This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Seeing as no independent candidate got at least 5% of the popular vote in the 2014 election. IMHO, no independent candidate should be listed in this article's infobox, until he/she get at least 5% in November. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure where I picked it up, but this is something I remember hearing from another editor and basically following ritually since then – might be ALPolitico from here and here (both articles are on my watchlist). Side note on the 1RR thing – do the post-1932 discretionary sanctions apply to election articles as well? I've made extensive reverts on many of these articles (mostly because of the addition of uncited or erroneous information and sometimes obvious promotion/vandalism), but haven't ever received any notice regarding it. From what I've seen, those who get a notice it on it for their talk pages are just those editing biographies or sensitive topics (e.g. Mueller investigation, alt-right topics, politician biographies), but I've never seen any enforcement of 1RR on election articles (I'll note that informally WP:E&R and WP:POLITICS are separated), and I usually don't consider the same domain. (And, perhaps at the risk of shooting myself in the foot, I've definitely made more than a single revert within 24 hours on U.S. election articles without issue – as have many others – and I haven't seen any 1RR enforcement on election articles in general, except in the case of obvious fourth-revert breaches/3RR.) Mélencron (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't go by the 2014 showing, then potentially we could have an unlimited number of independent candidates in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm referring to a second standard (polling ≥5%) in addition to referring to the most recent election. Trillo, a single independent, is polling at 6–9% (and the fact that Trillo is polling at this level doesn't make it so that every independent should be included – only Trillo); in my view, it's a logical standard, and one that resolves some of the issues that might arise from going only by the most recent election alone (e.g. in the case of United States Senate election in Maine, 2012, King wouldn't be included in the infobox before the election, or in the case of Kansas in 2014, as Orman didn't run in 2008). Mélencron (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Trillo drops below 5%, we delete him. Then if he comes up above 5%, we re-add him? That could be a lot of deleting/re-adding between now & November. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"5% or greater average in multiple polls before the election or 5% or greater in popular vote once the election has occurred" – there's only one poll at the moment that includes Trillo, but it has him well above that threshold. Mélencron (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
