|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Candidate article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Elections and Referendums|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 1 year may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
I don't quite think that the article should have a politics stub, since the term 'candidate' is used quite far outside the political world as well. However, if someone wants to create a political candidate article, I'd endorse the idea. ~GMH 04:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps an election-related stub would be more appropriate?Gamesmaster G-9 12:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Please also give your opinion on the merger proposal.Gamesmaster G-9 12:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree 100% with the merger proposal. Good idea. Wikipedian27 12:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- The political stuff can move, but we should maintain a candidate page that covers other uses of 'candidate.' Skyeknighton 22:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- There's a disambiguation page for Candidate - that can continue to be linked.Gamesmaster G-9 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me, then! Merge. Skyeknighton 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Gamesmaster is correct. The term Candidate refers to too many categories of honorees, recipients and employment seeking people to be restricted to politics. A professional executive seeking a career change or new appointment places that individual into the "candidate" status by every firm: recruiter, search service or other provider imaginable. No other word better describes that situation.----
I came here looking for information on the term "Ph.D. Candidate." There is only one option on the disambiguation page that offers any hope. That option brings me to this page. Then I discover that this page only deals with one specific use of the word (political candidate). Disappointing. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
This article needs some work...
The flow of the article doesn't seem very good right now, it seems a bit like two articles just got lumped together. The initial portion seems more like a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia entry and the entire thing is unreferenced (the two "presumed advantages" sections really need them). Not sure if there's a good way to divide it up but maybe Nominees and Nomination should be separate, or maybe the whole thing should be moved to wiktionary. Any ideas of how this could be improved? Stardust8212 03:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)