-right (without scare quotes):

• Eli Stokols (October 13, 2016). "Trump fires up the alt-right". Politico. ...the unmistakable imprint of Breitbart News, the 'alt-right' website ....
• Staff (October 1, 2016). "The rise of the alt-right". The Week. Another major alt-right platform is Breitbart.com, a right-wing news site ...
• Will Rahn (August 19, 2016). "Steve Bannon and the alt-right: a primer". CBS News. Bannon's Breitbart distinguished itself from the rest of the conservative media in two significant ways this cycle...The second was through their embrace of the alt-right... --JFH (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The statement that Trump has not been endorsed by a major newspaper is not true. He was endorsed by the Las Vegas Review-Journal. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

For the top 100 argument, see the intro paragraph on Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2016. It also addresses the historically low argument. I'm on my phone right now, so I can't bring you the sources used there, but they are valid sources and statements. However, as pointed out above, the Las Vegas Review-Journal has endorsed him. Elisfkc (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Post-election criteria for infobox inclusion, discussion at POTUS 1852 election article

John P. Hale got less than 5% in the 1852 election and there is a discussion going on here about whether or not to include him. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request: Castle

For the Constitution Party section, please remove the "write-in anticipated" list, moving CA and DC to "not on ballot". This is confirmed by the given source. Castle's EV total should be updated to 451.

Bcharles (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Picture of ballot...

What state is it from? doesn't say... 75.172.183.189 (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Near the bottom under Jill Stein, the party listed is "Wisconsin Green". In the second column is John Arndt, the Libertarian candidate for the 5th Congressional District of Wisconsin. Also, David Craig is the apparently unopposed incumbent in Wisconsin's 83rd Assembly District. Bcharles (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

the Californian debacle

I just got done reading this article. Unless I am mistaken, there was no mention of the mess that happened here in California between Clinton and Sanders. 66.87.69.106 (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

And no mention of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or the DNC actions to influence the outcome of the Democratic primary process. TFD (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Polls closing times

It would be nice to have a map of the closing times of the last poll in each state especially since the 2012 article has one. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27: OK, build it in a sandbox and give a link to that sandbox. That way, the editors who have permission to edit this page don't have to make it themselves. Elisfkc (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27: I have created a map. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 18:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not exactly right. Some states have multiple closing times, like IN and KY, which are in two time zones. This map is more accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: If you had read the description, you would know that that was taken into account, but because you chose not to read the description, let me paste it here for you: "Poll closing times in the United States presidential election, 2016. In some states, there are multiple times of closing, so the earliest closing time is selected." Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 19:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the image and didn't see a description, and I believe most people wouldn't have noticed it either. It wouldn't be included with the image anyway unless it was added as a caption. Don't assume I "chose" not to read it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: My apologies for the last part, but if we were to add it to the article, there should be a not to be left behind. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 19:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

In 2012 the states were shaded for the last poll closing time. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Results table

Here's a table I propose we add to the article for election night- especially since we won't be able to put electoral college tallies in the infobox until after the election. [30]

Presidential Candidate / Vice-Presidential Candidate	Electoral count*
Hillary Clinton / Tim Kaine
Donald Trump / Mike Pence
Gary Johnson / William Weld
Jill Stein / Ajamu Baraka
Darrell Castle / Scott Bradley
Evan McMullin / Mindy Finn
*These are projections; the electoral college will vote on December 19, 2016. Y = Projected President-elect

Prcc27🎃 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems absurd to list projected electors, but ignore the popular vote, which is what is being counted election night. The percentage of popular vote is much more significant for most candidates. I would also list De La Fuente and La Riva, as they have ballot lines for more than a hundred electors each and potential to beat Castle or McMullin in votes. Bcharles (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The popular vote tally will change practically ever second as more and more votes come in. I'm not even exaggerating. Votes will be coming in from all over the country. Also reliable sources could have differing popular vote tallies. Updating the popular vote totals over and over will likely result in several edit conflicts and maybe even edit wars. Excluding the popular vote is only temporary and we can add the popular vote once we get an idea of what the popular vote will be. I think most of the readers are actually more concerned with who is going to win the election and the election map (which the table complements) than the popular vote. I voted for Jill Stein and I'm still more concerned with the electoral tally even though she has a steep climb to 270. Also, if we add La Riva we are going to have to add other candidates and the table will be one big mess. I guess a compromise could be to add the popular vote tally but have a footnote saying it is only updated every 30 minutes or every hour. But a lot could happen in that time so I doubt it would be helpful. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

We are better off not even bothering with a results table until maybe (24) hours after the results come in, or if a results table is put in, we simply leave the popular vote fields blank while they are being tabulated, and update Electoral votes when those are thrown down; that is what I've seen happen with a number of Parliamentary Elections here, though naturally with seats rather than electors. --Ariostos (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; reported popular vote totals will be inaccurate, incomplete (due to missing absentee returns), subject to recount in close races, and won't reflect write-in totals except as raw numbers despite the fact that McMullin or even Bernie Sanders could have significant write-in totals. They will also be reported slightly differently in different sources of real-time coverage. It's best not to even try giving minute-by-minute popular vote totals. On the other hand, there probably should be a "notes" field to add any explanation of totals that's needed. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Wikipedia documents elections, we are not where election results are calculated/revealed. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: The election results are to be included, as it was in United States presidential election, 2012 and elections prior. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 23:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: a new parameter was created for the infobox so that "projected electoral vote" can be displayed. So long as this is included in the infobox I honestly couldn't care less if a table is added or not (although it was in 2012). But I still feel like we should leave the popular vote total out for a while. Maybe we could leave it out until all of the states (and D.C.) have officially certified their results which would be at least a month. But I'm sure that people would be tempted to add it before this happens. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the table does not need to be added until 12 or 24 hours after polls close and can be updates every 12 to 24 hours, as needed. There is no reason to jump to electoral vote projections before stable vote counts are reported. There are dozens of sites that offer live returns and make projections long before a winner is certain. I still think that LA Riva and De La Fuente should be included in the table pending outcome of at least 0.1%. Bcharles (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a reminder, I added the Current election template inside of a show by date template a few months ago, to appear early in the morning on Tuesday on the page. So, even if someone comes looking for live updates, they will be told at the top of the article that the article may not be up to date. Elisfkc (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that bit of preparedness. It's definitely needed. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

We could leave a note (<!-- -->) informing editors not to add the vote totals. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 06:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

states with write-in access needs to be updated

as many states have very late deadlines for write-in filing these need to be updated (especially for "other third parties and independents"). the newest (with a few still outstanding, I think there wasn't a list for Alaska and D.C. yet)): http://ballot-access.org/2016/10/28/kentucky-secretary-of-state-posts-write-in-presidential-candidates/ http://ballot-access.org/2016/10/28/virginia-state-board-of-elections-posts-list-of-declared-presidential-write-ins/ http://ballot-access.org/2016/10/31/missouri-secretary-of-state-releases-list-of-presidential-write-in-candidates/ http://ballot-access.org/2016/11/02/michigan-list-of-declared-write-in-presidential-candidates/ http://ballot-access.org/2016/11/02/kansas-secretary-of-state-posts-list-of-declared-write-in-presidential-candidates/ http://ballot-access.org/2016/11/03/official-list-of-minnesota-declared-write-in-candidates/ http://ballot-access.org/2016/11/03/official-list-of-missouri-declared-write-in-candidates-now-available/ http://ballot-access.org/2016/11/05/wisconsin-elections-office-posts-list-of-declared-write-in-candidates/ 89.204.130.78 (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Nominees tables

I have a question about nominees tables; should we use the official parties' colors,   (#3333FF) for Dems and   (#FF3333) for the GOP, or the ones current in use that are   (#34AAE0) and   (#CE2029)? Thanks -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

In case it is desired

November 2, 2016.

I took and uploaded a new photo from a rally last week with Hillary Clinton. If a new photo is desired, here is one. I'm also the photo taker of the current Hillary Clinton photo being used in the article right now. There's a microphone in this one but it doesn't obscure the subject's face. Calibrador (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

There are also several more without a microphone in the photo, where she is shown smiling as well. They are towards the bottom here. Calibrador (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

She looks as orange as Trump now..--Stemoc 10:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverted it back to the previous color settings. Calibrador (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a great image! The color balance seems near-perfect as of 20:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC). - MrX

Horrible pink cast and excessive contrast in the tooth region vs. her powedered face and the blurred background. Looks like one of those billboards for a local dentist. JMHO. I think we should use official photos wherever available. Let candidates choose their own poison. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

She has a look of joyous satisfaction. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

SPUSA ticket

Soltysik/Walker have write-in access in Wisconsin: http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/page/registered_write_in_candidates_for_11_8_16_final_p_21399.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.99.163 (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

NH Midnight Voting Results?

Should we add in the midnight voting results? SalFiveOneFour (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Far too trivial. Manful0103 (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

And not predictive. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Requirements for stating the winner

We don't want a Dewey Defeats Truman situation, so how many newspapers/national networks should we require to have called the election before we put the results in? I'd say any two major newspapers or networks, does that seem reasonable? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Generally they call the winner around the same time (at least there's a group of them that usually does it together). Not sure if it'll be a huge problem. But 2 seems reasonable. Or we can just say "winner called by CNN" or what have you. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

There was a problem in 2000 when both Gore and Bush were declared winners. The networks should not have declared either the winner until the Supreme Court decision in Gore v. Bush. I am sure they have learned their lesson. I would accept any networks declaration and expect they will come at the same time. Usually it becomes fairly clear after one candidate passes the magic mark. Of course we don't have the Dewey Truman problem, since the article can be updated. TFD (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Other Articles

Since I imagine most editors from WP:WikiProject Elections and Referendums are watching this page, as well as some editors not in that project, I will address these issues here.

I have just added Template:Current election to every election occurring today, according to Template:United States elections, 2016. This places all of them in Category:Current elections from November 2016. While going through, I noticed a couple issues that will be problematic later on tonight that need to be addressed by someone with more time than myself.

1. Many of the non-presidential elections are currently using the presidential election results map from their state in the infobox. This includes nearly every gubernatorial and senate election article. See United States House of Representatives election in Wyoming, 2016 for an example.
2. On the gubernatorial election infoboxes, many of them say that the type of election is presidential. This is incorrect. Someone may have copied and pasted the infobox from the presidential election articles for each state, resulting in both issues.
3. Some of the articles do not have infoboxes. I have added the Template:Needs infobox to their respective talk pages.
4. On United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2016, someone created a map of the results based on the 2012 results, which might have led to confusion. I have removed the image from the article, but this should be addressed.

Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Current ____ Template

Ok, so I just reverted @GoodDay:'s edit of switching the current election template out for ongoing event template, because the current election one is more specific. GoodDay then reverted this, bringing back the ongoing event template, citing the fact that current current election template created an empty category, which I agree is a problem. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2, I am bringing this up here to get a final answer. Which of the two templates are we going to use? Elisfkc (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: what if we just switch the | cat = Current elections part of the Template:Current election with | all =Current elections? That should solve the issue. Elisfkc (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Both templates are showing the same information. Why not continue to use the one I placed, which 'again' doesn't create an non-existent category. Besides, my template will be deleted in a few hours, barring a repeat of 2000. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: not sure if you read my most recent message yet, but if we fix the election template, it will put it in a real category and it is much more specific than the current one. Elisfkc (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to do so, go ahead (it won't be counted as a second revert) & make the corrections :) GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Now if only the candidates were as courteous as you, maybe more people would vote. Elisfkc (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Haha ;) GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

When we start putting projections in the template the parameter is going to have to be changed so it says "ongoing = no" or else the "projected electoral vote" parameter won't show. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

hey

Can you correct the electoral votes in the election box plz? :) --76.177.17.164 (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

What source is currently being used for the projected electoral vote tally..!? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links tags on state-level articles

Someone added external link maintenance tags to a high number of state-level presidential election pages, such as United States presidential election in Alabama, 2016. How can this be addressed? Or should the maintenance tags just be removed? Dustin (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016

138.229.192.38 (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald trump wants to kick out the Mexicans but Hillary Clinton is very nice and that is why you should vote for Hillary Clinton NOT FOR DONALD TRUMP

Not done per WP:NPOV. MB298 (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi protected page

As long as I know when an article was semi protected IPs and unconfirmed users couldn't edit it. Now a user with only around 20 edits on Wikipedia is changing the information on the infobox without discussing it first on the talk page. Shouldn't the administrators warn him at least to be more careful with what he does? Keivan.f^Talk 03:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

lol

Can you update the electoral map? --76.177.17.164 (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox needs fixing

Can someone please re-add the NE footnote; CD-2 is still outstanding? Also, the other candidates need to be re-added to the infobox since the results aren't finalized and it's WP:CRYSTAL to say those candidates won't win 5% of the popular vote or one of the remaining states. Plus, it's inconsistent that De La Fuente et al. are still in the infobox but the other candidates aren't. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The footnote says Johnson et al. haven't "appointed enough electors to win". Actually they have. The footnote is inaccurate. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

on a Positive..

... we will soon get a good image of President Donald Trump (official) so we no linger will have to bicker on which of his images to use... --Stemoc 05:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing to be positive about, either way we are screwed here in America regarding the markets. Sorry to go off topic it has just been a very long night.... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

After the Trump official portrait comes out it will be included in the infobox. MB298 (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Well Brexit had the pound go down and rise back up again, really though, it isn't Trumps fault Wall Street failed to predict his upset victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer Rafferty (talk • contribs) 07:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath of US presidental election

For reference, see one-way flights to Canada spikes and Canada's immigration site crashes as election is going. 103.1.70.149 (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't actually mean people are going to move to Canada. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It has happened before but it is a small number of people and few if any follow through. It's in the same league as Clinton hasn't made her concession speech yet because she's demanding $250,000. TFD (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Is that a joke? I'm actually not sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Michael Moore: A Trump Victory Would Be "The Biggest 'F**k You' Recorded In Human History" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ֗ (talk • contribs) 08:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

254 already?

I'm hearing Trump already has 254. Should it be reflected?--Adûnâi (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

FOX News called Wisconsin for Trump a while ago bringing him to 254 by their count. Other news outlets haven't called that yet, but have Wisconsin very in Trump's favor. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think they're out on their own on Wisconsin. I don't imagine it'll take long for others to follow, but we should be more cautious, since we're not making calls. We should be sure the call is agreed upon. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

264 now, I think someone should shade Pennsylvania now. New York Times confirms he won the state. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Alaska was just added but CNN is the only one that projected it AFAIK. If we aren't going to update Wisconsin then we shouldn't update Alaska either. I don't have a problem with updating Wisconsin and Alaska tbh. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

cnn is not reliable source & never was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

266 now... 103.1.70.122 (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

What source says that all of NE's EVs are for Trump? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Electoral map

It's been claimed now on the article that all 5 of Nebraska's electoral votes have been projected for Trump/Pence. Thus shouldn't we change the map? I think we should remove that mark (*). Keivan.f^Talk 07:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to first see a source that says that is true. Also, why does the infobox say Trump won 1 EV in Maine? Where's the source for that? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Can someone add a red dot to Maine? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27 Here's an article by NBC explaining why these two states split their votes. But as almost all of the people from Nebraska have voted for Trump, it seems that all of the 5 electoral votes belong to him now according to an article by New York Times. Keivan.f^Talk 08:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's now almost confirmed that 3 of Maine's electoral votes have been projected for Clinton/Kaine while 1 of the state's electoral votes has been projected for Trump/Pence. Shouldn't we make it clear on the map? By putting a mark in front of the number for example? Keivan.f^Talk 08:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I just found out that in an article by CNN it's still stated that Trump has only won 4 of Nebraska's electoral votes. The article is obviously updated. Can any other article be found to oppose this claim? Keivan.f^Talk 08:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

CNN's article confirms that 1 of Miane's electoral votes has been projected for Trump/Pence while it's not still confirmed that all of Nebraska's votes have been projected for Trump. Keivan.f^Talk 09:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

NBC News and the New York Times show Trump winning all five of Nebraska's votes. CNN still shows one vote TBD. Also, NBC called Minnesota for Clinton, but still hasn't called Arizona for Trump, putting him at 279 with the extra Nebraska vote. If you include Arizona, which some sources called for him, he has 290. Smartyllama (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

update the map! the two states that weren't highlighted are now RED

 Not done. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, is behind the ball, and even then, Minnesota and Michigan have not yet been projected to have a victor. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 08:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump

Should Trump be redirected to Donald Trump and the existing page moved to something else? Sorry, I'm editing on mobile and am too lazy to create a move discussion. MB298 (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@MB298: No. Clinton is about the surname, not Bill Clinton. Bush is a dismbiguation page, and so is Roosevelt. The only 'presidential surnames' that are redirected to the article about the president are ones where the term has no other relevant article (like Obama). Revent^talk 08:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Trump image

Here is a new, less obscured image of Trump in the infobox:

Placed this in the talk page for others to decide! --ZiaLater (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is another option.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The first one seems fine to me. We also should change the picture in the article about the republican primary elections. I'm adding other possible photos so we won't always use the same one. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Change "will will" to one "will"

The current text reads "Trump will will take office as the 45th President on January 20, 2017." Can someone correct the grammar here and remove the extra "will" please? 72.239.133.237 (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 11:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Popular vote - FIFTH TIME IN USA HISTORY

Hillary won the popular vote - [31] !! So, FIFTH time in the USA history the winner of the elections lost the popular vote. LOL. M.Karelin (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

What is the source of the figures "59,131,310; 59,293,071" given for the popular vote in the article? How can there even be accurate figures before all states have reported final results? --dab (𒁳) 15:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"Carrying a state"

"No third party or independent candidate carried a state in the 2016 presidential election, nor have any of them done so since 1968." What does that even mean? I feel like that needs explanation. KarstenO (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@User:KarstenO it means that no third party has won a state since 1968. Perhaps that meaning isn't clear in non-American Englishes.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL objection by User:Kiril Simeonovski reverted

Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, as per WP:CRYSTAL. New York Times source quoted. Dr Aus (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016

add the 'states carried' Qkxwsm (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. -- "please improve the page" is not a valid "edit request". --dab (𒁳) 15:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Turn out?

What happened to the turn-out? The total number of votes for Trump, at this moment, is nearly 2.0 million less than Romney's total four years ago. Is there some explanation for that or will the difference fade away in the coming hours/days? Peter b (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Because the election was rigged as the president stated. [32][33] Thanks God the rigging jaws shiver on they burble for now. But rigged system is still in place and may mos sad backstab if not rift by force. 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

p.s. of course documenting all the statistical anomalies should be added to the proper section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Getting rid of the cranks and hobbyists (no, I don't mean YOU!!!!)

I took it upon myself to start deleting the minor party candidates and rearranging the rest. McMullin received a half million votes and Castle just over 100 thousand. According to the Green papers, none of the rest got anywhere NEAR that close, and a few didn't even make it past the thousand mark. So....

So we should have a chart showing all the national vote totals for everyone who hasn't made the cut, then put all the other information on the "third party and independent page" It's a good way to start... Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Projected total electoral votes will be 306, not 289

Currently Trump has 279. Arizona and Michigan were not called yet. They have 11 and 16 ev respectively. Trump is leading there by 80,000 and 15, 000 respectively. Trump's projected win will be with 306 electoral votes, not 289. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orly taitz (talk • contribs) 15:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources haven't called it in his yet, we have to wait for them. 61.0.200.255 (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

All Nebraska Districts have been called for Trump, at least by some sources, so he should have 290 now. Also, according to the map, Minnesota has been called for Hillary so she should have 228. Still waiting on Michigan and New Hampshire. Smartyllama (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump picture change proposal

I'd prefer this photo over the current photo. CatcherStorm ^talk 16:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This one looks a little sketch, I prefer the current one but only have slight preference. Adwctamia (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Less vote for winning candidate

It seems Donald Trump is one of the few Presidents who won despite getting less vote than the losing candidate. This fact should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.220.16.62 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)