There's been an ongoing edit war for the past few weeks over whether or not Donald Trump should be included in the infobox, given he received 4.1% of the vote, and the general criteria for inclusion are 5% or winning the state. MB298 ( talk) 19:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I believe Trump should be included. Readers looking at this article will be here to look at the results (generally, how well both major candidates performed here) and it is inconvenient not to include Donald Trump in the infobox. Yes, he got 4.1%, but that is close enough to 5% to be included. MB298 ( talk) 19:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you please link to the guideline that states the 5% rule? Or is this an unofficial convention? Edge3 ( talk) 05:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, there's no reason to keep him - it's clear criteria that nobody under 5% be included in an infobox (unless they win by some miracle), even if they place second. If that weren't the precedent, I would be all for including Trump, Johnson, and Stein in the infobox, but since nobody besides Clinton reached 5%, it's really not an option. Alec Holbeck ( talk) 19:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Include per WP:IAR and WP:Readers first. I rarely quote IAR, but this looks like a particularly justified case of: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. — JFG ^talk 19:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest including Trump on the grounds that the current infobox gives the impression that Clinton ran unopposed in DC, which is obviously false. The way the 5% rule is being applied here makes the article look inconsistent with previous DC election articles which involve at least 2 main candidates. Travis McGeehan ( talk) 20:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Include - I'd make an exception to the 5% threshold criteria, if the result is having more then only one candidate in the infobox. GoodDay ( talk) 21:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude — One of the ways readers use a series of articles like those in {{ State Results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election}} is comparison. In United States presidential election in Utah, 2016 you see three candidates at the top of the article. In United States presidential election in Texas, 2016 there are two. In United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016, there is one. The Colorado results include 18 names beyond the five seen on the other state ballots (Trump, Clinton, Johnson, Stein, McMullion). One reason we don't have to worry about tracing all 18 of these obscure candidates and wasting space on them is a consistent application of percentage cutoffs that let us lump the 18 together as other/write-in. And if you raise the bar to shoehorn Trump into this infobox, then the same argument can be used to squeeze in Johnson or McMullin in states where they didn't get 5%.

  Yes, readers will notice this infobox looks odd. That is because a 90.9% result is odd; you don't see that often. The graphic reflects the data. That's a good thing. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  • It looks like this RfC is heading toward "no consensus". I think we really need a broader proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums to pick one of the following:
    a) formalize the status quo by establishing a consistent 5% convention or guideline
    b) Lower the bar for Trump by making a consistent 4% limit
    c) Lower the bar for Trump by including those with EITHER the 5% minimum OR a major party nomination
    Even if we make this article a special case for Trump today, sooner or later it's going to be challenged again, so we need a consistent rule. I'm sorry for calling this "lowering the bar for Trump" but that's exactly what it is. He performed worse in DC than any Republican since the district began voting in presidential elections: worse than Romney, McCain, Bush, Reagan, Nixon, even Barry Goldwater. Normalizing that is lowering the bar for Trump, and Trump alone. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude — I would stick to the rule. Clinton having 90.9% already means she wasn't alone to compete. Wykx ( talk) 21:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude – We keep true to the criteria that candidates who receive at least five percent of the state popular vote get to be in the infobox. In this case, Hillary Clinton is the only one who received at least five percent. Gary Johnson received the same percentage as Donald Trump in Idaho, but we did not include him because he was below five percent. There are no exceptions. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 21:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include As other editors have pointed out, readers will, most likely, come to the page to look for the vote counts of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. So, Trump should be included in the infobox. OneRoundEgg ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include He came in second. That should count for something. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 22:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include This 5% thing is going way too far. It's not even a rule, it's a tradition. It is ridiculous to have Hillary's picture there by itself and not Trump's who is the only other major candidate. Anyone checking this article who isn't familiar with this percent threshold thing is going to be wondering where the hell is Trump's picture and votes. 2604:2000:614A:2B00:5DB9:4604:909C:437F ( talk) 22:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include - 5% is the margin for independent, third-party, and minor candidates, to avoid cluttering info boxes. But major-party candidates are obviously important enough to include in all cases, and unless a candidate literally has no opposition, there is no reason not to include the second-place challenger. Toa Nidhiki05 22:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include - I recognise and support the 5% rule but I think an exception should be made. The 5% rule is to prevent the cluttering of infoboxes, and it does not serve to help in this case. I find that in dominant-party democracies' election articles ( Uzbekistani presidential election, 2015 for example) the second placed candidate is often included to avoid the impression that the candidate ran unopposed, and to help readers easily access this information. The same idea should be applied here. JackWilfred ( talk) 22:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include - Per JFG and GoodDay. The 5% rule exists to prevent cluttering. Considering that making an exception on this article for Trump (who did place second in this local race) would only add a second candidate to the infobox, no cluttering would occur. Otherwise, we would have to insert some kind of visible explanation in the infobox for why the President-elect is not shown, as readers may conclude from his absence there that he was somehow not eligible to run in DC. Joshbunk ( talk) 23:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude - Trump shouldn't be in the infobox. Ralph Nader got a bigger percentage of votes in 2000 than the Don got this year. Not including him would mean that it was pretty much like he wasn't on the ballot. The 5% rule should apply to all candidates.-- Mr.Election ( talk) 23:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include he's a major party nominee. The 5% threshold is for third party candidates, and it should not apply to a major party candidate. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 01:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include - The 5% threshold is not a firm rule, and it should be waived in this case. Trump was a major party candidate in the nationwide election, and excluding him from this article would not serve the reader's interests. Edge3 ( talk) 02:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Improper procedure? There was a request for editors to come here from the Donald Trump article. There, as with in the USA, about 75% hate Trump so that is a way to get him off the infobox. Hate = 53% voted for someone other than Trump and half of Trump voters did not like him. Usernamen1 ( talk) 04:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Shortcoming in the RFC 5% is cited but no link to where it reads that. Usernamen1 ( talk) 04:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Include - Yes. Please refer to the previous presidential elections. Trump's result should put at the boxes. He is at the ballot and not get 0% of vote. Marxistfounder ( talk) 04:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include The number of people who will wonder how Trump did (and inevitably question why he isn't listed) outweighs the idealism of the 5% guideline. Others have mentioned that elections with only one candid getting over 5% often have the second place finisher included. Someone mentioned an Uzbekistani election. There is also the Namibian general election, 2014 in which the second place finisher only got 4.97% and was included. Like him or not, it seems ridiculous not to include the winner of the overall election in this infobox. Teak the Kiwi ( talk) 06:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude If it were a third party candidate that got 25% nationally, people would be wondering how well he did in DC, but he wouldn't be included in the infobox if he got less than 5%. Believe it or not, Wikipedia is not generally a source used to find results for elections, and it's not a bad thing to make people scroll down for less than a second to see how well Trump did. Honestly, the Namibian election made sense because it was only 0.03% away from the criteria, and candidates should be included in the infobox if they round to 5%, but I think the fact that Clinton got 90.9% will be enough to show that she didn't run unopposed (also, Trump's performance is in the text just to the left of the infobox). What's the harm in making someone read to find the results? Alec Holbeck ( talk) 12:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include Donald Trump should be included because, as previously said, Trump not being included gives the false idea that the only (major) candidate to run in DC was Clinton. Even though he didn't reach the 5% threshold, no infobox with candidates running with major opposition should only include one candidate. Diogoncm ( talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

My big problem with that is that Trump wasn't significant opposition to Clinton in DC. Nobody was. Alec Holbeck ( talk) 20:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The runner-up should always be included. GoodDay ( talk) 22:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@ GoodDay: Agreed. MB298 ( talk) 05:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Have fun with this, then: /info/en/?search=United_States_presidential_election,_1820 Alec Holbeck ( talk) 14:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

That is different, however, as John Quincy Adams (technically, the runner-up in the electoral college) received only one electoral vote from a faithless elector, and no popular votes. MB298 ( talk) 20:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

True. However, if we were to see by that point of view, we shouldn't include any Republicans in any DC election since the Democrats always win with wide margins and there's never competition there (as there isn't in CA or WY). As long as the candidate is seen as a major candidate for the whole election, again, they should be included in the states infoboxes. Diogoncm ( talk) 21:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Include There’s no Wikipedia rule regarding 5%. It’s simply the custom. But, seeing as he won the election as a whole, he’s notable enough to warrant inclusion The Happy Warrior ( talk) 20:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Question Where is the guideline that recommends the 5% threshold? That should be linked in the RfC statement. Edge3 ( talk) 15:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude The Republicans are considered third party in DC. Gary Johnson got a higher percentage of votes in New Mexico and Evan McMullin got a higher precentage of votes in a Utah than Trump got in DC. -- Proud User ( talk) 12:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include Trump got votes. Whether it's 2% of it or 70%, he should be included regardless. It's like we're removing Clinton from states where Trump won the popular vote by over 80%. It makes no sense not to include him. He was part of the elections and he was included on DC ballot. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude - Wasn't even close to being a viable candidate in DC. -- Shivertimbers433 ( talk) 09:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

That's no ground to exclude. Clinton had no chance of winning Oklahoma or West Virginia, but she is still included on those pages. MB298 ( talk) 18:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is. Viability is defined as 5% by the FEC. Clinton earned much more than 5% is Oklahoma and West Virginia.-- Shivertimbers433 ( talk) 00:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Include - There obviously are justifications for the 5% threshold (we wouldn't want to have, say, 10 or 20 candidates in the infobox), but I'd say this rule should not be rigidly applied to an effect that gives reader an impression the election was a walkover. Some users supporting the exclusion of Donald Trump argued (and I quote): "the fact that Clinton got 90.9% will be enough to show that she didn't run unopposed". That's not entirely true, as unopposed candidates often receive less than 100% of the votes cast (example: 1). -- Dps04 ( talk) 09:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include This is an obvious case for an exception. Instaurare ( talk) 06:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude He didn't hit 5%, so no. We should be fair to every candidate, and not set double standards. Why is Donald Trump more important -- in this context -- than Gary Johnson who garnered 4.8% in Oregon? The standard is 5%, and that must be adhered to regardless of the candidate. Buzzards-Watch Me Work ( talk) 19:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @ Buzzards-Watch Me Work: perhaps because Donald Trump won the presidential election? MB298 ( talk) 01:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no standard threshold of 5%... I couldn't find any codified guideline or policy to that effect. Edge3 ( talk) 01:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

So? He didn't reach viability in the District. We can't make exceptions based on preferential status... Actually, we have utilized 5% as the threshold for years. This would be the only example. Buzzards-Watch Me Work ( talk) 01:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you please point to a guideline or discussion that establishes consensus on the 5% threshold? I'm thinking that we should probably codify it as guideline if this standard is so widespread. Edge3 ( talk) 15:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@ Edge3: agreed. MB298 ( talk) 20:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is one of the pages... The discussion is located in a couple places: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 5. Buzzards-Watch Me Work ( talk) 20:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It's true that the 5% has achieved a measure of local consensus on the article level, and somewhat on the project level, yet never been formalized in a WikiProject advice essay. Regardless of the outcome here, the need has clearly arisen to resolve this, and formalize it at least as project advice, if not a guideline. The 3 options I listed above should be presented in an RfC for the Elections and related projects to reach consensus on. Have to wait until this RfC is closed. Better yet, early close this one and start over with the 3 options: a) 5%, b) 4%, c) either 5% or major party nomination. It's bad to make a special exception for Trump, but even worse to do so on only one article. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Include This is an interesting discussion. I think the earlier comment that having only Clinton in the box alludes to the idea that she ran unopposed in the state. However, I believe that an aforementioned new consensus changing the criteria to 5% or nominee of a major party would be a prudent course of action, and one I could vigorously support. PalmerTheGolfer ( talk) 04:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)PalmerTheGolfer

I would support this. We should formalize this in a guideline, template documentation, or some other centrally located page. Edge3 ( talk) 15:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Exclude: the infobox should only be reserved for candidates that win a significant amount of votes (with 5% being the threshold users have agreed to). This has been the case on the main article and sub articles so for consistency we should leave Trump out. As far as D.C. is concerned, Trump hardly even mattered at all. Summoned by bot. Prcc27❄ ( talk) 18:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Include - Summoned by bot. Even though he received less than the 5% "threshold", he took second in the district and is president elect, which is worth noting. The arguments made for exclusion are not all that convincing. Meatsgains ( talk) 20:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Include per Meatsgains excluding Trump in this case would be exceedingly WP:POINTy. If the arbitrarily set inclusion criteria exclude the elected President, then they should be ignored. - Brianhe ( talk) 21:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Include: The "5% rule" has not been demonstrated to exist, despite requests to do so. Inclusions makes sense from the content point of view. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)