Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Remove all the withdrawn candidates

There was an edit request about a certain Zoltan Istvan, a minor perennial who was running for the nomination for some minor party and then decided to run against Trump in the primary. He's listed as a withdrawn candidate with a table box as large as the GOP's of Trump. Why is that? It's information the reader neither wants nor needs, so let's get rid of ALL the withdrawn candidates of ALL parties large and small. There are something like fifteen on the Democratic side, and Mark Sanford of the Republicans is a mere footnote at this stage. If you're not going to list Zoltan as a candidate on the GOP section (which you shouldn't, although the GOP primaries and candidate pages are a different matter), then don't have him on THIS page at all. So let's remove all withdrawn candidates. We're going to tear up this article big time in a couple of months, so we might as well start now.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Who are you to presume that "It's information the reader neither wants nor needs"? I really don't understand your belligerent attitude. Withdrawn candidates have always been included on this article, anyways. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

There are no withdrawn candidates for minor parties on the for the two major ones, the format is extremely different. For minor parties, it IS something that the reader neither wants or needs. For the major ones, there are a selective lists that excludes at least half a dozen who received well over ten thousand votes. So yeah, but you have tried to thwart the reformatting and separate candidates article, which would permit reformatting as needed.Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

David is not thwarting anything but a deviation from the consensus that you are acting against. Additionally, we don't decide what the reader wants or needs, we decide what is relevant to the election cycle, and the concensus is that withdrawn candidates of third parties are relevant enough to permit inclusion. WittyRecluse (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hey, I request we add the template

I request this as this is being edited around 3 times every hour. Thanks! AwesomeJedi (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The article is stale. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: Hey, I was wondering what you mean. Respect your op[inion just a bit confused, thanks.AwesomeJedi (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

​I also think it's not necessary to have this template. The article is only edited twice a day. I generally think this template is unnecessary even in articles that do describe major current events, as it's obvious to the reader that current events are current. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Þjarkur: Thanks, bro! I I respect and agree with you now! AwesomeJedi (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Potential problematic wording

"Voters will select presidential electors who in turn on December 14, 2020, will either elect a new president and vice president or re-elect the incumbents." This doesn't seem to take into account that the electors could split their vote like they did in 2016, which could result in one of the incumbents winning while the other loses. Also, there's always the chance that the electors don't elect anyone as president/vice-president due to none of the candidates receiving a majority of electoral votes. Prcc27 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree on both counts, technically they could elect an incumbent and a new candidate, and that the election could go into the House of Representatives. These are relatively unlikely, so they should be rewritten to consider these unlikely possibilites. WittyRecluse (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Democratic Party Nominations rewrite needed?

The section on the Democratic Party Nominations needs a rewrite. It's very out of date. Perez vs. Ellison has very little to do with the Presidential race. It's a tiny dispute and it's not on anyone's minds anymore. I do agree that there should be mention of a divide within the party acknowledging that debate in some areas has moved left, but Ellison and Perez has very little to do with this. "Democratic civil war" is arguably too strong in its language used as the party is definitely united against Trump. Oprah is no longer relevant to the race and this is the most clear indicator that this is an out of date description. Mentions of age have no place here (they stir age discrimination) and frankly, I think that an editor was trying to weaken candidates in bad faith (though an argument could be made to the contrary). Mention of "an old folk's home" is simply unnecessary for a description of the race and is offensive language as used. Nothing was said of the current President's similar age in reference to it or in the corresponding section (and I don't think there should be a mention of age for either party). The description writes in future tense, talking about candidates expected to join the race. For a more accurate description, there could be mentions of debates over Medicare for All/other healthcare proposals and a Green New Deal. -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I think a case can be made for age being important, but I certainly agree that the Ellison/Perez battle is irrelevant WittyRecluse (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I cannot understand why the bolding in the intro is treated as the most vital thing to accomplish here. It is not. Sensible wording is more important. Providing essential information is more important. The link to the United States presidential election is more important. This link is far more useful to readers than bolding some words, and now it is nowhere to be found. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The bolding is part of the Manual of Style (MOS:BOLDLEAD) for Wikipedia articles. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not more important than good wording. This is made plain by MOS:AVOIDBOLD. Surtsicna (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Why do you want to make this article's intro different from the series of US presidential election article intros? GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

57 absurd intros and 1 sensible intro is better than 58 absurd intros. I am not going to go through this with you again. Surtsicna (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Open up an RFC, to cover all of the US presidential election articles. If the intro that you prefer gets 'consensus' at that Rfc? Then I'll do the task of changing them. GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not prefer a specific intro. I prefer that the lead sentence of this article is not ridiculous. Why do you want it to be ridiculous? Surtsicna (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Open up an Rfc on this and I'll abort the other one. This is a collaborative project, afterall. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps @David O. Johnson:, @HiLo48: & @Devonian Wombat: can help me understand what it is you're asking for. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Judging by this edit: [1], I think the main thing Surtsicna wants is to have the U.S. presidential election link in the lead sentence. That's just my own understanding of the situation, though. I could be wrong. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I dont understand why we can't have both bolding in the first sentence, as in MOS:BOLDLEAD , AND a link to the United States presidential election in a following sentence or somewhere else. WittyRecluse (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

No, David O. Johnson. The main thing I want is to avoid all redundancy in the lead sentence per WP:REDUNDANCY and, I have to say, common sense. Defining 2016 United States presidential election as a presidential election held in 2016 is ridiculous, don't you think? But that link is certainly helpful. Surtsicna (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You're not making your position any clearer. What would your preferred lead sentence look like? David O. Johnson (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Anything that is not foolishly repetitive is fine with me. My position is that a lead sentence should never be contorted into something uninformative or redundant just to include the page title in boldface. See MOS:REDUNDANCY bullet points 1, 3, and 5.
"A United States presidential election is scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, 2020." is better than the current version, for example.
"A United States presidential election is scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, 2020." is better yet because the link serves readers better than boldface.
Once again, I do not have a single preferred version. Let's just make it informative and sensible. Surtsicna (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

An example of this, would be at the United States gubernatorial elections articles. See 2020 United States gubernatorial elections intro. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: it would help us, if you would propose a version. GoodDay (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have listed two examples of sentences that would be better than the current one. Do you have any suggestions? Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I won't object if there's a consensus for adopting either of your proposals. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I object to the mess of a RfC that you started. The proper discussion is in this section, and this section is where consensus can be reached. Surtsicna (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Have faith in your two proposed intros. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not have faith in the mess that you created. I also did not propose anything. I have nothing to do with that RfC. I started a discussion in this section and I want to come up with a good solution here. Surtsicna (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You want the intro changed. But you're not proposing anything to replace what's already there? GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You reverted the version David O. Johnson and I reached without ever explaining why you were opposed to it. Then you started a mere voting contest without any regard to the discussion already taking place. I want to come up with decent wording here, through discussion. You could have, at the very least, waited until we came up with a few options, rather than add them as discussion here progressed. The mess below this section is completely unproductive. Surtsicna (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If you don't like the Rfc, then seek to get it closed. Meanwhile, please clarify what you want. Propose an intro. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have suggested several alternatives to the present mockery of a lead. Will you state how you feel about any of them? Do you even care? Surtsicna (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the current lead, per WP:BOLD. Would be appreciated if you would settle on a single alternative. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The current lead is wrong per WP:REDUNDANCY, if we have to cite guidelines. WP:REDUNDANCY and WP:BOLD do not have to clash. You can keep your bold letters. An example of a sentence that still contains the bold letters but does not go in circles would be: "In the 2020 United States presidential election, voters will select presidential electors who in turn on December 14, 2020, will either elect a new president and vice president or re-elect the incumbents." Surtsicna (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal? GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not want you to put my proposals up for voting. Can you please engage in a constructive discussion? Can you please tell me what you like and what you dislike about the example I gave in my 23:55 UTC comment? Surtsicna (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It's promising, but you'll need to add November 3, 2020 in the mix, as well as mention that it's the 59th quadrennial election. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree about the date, though I would not repeat the year. The "59th" is left out because it is not in the present lead sentence; it would remain in the second sentence, as it stands now. Speaking of this numbering, it should be mentioned in the body of the article too, along with a source. Surtsicna (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Invite the editors (from the RFC) to review your latest suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to comment and propose amendments or completely different sentences. I have linked to this discussion several times. Surtsicna (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If your proposal(s) are rejected, you'll have to accept that. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Accept and propose an alternative by taking into account their concerns, of course. Like now, when you suggest that the date be added. It really was silly of me to leave it out. And if an impasse is reached at some point, then a vote might be helpful. Surtsicna (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Like it or not, the Rfc (below) is tied into this discussion. Be careful not to take all of this into WP:DEADHORSE territory. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

"Like it or not"? Well no, I cannot say I like that you created an RfC in contravention of WP:RFCBEFORE, thus making it substantially more difficult to reach a solution. You should be ashamed of that. Surtsicna (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I ain't ashamed & assume that nobody who's taken part in the aforementioned Rfc, feel ashamed either. GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody else should be ashamed. You alone started an RfC without following the guidelines at WP:WPRFC. You started it without contributing anything more than a single sentence to the discussion, let alone a "reasonable attempt" (WP:RFCBEFORE); and without discussing the RfC question on the talk page beforehand (WP:RFCBRIEF). And you think that's fine? Surtsicna (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, there was an impasse & so I started an Rfc. I've no regrets. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: A related discussion is taking place at the 2016 US presidential election article. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

...and speaking of consensus...

We have to start making huge changes to this article, as showtime is about to begin, so let's go here. Notice how it's much cleaner and nicer than the transcluded stuff from the GOP primary page. I'm not talking about the GOP race per se, but with all those Democrats that have been running in the past year. What we should do, is change the chart (here, not there) so it looks this have the top four candidates removed and put in a slightly different chart right above it in about six weeks, and repeat as necessary until there's a nominee. We do something similar on the Republican side, and if Trump is still president when the trial is over, declare him and Pence the presumptive nominees right after New Hampshire. For the smaller parties we just show a list until the nomination takes place. Except for the Greens and the Libertarians, they're not notable, either. So what do you think?Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, what we have now is fine. Placing arbitrary distinctions around who the frontrunners are is unencyclopedic and unnecessary, not to mention rushing to tear up the page at this point for any reason serves no logical purpose. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to change the order of candidates before the primaries start. I think after the first caucus we could reorder them by number of delegates. If you want to show which candidates are more important, it would be better for you to write a summary of the campaigns so far. No one should be labeled the "presumptive nominee" until they have enough pledged delegates to win.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The article is fine in the current state. WittyRecluse (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I also see no reason to change that specific section of the article. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

"We do something similar on the Republican side, and if Trump is still president when the trial is over, declare him and Pence the presumptive nominees right after New Hampshire." Talk about putting the cart before the horse. There's no way to know if Trump would be the nominee as early as New Hampshire. That would violate WP:CRYSTAL, at the very least. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

In agreement with the rest of the respondees. The primaries haven't been held yet, let alone concluded & the impeachment trial hasn't begun yet, let alone a verdict given. Let's be patient. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, when Obama was the incumbent president in 2012 and running for re-election, we didn't list him as the presumptive nominee until he clinched the Democratic nomination sometime in mid-April. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 7 January 2020

In the first paragraph, please change "who then in turn elect their party's nominee (and running mate)" to "who then in turn elect their party's nominees for president and vice-president". The candidate has a running mate; the party does not. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:D5DA:843F:2420:B5D4 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The two candidates are nominated by the party. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. @GoodDay:, the delegates to the national convention are the party.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Both the presidential & vice presidential candidates are nominated by the delegates. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: That's what it says: "voters cast ballots selecting a slate of delegates to a political party's nominating convention, who then in turn elect their party's nominees for president and vice president."—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I know. I was agreeing with how you re-worded it. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Rfc on intro of US presidential election articles

The consensus is to retain the current version of the introduction.

Cunard (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello folks. It has been proposed that the intro to US presidential election articles, be updated. GoodDay (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Example for this article:

• The Current version - "The 2020 United States presidential election is scheduled for...."
  to
  
• Proposed version - "The 59th quardrennial US presidential election is scheduled for..."
• Proposed version - "A United States presidential election is scheduled for..."
• Proposed version - "A United States presidential election is scheduled for..."

Survey

• Oppose the proposed version. The current version gives more relevant info. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: @David O. Johnson:, two more proposals have been added. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Still oppose the proposed versions in favor of the current version. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose For pretty much the same reason as David O. Johnson. Everyone knows when 2020 is. A lot fewer people would know it's the year of the 59th whatever. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: @HiLo48:, two more proposals have been added. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks GoodDay. I still say we should stick to the version with the year in it. It provides more, extremely useful information, in not too many words, I don't know what the argument is against it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, HiLo48. The argument against the current wording is that defining the 2016 United States presidential election as a presidential election that took place in 2016 is not informative at all. It's like defining the black panther as a panther that is black. Please take part in the discussion that's taking place in the preceding section, #Lead sentence. A voting contest is not the way to come up with the best wording, and RfCs are not substitute for discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a US-centric argument. There are many people in the world that aren't fully familiar with when American elections are held. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I am confused, HiLo48. Do you think that people in, say, Europe might not realize that the "2016 United States presidential elections" took place in 2016? Can our definition of the 2016 elections not be a bit more... informative? And a bit less repetitive? That is the point of the discussion in the preceding section. Surtsicna (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose making the language sound fancier does not automatically make the article better. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: @Devonian Wombat:, two more proposals have been added. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I still Oppose making changes. Using “A United States presidential election” simply sounds worse than the current language, due to the fact that in simply sounds less encyclopaedic. In that regard, it is, in my opinion, a worse option than “59th quadrennial presidential election” We can if it is absolutely necessary, jut link to the article on United States presidential elections in general like this; The 2020 United States presidential election. Even this is not necessary. It is not absolutely necessary to link to everything that can possibly be linked to and in the process make the article worse and simultaneously create a discrepancy between this and other articles. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not about the link, Devonian Wombat. This is about not insulting the readers' intelligence by defining the "2020 United States presidential election" as something that will happen in 2020 or the "2016 United States presidential election" as a presidential election that took place in 2016. Of course the 2020 election will happen in 2020; of course the 2016 presidential election was a presidential election in 2016. Please take part in the discussion that's taking place in the preceding section, #Lead sentence. This RfC is not the way to come up with the best wording. It was started by an editor who cares about nothing but uniformity, and is therefore not interested in any improvement. Surtsicna (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The only person insulting anyone's intelligence here is you and your treating of anyone who doesn't agree with yourself as some form of imbecile. This discussion is a vote on your proposal, if people don't agree with you than please just grow up and move on like an sensible human being. And for the record, basic sentence structure means you should be referencing the thing you are describing by name. Should we just never mention Donald Trump by name in his article, in fact, should we just never refer to anything by the third person ever? No, of course not. And finally, can I just say that everyone involved in this discussion has spent way too much of their time discussing this frankly irrelevant dipute on a measly four words. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I am genuinely perplexed, Devonian Wombat. How did I treat you as an imbecile? Why do you feel the need to call me immature and insensible? Of course we should mention Donald Trump by name, but we should not define Donald Trump as a man named Donald Trump. Surtsicna (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Most of my accusations were stated because, in my view, you have attempted to delegitimize the opinions of editors voting here by demanding that it be discarded in favour of the discussion for no discernible reason other than this vote does not favour your viewpoints, as well as your tendency to be inflammatory and condescending in your comments. I did go overboard though, and I apologise for that. However, my point that accusing the current description of "insulting the intelligence of readers is ridiculous still stands. The most natural way to have an intro paragraph is to mention the title name, and using "A United States presidential election" sounds unencyclopedic. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Devonian Wombat, this is our first interaction, and the only inflammatory and condescending remarks so far were calling me an immature, insensible human being. I accept the apology, so let us please not comment on each other any further. This vote indeed does not favor my viewpoint because my viewpoint is not to choose between one of these versions. They are not set in stone. My intention was to come up with the best wording through discussion. There is no reason for the intro not to mention the article title. The sentence can still be encyclopedic and informative with "the 2020 United States presidential election" at its beginning. It's just that the rest of the sentence should not be a mere repetition of what is already in the beginning. Surtsicna (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, because the elections are almost always referred to by year and not by election count. The most important detail is 2020.MozeTak (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: @MozeTak:, two more proposals have been added. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, per the rationale behind the other comments made in this thread. Unless and until a more general proposal is made and agreed to that changes the style for all previous, current, or future elections, the year is the more pertinent detail here. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: @Jgstokes:, two more proposals have been added. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Still oppose: My opposition to the first proposal remains as stated. As for the others, they are not specific enough. Identification by year is crucial and is the set precedent for purposes of clarity and simplicity. Any other method would overly complicate things for the reader, which is something that we as editors should actively avoid. I also fully agree with the arguments made by others in response to the new proposals, which to me are more meritorious and consistent with current Wikipedia policies than any or all of the aforementioned proposals. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, the proposed version. Nobody's going to know or care that it's the 59th quadrennial election. Axedel (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: @Axedel:, two more proposals have been added. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, Nowhere is it called the Quadrenial (or whatever) election in the US. It is always referred to by the year. Changing it makes zero sense. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: @Nightenbelle:, two more proposals have been added. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

still Oppose Its quite fine the way it is now IMO. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support the third version because the wikilink being near the start is useful. The fourth version isn't bad though as long as the wiklink is placed somewhere in the first paragrah. Axedel (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support current version, oppose all other proposals. Firstly, I don't know why should we link United States presidential election so hard in the lead section, when it gets its own, highly visible reference at 2020 United States presidential election#Procedure; we surely don't have to show in the lead every link that is in the article.

Secondly, MOS:BOLDTITLE is clear when it establishes that If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence [...] Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in a natural way. Both of these primary conditions of MOS:BOLDTITLE can be (and already are, as of currently) accomplished here, and I see it difficult for someone not to acknowledge that "[year] US presidential election" is the most widely accepted and recognizable name for the article's subject, so from that point there is little else to discuss, lest we be going against the MOS itself.

Finally, note that the MOS only provides exception for this If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy. In this case it looks like it's happening the other way around: attempting to add the "59th quadrennial US presidential election"-bit to the lead sentence obviously makes it look blatantly redundant; in such a conflict we should look for the accomodation of the most natural title. I don't think sources typically record US elections by number, nor do I see it is a recognizable enough descriptor so as to merit dropping out the year instead. Impru20^talk 21:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Impru20. The issue is not the link. The issue is the absurd redundancy in the lead sentences. We can and should do better than to define the 2016 United States presidential election as a presidential election that took place in 2016. I do not care whether the lead sentence includes a link or bold letters. I only care that it does not sound ridiculous. That is why I do not condone this RfC. It is not the way to come up with the best wording. Please take part in the discussion above, #Lead sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support current version and oppose the other proposals, on the grounds that, as noted above, there is a link to United States presidential election in 2020 United States presidential election#Procedure. However, I would support a consensus to include a link to United States presidential election in 2020 United States presidential election#See also. WittyRecluse (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, WittyRecluse. The issue is not the link. It is the redundancy in the first sentence. It is not these two proposals versus the status quo. It is about coming up with something better than defining 2020 elections as elections that will happen in 2020. If you have suggestions, please take part in the proper discussion above, in #Lead sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose changing the intro of this article, as it complies with WP:BOLD. I don't see any reason to alter the intro. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not about bold letters. You can keep the bold letters. Surtsicna (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The intro matches the article title, which is best. PS: I've yet to be shown a proposed alternative, by you. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The article title can be included. The facts need not be repeated. I have proposed alternatives and I am happy to mold them through discussion into something that will be agreeable to everyone. Surtsicna (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

This Rfc is opened until near the end of January 2020. As you are the individual who's pushing to alter the article's intro? you have the freedom to change minds. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not here to change minds. I am not an election candidate. Voting is not a substitute for discussion, as it cannot lead to a common ground. Surtsicna (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

There's plenty of discussions taking place within this Rfc. Best you not dismiss the arguments being put forward against your suggestions, by myself & others. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I accept the arguments against my suggestions and modify them accordingly. They are only drafts, after all. And because they are drafts, I resent your unilateral decision to put them up to a vote. Collaborating on these drafts is the way to come up with the optimal wording. Surtsicna (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

What if all of your drafts are rejected? GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The thing about collaborating on drafts is that the result is not the work of one editor, so it would not be mine. The result might not look like anything I originally proposed. And that's fine. Surtsicna (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Do keep in mind, no consensus for any changes, must be respected. If so many oppose any draft, then the matter must be considered closed. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Naturally. But giving people a choice between two draft proposals and status quo does not mean consensus against any change. It means consensus against those two draft proposals. Surtsicna (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Recommend that you make no changes to the intro of this article, until you get a consensus to do so. At the moment, you have none. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Recommendation noted. In turn, I recommend that in the future, you do not start an RfC process before taking part in a thorough discussion of the matter, per WP:RFCBEFORE. You are "expected to make a reasonable attempt" at reaching a middle ground with other editors before starting these. In this case, you contributed a grand total of one sentence before starting a bungled RfC. Surtsicna (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong with this Rfc. However, in future, I'll hold off from opening up an Rfc, until other avenues in an article dispute reach an impasse. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose both alternatives. Current version is much clearer. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

As the proposed version is by @Surtsicna:? He should have the opportunity to present his argument here. GoodDay (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not the version proposed by Surtsicna. What Surtsicna proposed is in the preceding section, #Lead sentence: that the lead sentence does not state that the 2020 United States presidential election is an American presidential election in 2020. I do not support this RfC, nor do I condone your habit of boring people with such silly discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

You're free to modify the proposed version (with an explanation) of course. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not, because people have already responded to it. And in any case, I do not wish to propose a version. I have already proposed what I wanted to propose: that the lead sentence should not be absolutely ridiculous. Surtsicna (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed you can modify the proposed version (the Rfc is merely hours old) & thus are free to elaborate on it. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I cannot. Modifying something people have already responded to is a terrible practice, and the RfC you concocted cannot be modified to suit my proposal. Surtsicna (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh but you can. I'll merely contact those who've already responded & notify them, of the coming change to the proposed version. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I said no. A discussion thread is already open. Surtsicna (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Open up your own Rfc on this matter & then I'll abort this current one. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

This RfC is a complete mess. The proper discussion is in the preceding section. Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

We'll have to wait & see what others think. If there's a consensus to abort this Rfc, then I'll do so. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

So far, there's definitely been a growing number of editors who oppose making any changes to the intro. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

No. The editors oppose the proposed sentences. An RfC does not allow editors to reach a compromise through discussion. That is why I do not condone it. Consensus is built through discussion, not voting. I would appreciate if you stopped quoting my suggestions here. They are not proposals set in stone. Surtsicna (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

If you disapprove of the Rfc, then request its closure by an administrator. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: A related discussion is taking place at the 2016 US presidential election article. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

My understanding was the discussion there was stopped becuase this discussion was already ongoing. WittyRecluse (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps @Surtsicna: can clarify. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

WittyRecluse, there is no discussion here anymore because a sham RfC has been started in its place. A productive discussion is taking place at Talk:2016 United States presidential election#Lead sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problematic edits

It appears as though @Arglebargle79: is ignoring others & trying to force his 'big' changes into this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• The vote removed any drama that was associated with the Republican race.
• Fortunately for them...

This is wholly unencyclopedic content, and I too question whether the people reverting it actually took the time to read it. Much of the remainder is speculation about what might happen in the future, which would be inappropriate even if portions of it didn't concern events that occurred in the past. GMG^talk 15:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The info in this edit:[2] looks fine to me. It's sourced (unlike the previous version that had extra info).David O. Johnson (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

"burn before reading"

The trial of Donald Trump began on January 16, 2020. Let me repeat that began. the part on the trial and how it might effect the campaign was written in December a day or two after Trump was impeached. Lots has happened since then and the entire section is now dated and obsolete. So I changed it. It was reverted back to the now old an inaccurate version, TWICE. So why did they do that? Maybe it's personal, I dunno. But @GoodDay wants a discussion, so let's have one.

For anyone who follows American politics the least bit closely, one will notice that the trial of the president was stopped in its tracks when witnesses and documents were barred by a vote of 51-49. The "acquittal" will take place on Wednesday afternoon or evening. This is a fact. The votes have been provisionally counted and there aren't enough votes to remove him. This is very important information for our readers. The tiniest amount of suspense is now gone as to the ultimate result of the Republican race. Trump will win the nomination unless there's a fantasy action of some sort. You know, a bolt of lightning or the President literally shooting his wife on Fifth avenue. In the real world, the Republican race is over. He's already won Kansas and Hawaii, and will win Iowa this evening; and, New Hampshire and Nevada within a couple of weeks.

So what are we going to do about this? Well, one way is to edit this article to reflect the current state of events, which is what I"ve done. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Stating that Trump will be acquitted (and that Trump will be the nominee) are violations of WP:CRYSTAL. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest to include information that’s current. It does legitimately affect the primary on the Democratic side, as multiple Senators cannot be in Iowa for the caucus as a result of the trial. UnknownM1 (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

NO they're not. It's like saying that the Sun's going to rise tomorrow morning. The Impeachment and trial of trump are, as I have said countless times, is the entire Republican primary. Walsh and Weld are merely token opposition. This is a fact. The pause in the trial may have saved Warren's butt. That was speculation. How would you phrase it? The Consensus everywhere but here is that Trump will still be president in a week. No one disagrees, not even you. So why not reflect that?

the thing is, is that the first major voting event of the cycle is going to take place tonight, and that means there is going to be massive changes. Look at the article sets from the last couple of cycles. The thing you want to block me for changing, I wrote. Arglebargle79 (talk)

Actually, the primary is the primary. To claim otherwise is WP:OR. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Not clear why this discussion shouldn't be happening on the talk pages for the respective primaries. GMG^talk 16:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Because it's the day of the Iowa caucuses, the first real results of the entire circus. Second, the impeachment section was OLD and obsolete. The Republican side of the Race is now effectively over. It will not be newsworthy after a week from tomorrow. There was a genuine possibility that the trial would go on for weeks, but that's over, now. When John Wolfe got 41% of the vote in Arkansas in 2012, that barely made the news anywhere. If Weld gets over 10% of the vote anywhere, no one will care, as they changed the rules and only Trump could get delegates. Notice that all the stuff I"m talking about is the Republicans, that's because one cannot predict who's gonna win today on the Democratic side so putting it in an article, even though it's tonight, would be WP:Crystal. I have my hopes, but the damn thing's too close to call. It could go on to the Convention, but again, that's speculation. But the end of impeachment proceedings or the results of the primary is not. IF a person has 84% in the polls 48 hours out, you can be sure he's gonna win. More people are going to vote in California today than in Iowa, but only the latter's results will be known, and if you think that you can writ better than me, I invite you to try, go for it, I salute you. But dammit, just don't revert. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You need to get an agreement on this talkpage, before you make such large scale changes. That's why you were reverted. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the issue here is a sort of WP:RGW problem. To simply pull directly from the page, "If you want to ... [e]xplain (what you perceive to be) the truth or reality of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue ... you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media". If it is true that Trump has won and all other candidates are joke candidates, or if it is a known fact that no one will care if Weld gets 10% of the votes, then those opinions should be commonly stated by political experts and reported in WP:RS. Insofar as I am aware, this has not happened en masse as of yet. Because the WP:RSs consider the primary as ongoing and candidates like Weld as tangentially significant, we should as well. WittyRecluse (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I had been drafting a replacement statement about impeachment (the existing material was badly written and totally out of date) before the current arguing at the article began. I do think impeachment has to be mentioned briefly in this article, though without a whole lot of detail. I went ahead and added my version; if people think it should not have been added while the issue is under active debate, go ahead and revert it. I put it under "background" because it affected both campaigns. The item will have to be updated after the expected acquittal occurs. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Civility

Regardless of the merits of the revert, as an editor not involved in this discussion, the edit summary by GreenMeansGo for the revert does not meet WP:Civility and is inconsistent with WP:AGF. I encourage everyone to argue their point of view on the merits without personal attacks or over-expressions of frustration. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Transclusions

Let's get rid of most of them. We don't need any of the withdrawn candidates from minor parties here. We actually don't need them from the major parties either. Mark Sanford on here is a waste of bandwith, as is Zoltan Istavan. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes we need to remove the minor party candidates who aren't notable enough to be there. Mark Sanford should stay as he was an actual politician.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 14:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Uniform WP:DUE weight of candidate inclusion

Apparently each of the four party articles are using their own inclusion criteria but they're getting transcluded here evenly. All the Democratic candidates are those who have actually gotten significant media coverage. The Republicans are those with coverage + De La Fuente since a single pollster has included him, and they've done at least five polls (and he's been a 1% rounding error in all). The Libertarians are mostly nobodies including seven who don't even have WP articles (including those who've withdrawn), needing to go to just one of their forums that have been ignored by the media. The Greens have five without articles with their inclusion criterion being merely "at some point been considered active"! Now that the primaries have started, when will it be time to have consistent criteria for people with actual coverage? At least trim those not actually still running? Reywas92^Talk 09:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The minor party candidates without articles should be removed from this page. I don't think Green and Libertarian parties require transclusion because their candidates are much less notable. De La Fuente should also be removed because he isn't a major candidate, likewise from the Republican Primaries page. As a side note, I don't think it's accurate to use "nominations" in the headings for each party. I think it should say "candidates".13:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Naddruf (talk)

I agree on this page that a single inclusion criteria should be used for parties (or two if we want to break candidates into "major" and "minor"), but on the actual pages for each party the inclusion criteria should be allowed to be more lax. WittyRecluse (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that we remove the transclusions for Green and Libertarian party so only the major candidates will be included. No candidates on this page without wp articles of their own.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 15:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

De La Fuente is certainly not a major candidate for the 2020 Republican presidential nomination & so should be deleted from that section. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

At Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries, there has been some discussion of holding a Request for Comment in November 2020, right after this year's election, to discuss what the criteria for being a major candidate should be. My thinking is that holding the discussion for 2024 before we know who the candidates will be should enable us to hold a more objective discussion, rather than trying to set the rules to include or exclude certain people from being considered major candidates. At this point, I'm just looking for support for the idea that we ought to hold such an RFC in November. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It's too late to change the rules now. Rocky is on too many ballots. The RfC in November is an excellent idea, but that's for then. This is February. Arglebargle79 (talk)

The RFC would not apply to this election.David O. Johnson (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Super Tuesday Republican announcement

Unless anyone vehemently objects to this, on the day after Super Tuesday, I will get rid of the Transclusion on the Republican section and replace it with something like this:

Republican Party (United States) Presumptive 2020 Republican Party ticket
Donald Trump	Mike Pence
for President	for Vice President
President of the United States (2017-present)	Vice President of the United States (2017-present)
Campaign
colspan=2

The reason is obvious. The day after Super Tuesday, Trump will have just a hundred delegates short of the nomination. A chart for the rest, easily updateable, and looking like the 2016 page will also be added. Rocky will be on it, as will Zoltan, and the non-notables who get over 10 thousand votes. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Only after he has enough delegates for nomination.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 14:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Naddruf. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. Let's not jump the gun on this.David O. Johnson (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say I should do it NOW...AS to the other thing i said, it would look something like this:

Candidates in this section are sorted by state ballot access
Bill Weld	Joe Walsh	Rocky de la Fuente	Zoltan Istvan	Robert Ardini	Matthew J. Matern	Robert Ely	Mark Sanford
		File:Rocky De La Fuente1 (2) (cropped).jpg
68th Governor of Massachusetts]] (1993–1997)	U.S. Representative (2011–2013)	perennial candidate	Transhumanist	2016 Republican nominee for Congress from New York	California attorney	Perennial candidate	68th Governor of South Carolina (1998–2002)
Campaign	Campaign	Campaign	Campaign	Campaign	Campaign	Campaign	Campaign
W: 0 votes	W: 0 votes	W: o votes	W: 0 votes	W: 0 votes	W: 0 votes	W: 0 votes	W: Nov 11 2019 0 votes

This would be under the heading "challengers." Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't we usually wait until the National Convention delegates nominate the presidential & vice presidential candidates? But, I guess it'll be alright once he gains a majority of delegates in the primaries, since we'll have presumptive written in the heading. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Not for Bush in 2004 and Obama in '12. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Color coding?

Is there any particular reason the libertarian candidates have different colors by their names? It's interesting, but this wasn't done for the Democrats, Republicans, etc. -TenorTwelve (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

No objections to removing the color coding. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AdamKokesh2020CampaignLogo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Mark Whitney

What is the date and place of birth of Mark Whitney? If anyone knows, add it!RiW06 (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In his "Fool for a Client" video that's linked from his website, Whitney refers to April 21, 2009 as the day he turned 50. Assuming that's truthful, that would make his date of birth 4/21/1959. I'm not sure we can use that as a source, though (because of WP:OR). Sal2100 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Rocky de la Fuente

Should Rocky de la Fuente be removed from the "Declared major candidates" chapter because he is not officially registered with all states, as opposed to Mr. President Donald Trump and Governor of Massachusetts Bill Weld?

No. Weld isn't on the ballot for all contesting states either, (see 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries#Ballot_access) but he is still a major candidate.David O. Johnson (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

But Weld does participate in states where there are in total enough electors for a nomination. Otherwise, Zoltan Ivstan must also be added.RiW06 (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you sign your comments, please? You do it by adding four tildes to the end of your comment, like this: ~~~~David O. Johnson (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes you can, but I would like an answer to my question.RiW06 (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, once upon a time, there were several nobodies from nowhere who got on the ballot in New Hampshire primary ballot and one was locally notable enough to have an article. He got something like 23 votes and didn't get on the ballot anywhere else, but he never withdrew and was up there on the charts for much of the rest of the season. This was totally annoying. So after much discussion, it was decided to get rid of him, or rather demote him to "minor" status. So the rules were "elected officials, on five nationally recognized polls, or famous enough to generate national newspaper coverage. this time out, there was one guy on the 'bubble', our Rocky. There was lots and lots and lots of discussion about whether he should have been given major or minor status (see the archives, it could fill a novel). Early this year Rocky was discovered to have been on at least five major polls. So he was promoted. This upset some people. He is on the ballot in at least 15 states, over twenty, I think, so he's on the chart as a major candidate.

Trump is running unopposed in a number of states. While Weld is not on the ballot in Oklahoma and Illinois in those that are contested, he remains on most ballots. I hope this answers your question.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Clinton Bush Paul

@Oulfis and Devonian Wombat: The 2008 and 2012 elections were the only ones where Ron Paul was relevant, not as a candidate for the general election but in the Republican primaries. Rand Paul ran only in the 2016 Republican primaries. All the other elections from 1980-2016 had a Bush or Clinton as presidential or vice presidential nominee. I am not sure there is any relevance to this tidbit.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright, so 1): The primary is not the general election, this page is about the general election and 2): If random trivia is not referenced it does not deserve to be on this page. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that extra info. I think the trivia ought to remain deleted from this article, especially since the wording of the deleted sentence specifically said "presidential election" and "on the ballot," which to me would rule out primaries. It sounds like there might be citations to note this detail on the 2012 general election page, or on the 2020 primaries page, but it doesn't seem to belong here. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 03:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Such trivia should only be used if the individuals were presidential or vice presidential nominees of a political party. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Super Tuesday is this Tuesday.

Early voting is going to be over in less than a day. According to every polling service, Trump is getting 75-09% of the vote. They cannot be so wrong that the President could lose one of these things, or even get less than 50%, and thus have more than a couple of delegates shaved off. Under the rules, there's no way that Trump gets less than 830 delegates. When, not IF, this happens the race will be over. If you include those states that have him legally unopposed, then he's clinched it, no use pretending otherwise to be "encyclopedic" or avoid "WP:Crystal." At this point, the approximate results, i.e. that Trump will get a large majority everywhere and thus get all the delegates, are as plain as whether or not the vote counting will actually take place on that day. They will. Trump is the incumbent. This is a fact. Weld and Rocky are challengers. This is a fact. In 75 hours it will be mathematically impossible for anyone to deny him the nomination without resorting to "second amendment solutions," This is also a fact. It's in the realm of possibility that Sanders will win South Carolina today. It's not likely, but it's possible. What will happen in 75 hours on the Democratic side is unknowable.

The Democratic race is quite different than the GOP one. Except for the exact numbers, the results on the Republican side are already known. It doesn't matter if Trump gets 50%+1 or 95%, the rules state he gets all the delegates. The polls show that Trump is far, far closer to the latter. There is a difference between predicting a squeaker and predicting a landslide. The polls have a margin of error of 3-5% not 60%, especially in a stable situation 75 hours beforehand and early voting about to end with 40-50% of the votes already in the bank.

While having Trump with having ten times the popular vote as Weld and 100 times the delegate strength looks bad on a chart, having 50 times the popular vote and 900 times the delegate strength look even worse. So leave the section headings where they are. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

How many times do you need to be told this? Trump will not be labelled as the winner of a state until he has won that state. He has not yet won, even if he is the only candidate on the ballot. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I would argue their editing falls under Wikipedia:Disruptive editing; this section especially: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point". David O. Johnson (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

...and what point is that? Trump's going to be the presumptive nominee the day after tomorrow. You know that. We ALL know that. There's going to be 14 primaries spewing results in 50 hours. That in itself is going to be disruptive as hell. The Republican race will be over. Done with. Finito. Yes, a "zombie primary" will continue, it always does. Reagan, Bush sr, Dole, Bush jr., McCain and Romney all clinched the nomination on Super Tuesday. To clinch the nomination means that it's mathematically impossible to not get the nomination, and oh yeah, this is not sports. If a person is the only person on the ballot, he HAS won. That's how Trump won South Carolina and Hawaii. That's how judges get elected in New York. BTW, I don't remember anyone but you two guys coming up with the "you can't be considered to have won a political race when no one is running against you until the election." Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Super Tuesday is in the future. We're an encyclopedia and only document what has already happened. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Make it at least three. Please add me to the list of those who have repeatedly told you that, Arglebargle79. WP:NOTGETTINGIT, WP:DEADHORSE, etc. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll expect your apology wednesday morning.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we please do something about this? I think ANI might be the solution. This is a long-running issue with this editor. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

He should have been taken there last November, and he should be taken there now. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Arglebargle79, you don't get it. It's not whether it's right on Wednesday or not, it's what is accurate as of right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

the whole discussion is about whether or not we should talk about what to do on Wednesday, NOW. I created nearly half the articles in this series, the major ones anyway, and they've all be reverted or deleted or something several times before they stuck. If it's right on Wednesday, then it's right on Wednesday. Agree or disagree? !Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

I think we should change the infobox. We usually include more than just the two major candidates in the infobox. Also, Trump hasn't won the nomination so we don't who the Republican nominee will be.. Prcc27 (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the infobox on the Republican primaries page. I think it makes sense to include Trump and Weld. Weld has won over 7% of the popular vote, and all other candidates have won under 1%. Weld has never been a serious contender to win, and has only one delegate, but anyone who is going to read the Republican primaries page wants to read about the race against Trump. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

the Republican race is over. Live with it.

I know very well we've been fighting over this for months. this has nothing to do with WP:Crystal or whatever. With the cancellation of the NY primary and Super Tuesday now over, the nomination has been effectively clinched, and to say otherwise is complete denial. You will notice that everyone except Sanford has received more than ten thousand votes. Sanford is on the ballot in Michigan. The numbers will be updated.

Now as to New York, the primary was canceled and the delegates for Trump were officially declared elected. There's no "the election hasn't happened yet" nonsense okay? Saying that the race is "effectively over" is a fact, not opinion. That Trump is the "presumptive nominee" is also. Trump has been the presumptive nominee for years. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

When we tell you to wait for something to happen, and then that thing happens, it doesn't prove us wrong. Our position was not that it wouldn't happen, but that Wikipedia doesn't declare that things are over when they haven't occurred. We were not in denial of what would eventually happen. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2020

Formatting of the bottom of the page (Green Party Endorsement) is wrapping into citation column of the Third Party Candidates, my suggestion is to unwrap the column, and allow the content to remain in the body of the page. Hfreni (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done It was a transclusion issue on the Libertarian page. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Too many Libertarian candidates

There is no reason that everyone in the Libertarian primaries needs to be on this page, even if they have no relevance. Qualifying for the Libertarian debates does not make them important enough to take up space here. In particular I think we should remove Gerhart, Dunham, Armstrong, and replace the transclusion. We could also remove more candidates. I would support changing the rules for the minor parties to "significant media coverage" (not press releases), "winning a primary", or holding political office in a state or national legislature, appointed office, or mayor of a town of over 100,000 people.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 15:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

No objections. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with that, given the lower standards necessary to be an important competitor in minor parties I think we should include anyone with a Wikipedia page, anyone holding an elected office and anyone who has received delegate votes at any of the party’s previous national conventions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2020

Those standards are not followed for Republican or Democratic candidates, and there shouldn't be significantly more minor candidates from minor parties simply becuase theyre running for a third party. WittyRecluse (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

If we applied the standards used for Major party candidates to the Libertarian and Green parties those sections would consist in their entirety of Lincoln Chafee and possibly Max Abramson. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we use the standards for major parties on minor parties, I'm simply suggesting that the difference in standards should not result in a surplus of minor party candidates compared to major ones. WittyRecluse (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Strong support, as I've said several times before, it's embarrassing to list these nobodies along with legitimate candidates who receive media coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I would be in favour of not including Gerhardt and Dunham, but I think we should keep all the other Libertarian candidates on this article. Also, we should add back Kim Ruff and Zoltan Istvan. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Zoltan and Ruff shouldn't be returned to the article because, the former is running as a Republican and isn't in the article there, and the latter is barely notable and withdrew ages ago. Putting Istvan in the main article here as a Libertarian gives the reader a false impression. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I see that currently the only active candidates listed are those who've gotten 5% of more of the vote in the primaries. While that is a reasonable benchmark, it shouldn't be the only qualification for inclusion. Too restrictive, IMO. Especially when you consider that these primaries are non-binding, and therefore may not be an accurate gauge of candidate viability. I support Devonian Wombat's suggestion of including anyone with a Wikipedia page, anyone holding (or has previously held) an elected office and anyone who has previously received delegate votes at any of the party’s national conventions. That, in addition to the 5%-or-more-in-the-primaries, seems like a more fair and objective criterion that keeps the list size within reason. Sal2100 (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

After further consideration, I would support the combination of Naddruf's suggestions in the original posting with Devonian Wombat's ideas, in addition to current standard of 5% or more primaries. This would still keep the list size at reasonable length while being fair and objective. Sal2100 (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Please add something similar to following:

This election showed also usage of games, in one of them the Bernie Sanders is fighting against "bad" Donald Trump in Mario style game. It must be known that this isn't the first worldwide game used in elections, because in Poland the PSL used RPG-like game to promote it campaign.

 Not done I don't see how this is notable enough to warrant a place on this article. Almy (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Request for comment: edge cases for write-in ballot access

I'd like to have a discussion on the details of how to treat write-in ballot access for determining which nominees are included in the infobox. Last year there was a breakdown in the days prior to the election due to there not having been a prior consensus on some edge cases, and I'd like to get a consensus on these well in advance of the election. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Some background: the long-standing consensus is that prior to the election, the infobox shows all nominees who have ballot access in enough states to have a mathematical possibility of winning a majority of Electoral College votes. For reference, here is what the infobox looked like just prior to the election in 2016 and in 2012. (After the election occurs, the rules change so that only candidates who got pledged electoral votes or a certain percentage of the popular vote are listed.) The consensus has also been that registering as a write-in candidate counts, as long as there's evidence the nominee actually appointed electors.

Extended historical background

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 whom needed write-in access to reach the 270 electoral vote 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 2012 thread (Archive 9#Number of candidates in the infobox) was not primarily concerned with whether to count write-in status. The consensus on write-in status was developed in a later discussion (Archive 10#Applying due weight to the top row of the infobox) which determined that we would count write-in access if we could verify that electors had been appointed. This consensus was confirmed in several threads afterwards (in Archive 11: #What to Do with Constitution Party/Virgil Goode, #Regarding Counting Write-In States, #Third candidates, and #Conformity with other election pages). Given these discussions and the practical fact that the verified write-in candidates remained on the article for the entire period prior to the election, it is clear that the 2012 consensus supported including these candidates. In 2016, a brief discussion confirmed this (Archive 10#For Third Parties, should we include Write-In Access for the Purposes of Organization and the Infobox). A full RfC was initially closed on 19 October 2016, but later overturned on a technicality. At the time this RfC was running, Castle and McMullin were the only two candidates under contention for the infobox, both of whom would have qualified under the 2012 consensus. Just before the initial close, other candidates who would not have been eligible under the 2012 consensus began to be the subject of edit wars, initially De La Fuente and Kotlikoff, and later Hoefling and Maturen. After the page was protected, we reached a tentative compromise to include their names without pictures in the infobox at Archive 13#Protected edit request on 29 October 2016 (3) based on ideas raised in previous discussions. This was a compromise but not really the result of a clear consensus.

In 2016 there were a few issues that came up (for the full discussions, see this thread and all of this archive):

• A few candidates got to 270 votes with only write-in access plus the only two states (Colorado and Louisiana) that allowed a candidate on-ballot access solely by paying a fee, without any signatures required. (These were Laurence Kotlikoff, Tom Hoefling, and Mike Maturen.) While this technically met the consensus criteria, there was discussion on whether this set too low a bar for candidates without any organization to get pictured in the infobox just by paying fees and without having any actual organization.
• It turns out that there were 54 electoral votes from six states (AL, NH, NJ, PA, RI, VT) that do not have any process for filing as a write-in, and thus it's not possible to name an elector slate, and it's unclear what would happen if a write-in candidate actually won these states. (In 2016, this affected Rocky De La Fuente.) There was some discussion of whether these 54 electoral votes should count, although since no elector slate was filed they technically don't meet the consensus criteria.

I'd like to get views on these issues with an eye towards establishing a consensus before potential candidates actually start to qualify. Note that this RfC does not pertain to nominees who attain majority ballot access without relying on write-in access. Please !vote support or opposition to the following two proposals. Thanks! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Extra note: if you oppose, it's probably a good idea to state whether it's because you prefer more restrictive or less restrictive criteria. Both of these proposals make the criteria more restrictive than the status quo, but a lot of people seem to be opposing not because they endorse the status quo, but because they favor various even more restrictive rules that are not part of this RfC. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Requirement for signatures

Proposal: In order to be included in the pre-election infobox, a nominee must have on-ballot access (i.e., their name as actually listed on the ballot) in at least one state that requires a petition of signatures.

• Oppose, because my opinion on the matter is that only the Democrats and Republicans belong in the infobox, and if third parties must be in the infobox they should not get there through write-in access, only through actually being on the ballot. (Edit for clarification at 21:21, 27 March 2019: I support Darryl Kerrigan's proposal below.) Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Devonian Wombat: This proposal (and the next one) make the criteria more restrictive. If you believe fewer candidates should be in the infobox, the way to do that is to support both proposals. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I mean, if enough people want the criteria to become even more restrictive than you propose, the person who closes this RfC would presumably take that into account. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments below. Any candidate polling >5% nationally or leading (or perhaps in second) in any state or DC should be included. That should be the test. I think the Green Party, Libertarian and any third party or indipendent candidates polling over >1% should be listed as major candidates in the article, but not in the infobox.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
• Oppose largely because the premise is wrong. I knew both the Hoefling and Maturen campaign teams quite well and had some familiarity with the Kotlikoff team. The idea that they just paid a small fee in a couple of states and did little else is wrong. These campaign teams generally had 50 or more people on them who worked to get them access to electoral votes. Yes, it's true that some states are quite trivial in this regard, but other states have complex and substantial requirements for ballot access and are run by partisan election boards that actively try to keep other parties off of the ballot. Dhalsim2 (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Defer to poll data as more feasible and meaningful. I would suggest anyone polling above 1% in a specified poll be included to include the third party candidates. Recent history such as 2016 and the Florida results in 2000 indicate even a small percentage in one state may determine an election. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

States without formal write-in procedures

Proposal: States that do not have a formal process for filing as a write-in do not count towards write-in ballot access for any candidate.

• Oppose, This is a similar situation to when a party nominates someone ineligible for the presidency, in that being a write-in candidate in these states is still essentially the same as write-in candidates in other states with regard to the actual voting, regardless of the situation with delegates. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments below. Any candidate polling >5% nationally or leading (or perhaps in second) in any state or DC should be included. That should be the test. I think the Green Party, Libertarian and any third party or indipendent candidates polling over >1% should be listed as major candidates in the article, but not in the infobox.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
• Oppose largely because the premise is wrong (same as above). I knew both the Hoefling and Maturen campaign teams quite well and had some familiarity with the Kotlikoff team. The idea that they just paid a small fee in a couple of states and did little else is wrong. These campaign teams generally had 50 or more people on them who worked to get them access to electoral votes. Yes, it's true that some states are quite trivial in this regard, but other states have complex and substantial requirements for ballot access and are run by partisan election boards that actively try to keep other parties off of the ballot. Dhalsim2 (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Is there a reason not to just use the general rule of including any candidate who is >5% in aggregate polling? It has been discussed most recently in RfCs concerning the 2020 Democratic and Republican primaries. It has also been discussed in 2010 and 2017 on the Elections and Referendums Project. I would assume if anyone was polling ahead in any state (or DC), they would also be included even if they were polling <5% nationally. If a third party candidate was going to win a state, or had a real likelihood to that would of course be significant. Is there a reason not just to stick to the 5% rule?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

No, there isn’t a reason not to do this. What a massive waste of breath to consider putting anyone anywhere, especially the infobox, who can’t demonstrate media coverage and popular support, much less actual ballot access! Reywas92^Talk 01:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

There has never been a poll-based pre-election infobox criterion. Part of the reason is because we'd need to decide what polls to include and how to aggregate them, which will lead to a lot of messy discussions. On the other hand, ballot access is easy to factually verify, these edge cases aside. If you do want to add a poll-based requirement, my recommendation is that you'd need to propose it and have it pass an RfC, since the ballot-access-only requirement is so longstanding. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• This all seems rather complicated to find out, not prominent facts or meaningful in the sense that poll numbers are. Although I can imagine even a regional strength being important to the outcome, I would suggest just using a national poll of 1% as enough to show. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Bidens Photo

The former photo for Vice President Biden was perfectly fine, there was no need to change it to the current photo. The current photo is not even a good photo of him but the previous one was. Please return Biden's photo to the one previously used for him, the photo in use now is not a flattering image of him and when next to Trumps looks as if Wikipedia is biased. Please use photos that make ALL candidates look their best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreiss2018 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. It looks weird that Trump has his official portrait and Biden is not. I suggest making Biden's official portrait in the election box but keeping the recent photo under the presumptive nominee box. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Agree, but I think we should use the official portrait in both places, to look the most professional. --Aricmfergie (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Agreed. 94.175.136.90 (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Under the presumptive nominee section we should use this photo because it's consistent with Trump. The official photo cropped on the infobox with it not cropped under the presumptive nominee header. Nojus R (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. The current Biden photo looks scary and biased against him, use an official Portrait or the 2019 campaign photo that was used.47.32.189.99 (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC) user

• I agree, looks way much better.--JorgeBenJorge (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)