![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This template needs to match the pages it's associated with. Any candidates not listed and sourced on the candidate pages ( third party; Democratic; and Republican) shouldn't be listed in this template. -- Tim4christ17 talk 20:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The Reuters report was poorly written. According to other sources, Gore still maintains his current position that while he does not plan to be a candidate, he has not ruled it out.-- Folksong 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Al Gore has not stated what he'll do in 2008 and until he does Al Gore should remain on the Potential candidates list. Thanks. Oh yEs itS caRly 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia lists him as being an official candidate, which to my knowledge isn't correct. Although he has made it pretty clear that is is going to run, he hasn't declared yet, and his page says that he hasn't yet started an exploratory Committee either. So I'm going to move him back into the potential candidates list, I mean, he could always change his mind. Thethinredline 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)of course some of us just wish al would just shut up and go back to kissing john kerry's butt.
The newspaper link from The Trentonion works fine Will Corzine be hearing ‘Hail to the Chief’? Corzine should be listed until he either announces he is or is not running. Quinnipiac University even recently polled to see if Corzine has soft or hard support from New Jerseyians Poll: New Jerseyans Don't Want a President Corzine Looks like he is interested. 67.98.154.56 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The Trentonion site is from 2005. Corzine is not running. The only people left is Clark, Gore, and Sharpton. Oh yEs itS caRly 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I attempted to revamp this template based on the three pages, and I came up with this:
This didn't look right, what with all the red links. I don't think anyone who makes a website "announcing" their run for President deserves a page on Wikipedia, but people who announced within a pre-existing party structure should. So, I removed the "Potential Third Party candidates," as a lot might be wishful thinking and most of these people haven't responded to their "potentiality." I also reduced the Independent section to those who have notable activities other than their announced 2008 run.-- Tim Thomason 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Some anonymous users have incorrectly been reading the documents. For instance, Brownback filed a retraction about candidacy in December 2006 to state that he was just forming an exploratory committee, but in January 2007 he filed for official candidacy: [1]. Please be aware that the filings state "exploratory committee" or "candidate" on them, and they are distinguishable. Please refrain from future edits and reversions as such without carefully examining the actual scanned documents. --Zz414 16:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that Tom Vilsack is the first formally announced candidate to drop out, should there be a category for former candidates? - Prezboy1 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I altered this to provide separate lines for candidate bios and campaigns. It got reverted back. At the moment it doesn't have a direct link to bios of Hillary, Obama, and Mike Gravel, which is a mistake. I want it to have both. DavidYork71 10:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hobie Hunter, why did you delete the links to all of the 2008 campaign articles? Few articles could be more directly relevant to the 2008 presidential election. PubliusFL 23:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the edit because this the way the templete for months. I believe the format should be simple, not have seven categories. People who are looking for candidates would be distracted by so many categories. I think this arrangement would be better:
Without explanation User:Hobie Hunter reverted my edit here in which I integrated the views & campaign section into the whole. I think my version is better for two reasons:
Therefore I have revered hobie hunter's action. C mon 14:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I think seperation would be better. Size doesn't really matter, and it only makes it slightly smaller. In addition, intergration makes the templete more crowded and harder to navigate. Until we can reach a compromise, the templete will stay the way it has been. -- Hobie Hunter 21:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Technically speaking, Hillary Clinton is not a declared candidate, she has only formed an exploratory committee. She should be moved to reflect this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.12.88 ( talk) 04:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
Because it is so commonly believed that Ms. Clinton is a declared candidate when in fact as of 31 March 2007 it seems she only has an
Exploratory Committee, it seems impossible to accurately convey her status on this template because it is always being changed. Thus the template is often inaccurate in this one sense. I propose adding the following superscript, (See
discussion), next to her entry until such time as her actual status matches the commonly perceived status.
Theflyer
16:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton is an official candidate, just because she announced on the day she formed an exploratory committee, doesn't mean she isn't a candidate.-- Hobie Hunter 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep this up guys, and you might qualify for an entry in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars! Wasted Time R 12:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Making statements that refer to yourself as a candidate;
- Using advertising to publicize your intention to campaign; or
- Taking action to qualify for the ballot.
The result of the discussion was: Delete the category Exploratory and Declared from the template. Any candidate required to file reports with the
Federal Election Commission is termed merely candidate, all others not filing (yet) for this election cycle are potential candidates. The edit accomplishing the change
[3] --
Yellowdesk
14:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Responding to
PubliusFL on the Clinton section above, my proposed perspective is that the '"exploratory'" business is entirely bogus (see my comments above in the
last part of the Clinton section). The candidates themselves know this. If anyone has filed with the FEC, they are a bona fide candidate. They had to declare a primary campaign committee with the FEC and sign the papers. This would stop all of hairsplitting on categorizing candidates. The template declares that the standard is "Filing with the FEC" = candidate, and it saves everyone angst and discussion. --
Yellowdesk
02:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
PROPOSAL: Any candidate filing with the FEC shall be considered a candidate, and only individuals not filing with the FEC are potential candidates; delete the word "Exploratory" from the template, and delete the word "Declared" from the template.
Discussion
Support
Oppose
Neutral
Michael Moriarty is currently a resident of British Columbia (see Michael_Moriarty#Personal_life). Thus, he is not eligible to be elected President per Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Qualifications_for_office, as he hasn't lived in the US for the past 14 years. He should be removed from the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohrr ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
Are these really necessary on this template? Surely the main bio page will link to them if they are extensive enough to have been split off to their own article. As it is, the template gives extra weight to certain candidates, which gives an appearance of bias. That said, an article that summarizes the positions of all the candidates on the issues (a for/against table), if it existed, would be a great one to add to this template IMO. Also, should the template link Wikia:campaigns:United States presidential election, 2008 as a source of additional campaign-related info? ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The third party section of the template is an eye-sore. With all the abbriviations for the parties, and all the names together it is not neat and organized. Each minor party should have it's own section similar to Democrat and Republican, so that you can see which candidates are running against eachother. A bias towards these third parties should not be allowed here on wikipedia, since this is not CNN and Fox news where all the third parties are shunned. It's not that I am displeased with the way it is handled, but it is very cluttered and needs to be done over. Casey14 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
He really isn't important enough to be listed once as a potential Republican candidate and once as a potential 'other' candidate. Flatterworld 16:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This template needs to match the pages it's associated with. Any candidates not listed and sourced on the candidate pages ( third party; Democratic; and Republican) shouldn't be listed in this template. -- Tim4christ17 talk 20:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The Reuters report was poorly written. According to other sources, Gore still maintains his current position that while he does not plan to be a candidate, he has not ruled it out.-- Folksong 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Al Gore has not stated what he'll do in 2008 and until he does Al Gore should remain on the Potential candidates list. Thanks. Oh yEs itS caRly 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia lists him as being an official candidate, which to my knowledge isn't correct. Although he has made it pretty clear that is is going to run, he hasn't declared yet, and his page says that he hasn't yet started an exploratory Committee either. So I'm going to move him back into the potential candidates list, I mean, he could always change his mind. Thethinredline 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)of course some of us just wish al would just shut up and go back to kissing john kerry's butt.
The newspaper link from The Trentonion works fine Will Corzine be hearing ‘Hail to the Chief’? Corzine should be listed until he either announces he is or is not running. Quinnipiac University even recently polled to see if Corzine has soft or hard support from New Jerseyians Poll: New Jerseyans Don't Want a President Corzine Looks like he is interested. 67.98.154.56 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The Trentonion site is from 2005. Corzine is not running. The only people left is Clark, Gore, and Sharpton. Oh yEs itS caRly 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I attempted to revamp this template based on the three pages, and I came up with this:
This didn't look right, what with all the red links. I don't think anyone who makes a website "announcing" their run for President deserves a page on Wikipedia, but people who announced within a pre-existing party structure should. So, I removed the "Potential Third Party candidates," as a lot might be wishful thinking and most of these people haven't responded to their "potentiality." I also reduced the Independent section to those who have notable activities other than their announced 2008 run.-- Tim Thomason 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Some anonymous users have incorrectly been reading the documents. For instance, Brownback filed a retraction about candidacy in December 2006 to state that he was just forming an exploratory committee, but in January 2007 he filed for official candidacy: [1]. Please be aware that the filings state "exploratory committee" or "candidate" on them, and they are distinguishable. Please refrain from future edits and reversions as such without carefully examining the actual scanned documents. --Zz414 16:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that Tom Vilsack is the first formally announced candidate to drop out, should there be a category for former candidates? - Prezboy1 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I altered this to provide separate lines for candidate bios and campaigns. It got reverted back. At the moment it doesn't have a direct link to bios of Hillary, Obama, and Mike Gravel, which is a mistake. I want it to have both. DavidYork71 10:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hobie Hunter, why did you delete the links to all of the 2008 campaign articles? Few articles could be more directly relevant to the 2008 presidential election. PubliusFL 23:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the edit because this the way the templete for months. I believe the format should be simple, not have seven categories. People who are looking for candidates would be distracted by so many categories. I think this arrangement would be better:
Without explanation User:Hobie Hunter reverted my edit here in which I integrated the views & campaign section into the whole. I think my version is better for two reasons:
Therefore I have revered hobie hunter's action. C mon 14:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I think seperation would be better. Size doesn't really matter, and it only makes it slightly smaller. In addition, intergration makes the templete more crowded and harder to navigate. Until we can reach a compromise, the templete will stay the way it has been. -- Hobie Hunter 21:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Technically speaking, Hillary Clinton is not a declared candidate, she has only formed an exploratory committee. She should be moved to reflect this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.12.88 ( talk) 04:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
Because it is so commonly believed that Ms. Clinton is a declared candidate when in fact as of 31 March 2007 it seems she only has an
Exploratory Committee, it seems impossible to accurately convey her status on this template because it is always being changed. Thus the template is often inaccurate in this one sense. I propose adding the following superscript, (See
discussion), next to her entry until such time as her actual status matches the commonly perceived status.
Theflyer
16:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton is an official candidate, just because she announced on the day she formed an exploratory committee, doesn't mean she isn't a candidate.-- Hobie Hunter 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep this up guys, and you might qualify for an entry in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars! Wasted Time R 12:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Making statements that refer to yourself as a candidate;
- Using advertising to publicize your intention to campaign; or
- Taking action to qualify for the ballot.
The result of the discussion was: Delete the category Exploratory and Declared from the template. Any candidate required to file reports with the
Federal Election Commission is termed merely candidate, all others not filing (yet) for this election cycle are potential candidates. The edit accomplishing the change
[3] --
Yellowdesk
14:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Responding to
PubliusFL on the Clinton section above, my proposed perspective is that the '"exploratory'" business is entirely bogus (see my comments above in the
last part of the Clinton section). The candidates themselves know this. If anyone has filed with the FEC, they are a bona fide candidate. They had to declare a primary campaign committee with the FEC and sign the papers. This would stop all of hairsplitting on categorizing candidates. The template declares that the standard is "Filing with the FEC" = candidate, and it saves everyone angst and discussion. --
Yellowdesk
02:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
PROPOSAL: Any candidate filing with the FEC shall be considered a candidate, and only individuals not filing with the FEC are potential candidates; delete the word "Exploratory" from the template, and delete the word "Declared" from the template.
Discussion
Support
Oppose
Neutral
Michael Moriarty is currently a resident of British Columbia (see Michael_Moriarty#Personal_life). Thus, he is not eligible to be elected President per Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Qualifications_for_office, as he hasn't lived in the US for the past 14 years. He should be removed from the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohrr ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
Are these really necessary on this template? Surely the main bio page will link to them if they are extensive enough to have been split off to their own article. As it is, the template gives extra weight to certain candidates, which gives an appearance of bias. That said, an article that summarizes the positions of all the candidates on the issues (a for/against table), if it existed, would be a great one to add to this template IMO. Also, should the template link Wikia:campaigns:United States presidential election, 2008 as a source of additional campaign-related info? ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The third party section of the template is an eye-sore. With all the abbriviations for the parties, and all the names together it is not neat and organized. Each minor party should have it's own section similar to Democrat and Republican, so that you can see which candidates are running against eachother. A bias towards these third parties should not be allowed here on wikipedia, since this is not CNN and Fox news where all the third parties are shunned. It's not that I am displeased with the way it is handled, but it is very cluttered and needs to be done over. Casey14 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
He really isn't important enough to be listed once as a potential Republican candidate and once as a potential 'other' candidate. Flatterworld 16:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)