Talk:2008 presidential election

Redirect

The US election isn't the only presidential election this year, and there aren't just Americans using Wikipedia. I have reverted the redirect so it goes back to the list of presidential elections around the world in 2008. --Kmsiever (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what you stated above, most of the elections listed on Electoral calendar 2008 are not presidential elections. When one is searching for 2008 presidential election, it is safe to say that he/she is looking for information on the 2008 US presidential election.--IceFrappe (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would someone from Marshall Islands or the Czech Republic be searching for the US presidential election when their own presidential elections are in 2008. Most of the elections listed may not be presidential in Electoral calendar 2008, but more than two dozen are. It's not just Americans who use Wikipedia. --Kmsiever (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several presidential elections in 2008. It is safe to say that one searching for "2008 presidential election" could be searching for any one of them. Parable1991 (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is the English language Wikipedia. I highly doubt anyone who is searching for 2008 presidential election would be looking for the elections in Czech Republic, Taiwan, or Marshall Islands. Most of the elections listed on Electoral calendar 2008 are not even presidential elections. It would be entirely different if we're discussing this on the Serbian Wikipedia or we have a list strictly for presidential elections across the world in 2008. Unfortunately, that is not the case. It would be highly frustrating and time-consuming for someone who is using wikipedia to do his research. Regards--IceFrappe (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If that were the case, we wouldn't have English articles for not only those countries, but their languages, culture, history, elections and so forth. If there wasn't a demand for this content from English users, the content wouldn't exist or at least be minimal. Keep in mind that the United States isn't the only English speaking country, and the English Wikipedia isn't the same thing as the American Wikipedia. --Kmsiever (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the keyword is 2008 presidential election which could mean any presidential election in 2008. Wikipedia is not American-centric or Anglo-centric. I can't imagine how highly frustrating it is to make an extra click on the Electoral calendar 2008 page. All I know is that it can be a lot more frustrating for those looking for the several other elections if they have to make three clicks. Parable1991 (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but this unilateral edit by Parable without consensus is very troubling. [1] Again, you are missing the point. Why should presidential elections be redirected to non-presidential elections? It doesn't make any sense. It would be helpful if you two take the time to compile a list of "presidential" elections in 2008 across the world instead of insisting to redirect 2008 presidential election into an article that clearly isn't about "presidential" elections. Regards--IceFrappe (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet your edits on this page have all been made without consensus. After all, you were the one who came along and changed the redirect from what it already was. No discussion, no proposal. Just unilateral editing without consensus. It also doesn't make any sense to redirect a global search term to the elections of a single country. It should be equal treatment for everyone. It doesn't make sense to make a separate article to list all the presidential elections this year. If we did, then we'd have to do separate articles for all the parliamentary elections, all the legislative elections, all the congressional elections, and so forth. Why duplicate information that already exists? --Kmsiever (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, presidential elections are directed to presidential elections. The article is clearly about elections in 2008 which includes presidential elections. Why should presidential elections be redirected to one in particular while there are several others? It doesn't make any sense. Parable1991 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Discussion between editors has not been able to establish the best use of this redirect page. Some believe it should redirect to a US-centric page, stating that the available global page is not exclusively for presidential elections. Some believe it should redirect to a globally-centric page, stating that redirecting to an US-centric page alienates users looking for non-US presidential elections. --Kmsiever (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say if it is redirected to the global page, at least put "2008 presidential election redirects here. For the United States election, see 2008 US Presidential Election" (or whatever it is).--Michael White^T·C 18:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. --Kmsiever (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, the global page is not about presidential elections. I think it makes more sense if it's the other way around.--IceFrappe (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

But at least that solution is more inclusive of all Wikipedia users. It's the largest list of 2008 presidential elections on Wikipedia. I can't think of any other page we can link to on Wikipedia that would include all presidential elections around the world this year. --Kmsiever (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to change this from a redirect page into a category page to disambiguate the 2008 elections held in any countries with a "president". Let it list links to different countries ...? US would go to United States presidential election, 2008 BigK HeX (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what IceFrappe keeps suggesting. The problem, however, is that the page to which it currently redirects already does that (except it includes other, non-presidential elections). We'd be duplicating the work of another article. --Kmsiever (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Where's the harm in that? It's pointless to duplicate a substantive article, but duplicate indexing/locator functions make it easier to find material, since millions of users don't have to guess the precise language used, and don't have to hunt through articles to find the material they were searching for.Dogger55 (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)