Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Trump photo

Since the above discussion about the Trump photo has been kind of confusing (my bad), I think it may be better to proceed with a formal vote, like we did for Clinton. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• 
  A
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E
• 
  F
• 
  G
• 
  H
• 
  I
• 
  J
• 
  K

• By order of preference : F, G, E, D and C. A is fine, but much too "grumpy". H is, technically, a good photo but it makes him look kind of creepy and is therefore, IMHO, unfit for an infobox. I is funny, but the cropped version makes him look like a Martian. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• I prefer A, with C, G, and K being close seconds. --Proud User (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• F, looking to the camera, I also think it matches with the proposed Clinton photo, TexasMan34 (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• F looks at the camera and isn't leaning over to the side.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• If people prefer F, there is a photo from the exact same event where the subject is smiling. It was used on the subject's Wikipedia page for several years as the main infobox photo. Calibrador (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

  Great ! I added the photo, and changed my vote accordingly. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• E is a horrible photoshop of B and F and G are 5 years old (too old for use here). D is just too stupid and A as i have said a dozen times, is a thumbnail...none are good enough for use here...Lets be reasonable here, his best ever image was taken last year and the photographer who took it was hounded off the wiki by someone..--Stemoc 09:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• A, this one looks the most professional while at the same time not looking too intimidating as in option F. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• A, Just leave the current photo as is. How many discussions does there need to be on this? TL565 (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• A, per TL565 --Majora (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• D --so endearing. Writegeist (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

My gut wanted that picture but too many people would complain. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

B and D are perfect. A is too grumpy.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 07:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• A, C, F in order of preference based in lighting, head to frame ratio, and facial expression. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• F, face forward, full face captured, looking at the camera with a neutral expression. This is the best available image of Trump.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

*A is still, and always has been, the better photo. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on what? --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• J is my first preference, A is my second. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Alright, so this is the problem with these threads every single time someone starts one. A list of photos comes up, people "vote" (even though consensus is not a vote), then more photos are added, and soon we have a mess. There are photos people have never seen before, people are forced to strike and revote again and again, or worse people are not even looking at this page once they vote and missing options creating a false consensus. This is how consensus is not made. By having dozens of options and constantly changing the number of items that people have to look at. The correct way to do this would be to have an open period for image submission and then a separate period of !voting where no further images can be added. The photos that don't get any traction should be summarily, SNOW, removed and anyone that did !vote for them should be pinged to pick a new one. Constantly doing what is happening here is going to lead to nowhere. --Majora (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I hope, however, you're not offended when others disagree with that opinion... -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

An opinion is useless if not backed with a rationale.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Is that Plato? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep A – I also agree that any renewed proposal to change the picture should go through a formal process as suggested by Majora. — JFG ^talk 11:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• A is the best recent photo of Trump, keep the Trump photo the way it is.Angelgfg12345 (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2016

To whom it may concern:

Under an earlier section where it explains President Obama's term expires on January 20, 2017 at 12 noon, please add eastern standard time (EST) to that time mark. As terms end at noon (EST) which is the timezone in Washington, DC. This is in accordance to the 20th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Thank you kindly.

75.129.128.246 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Clinton image (voting)

I think we're having a little bit of problems with the Clinton photo, to avoid all of this let's choose now and for all which image should be on the infobox

• 
  A
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E

Please vote and leave your opinion, make your voice be heard. TexasMan34 (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• By order or preference : A, B, E. C is a bit flat and I find D somewhat unflattering (at least for an infobox). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support A as it is a high-quality portrait made available by Clinton's campaign. Isn't that exactly what we want? --Proud User (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• I like the one on the left better. Earthscent (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• I vote A, she's looking directly to the camera, and is in a better resolution, etc. Angelgfg12345 (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• If the Clinton campaign has made available a pic for us to use, why hesitate to use it? Don't make it complicated. Definitely A.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 19:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Notes: First of all everyone here needs to be aware that voting and "making your voice heard" is not what WP:CONSENSUS is. Wikipedia is not a democracy and no consensus decision is made by blindly counting votes. Second, the "campaign" did not release the A photo. It was put on Flickr by HillaryforIowa. Saying that the campaign did it is not exactly true. So keep that in mind when you are discussing this here. Third, discussions like this should be open at least a week if not more to give all interested parties an opportunity to give their input. Just wanted to make everyone aware of these things (I also really couldn't care less either way). --Majora (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support A: Per Angelgfg12345.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe this voting is meant to reach consensus. Which way should we go through to reach consensus if not through voting. The A pic is used by CNN and Bloomberg in showing their polling results. So I think it's ok to assume something even though it's not true.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 13:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@SquidHomme: More so to satisfy my own curiosity, but would you be able to provide a link for the CNN and Bloomberg utilisation of Photo A by any chance? Sleepingstar (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sleepingstar: Actually it's on TV. It is shown when CNN covers the polls results after the Democratic Convention. I'm sorry I can't provide a proof here but I will try to search if anyone has the recording of the coverage.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 07:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose A Not a fan of A, as the eye line makes it look strange as a standalone crop. Calibrador (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• I think A is best because she is facing completely forward. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• B - In all honestly it looks like Hillary is on something (hope the stuff is good) in that picture. Can we please have more options to choose from like for Trump? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

To my criteria, A and D are the best. TexasMan34 (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• They're all ok, but C is a bit flat. Lacks contrast. A and D are best for contrast and composition, though B is decent too. Weak preference for bolded choice. E is just a rather ugly image due to capturing her speaking mid word. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• A, face forward, full face captured, pleasant expression. This is the best available recent photo of Clinton.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Both A and B are great options, with good contrast and head/body ratios. A has the advantage of her facing forwards, whereas B her head is slightly turned. I would ever so slightly favour A. Sleepingstar (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• B - The best of the bunch IMO. Yes she's not looking forward, but the quality of the photo is great. Also, Clinton's facial expression in A looks like she's made of wax. It just seems way too forced. Nations United (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• B, per Nations United TL565 (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

For Third Parties, should we include Write-In Access for the Purposes of Organization and the Infobox

Alright so as filing periods are closing I figured now would be the best time to raise this issue. Back in 2012 we debated and agreed that for the purposes of organizing the third party candidates on the basis of electors available to them, as well as for positioning in the Info-box, that we would count verifiable Write-In access the same as standard ballot access. In adopting this rule, Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party made it into the infobox though on the Third-Tier, as it was felt the First-Tier was to be reserved for candidates with access in all fifty states; conversely the Second-Tier was reserved for candidates with actual ballot access in enough states up to 270 Electors. The problem here though is that while having Write-In access does mean you aren't visibly on the ballot, so long as the correct papers are filed voters can still vote for that candidate, and technically they can still receive electors in such States. So I suppose the question is, do we extend this rule again? Or do we only cover for visible ballot access for our purposes? --Ariostos (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

In the infobox, write-in counts too. --Proud User (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason not to continue with the agreed-upon inclusion rules used in 2012.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If a candidate has a state-recognized slate of electors, and those electors can actually be voted for with the votes being counted, then that candidate ought to be considered to have access in that state. That includes formally recognized write-in candidacies, but not informal ones. I also support the three-tier distinction discussed above, though it seems unlikely to come up this year. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay then. Going off the basic information here (I don't have the time presently to go exploring each of the SOS Elections pages), all of the candidates would be guaranteed Write-In access in Oregon, Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island, for (58) Electoral votes. The rest, barring those nine which do not have Write-Ins, require some sort of filing that should be accessible. --Ariostos (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, we should probably provide some sort of list of links for people to check on Ballot Access and Write-Ins of the various SOS websites, for now and the future, because I just tried looking for the candidate filings in California and Texas and I can't find a darn thing anywhere. --Ariostos (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I too endorse the previous consensus. FWIW, Texas requires all write-in candidates to file a slate of electors: [1]. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Propose removing voter demographics section

The voter demographics section is poorly written and adds no valuable information. I propose removing it unless/until it can be fixed. Thoughts? Instaurare (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support- The concept that the white population percentage is diminishing is not hard to understand and an entire section is not needed to explain it. There was also some anti-Trump POV in the section which, although now properly removed, leaves only two lame sentences and a chart, all of which could easily be worked in elsewhere. Display name 99 (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• This section needs to be expanded, but definitely not deleted. --Proud User (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Then please work on doing so. Instaurare (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Display name 99. Before I removed the anti-Trump pro-Clinton/Obama propaganda, it was nothing but a POV tool to lead readers by the hand via political commentary. As it is, the section's a waste of space and the content can be interspersed elsewhere. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Many editors have pointed out that the "Voter demographics" section was written from a tone that was alleged to slightly favor Clinton. The content of that section, although written from an alleged pro-Clinton tone, was compatible with WP:V (as everything it contained was properly sourced), WP:NPOV (as it explained the sides and backed them up with facts), and WP:OR (as every allegation made came directly from a source). Therefore, I see no objective argument in favor of the deletion of this section. If you think this section should be deleted as it is too small, see WP:AADP#Article size. --Proud User (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone alleges that it slightly favored Clinton, though. And yes, the demographic section in its current form should be removed. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Unless someone opts to further expand the section in an objective manner, it is of no benefit to the article. --Ariostos (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Battleground States section

I have issues with the section generally, but my biggest problem is with this extremely problematic paragraph in particular:

"Left-leaning states in the Rust Belt could become more conservative... Wages have dropped for many of these citizens during the Obama administration.[182] However, they now represent a large portion of the American populace, and were a major factor in Trump's eventual nomination."

First of all, the single source used here does not appear to say anywhere that wages have fallen during the Obama administration (and according to DOL data, that would be an inaccurate claim anyway). Furthermore, there's no source for the additional claim that blue-collar workers in the "Rust Belt" now make up a large portion of the American population. Not only is it incorrect and unsubstantiated, it doesn't even make any logical sense, considering the obvious fact that the "Rust" part of that phrase refers to the decrease of manufacturing jobs and the outmigration of those workers anyway over the course of the last few decades. How would these particular people "now represent a large portion" of the overall population when they have decreased in size relative to other subgroups? And finally, there's this additional claim that Trump's nomination was majorly influenced by Rust Belt blue collar workers. While that last part jibes with certain media frames of this election cycle, where are the data to support the claim? Some journalists have speculated about that, sure, and feel free to link out to those assertions.

But ultimately, I'd advise a major cleanup of this section. With false references to decreasing wages and unsubstantiated implications about left-leaning states like Wisconsin or Pennsylvania trending toward the Republican presidential candidate, it reads too strongly like a narrative somebody on the Trump campaign would want to promote rather than an objective analysis of the situation.

Geogrphr (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2016

While the Constitution Party technically has enough ballot access to reach 270 electoral votes, they by no means "have been featured in major national polls". Stein is missing in many polls, and I have yet to see Castle in one. This should be removed or cited. 2601:805:8000:9A7D:1D13:363C:896C:1BB9 (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

By consensus we no longer use major national polls as a bar of measurement in determining whether they are displayed in the infobox in the period preceding the election, but rather their access to the required number of electoral votes. The reasoning is that many polls, at least four years ago, did not typically include Third Party candidates, and so there was no real effective way to determine whether a candidate's support was above or below the threshold within inserting our own opinions. Ballot Access as a whole is more objective, treating all parties equally, and after the election those that don't make or come close to the (5%) cut will be removed. --Ariostos (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as contrary to consensus as explained above. - Arjayay (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the problem isn't whether or not to include Castle (I understand the consensus view). The problem is that the way the lede is worded, it claims that he is one of three third-party candidates who have been featured in major national polls. And that claim is wholly inaccurate. Castle shouldn't be removed, obviously, but that claim needs some reworking. Grandpallama (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Which some quick editor has already addressed, so never mind! Grandpallama (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ariostos, I agree completely with your diagnosis here, but was the rule for 2016 that whichever candidates get at least one electoral vote would be kept in (or added into) the infobox? Thanks for clarifying. 24.114.65.5 (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

If a candidate is voted for by an elector who is pledged to them, then yes they would also make it in, even if they have less then (5%) of the vote. Storm Thurmond and his '48 Presidential campaign is an example of this in practice. --Ariostos (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Darrel Castle ejected from ballot in Ohio

Ohio has determined that Darrel Castle does not have sufficient valid signatures to be on the ballot in that state, any references to his ballot access in ohio should be removed (ie: maps, body of the text, ect) [[2]]XavierGreen (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Any editor who is looking after this should probably clarify the way Ohio is listed for the Johnson/Weld ticket as well. The Libertarian Party has qualified for ballot access in Ohio, but the Secretary of Sate there does not want to allow them to list Johnson and Weld as their ticket, so Johnson and Weld qualified as independents. There is still a pending federal lawsuit about this issue, but it's entirely possible that Ohio will have two state LP members listed as the Libertarian ticket, separately from Johnson and Weld. The current listing for that ticket doesn't make the distinction. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I remain perplexed how someone can turn in over (8,000) signatures and have just under (5,000) of them ruled invalid, as has happened with Darrell Castle. I've changed the map, but am still surprised by the result. As for Ohio, the Secretary of State has already decided that substitution can be done, so there are no problems presently in getting either Johnson or Weld on the ticket there. I suppose though that does raise the same question in what we should do with Idaho in the case of the Constitution Party, which rebelled and nominated its own Presidential ticket, necessitating Castle to fight for an Independent listing there that is technically ongoing. There is a chance that the Oregon Constitution Party could buck the Party as well. --Ariostos (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the article counts Rocky De La Fuente as having Reform Party access in New York, but the Reform Party of New York is running a Trump/Pence "fusion" ticket as allowed by state law there (I looked for a good source for this, but I can't find anything official). In any case where a single state party is bucking the national party slate, the article needs to be careful to distinguish between party access and candidate access. As to exactly how it should be written up, I couldn't say. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

De la Fuente filed for access to New York via petition rather than using the Reform Party line.XavierGreen (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Filing for access is not the same as securing access. New York should be removed from De La Fuente's column for the reasons the IP states above as should Mississippi which is not bound to follow the national Reform Party. See [3] --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed by this other Ballot Access News article: "The leader of the [New York] Reform Party has promised the Republican Party to always nominate the Republican presidential nominee." Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up: Rocky's independent petition in New York has been found valid. See [4]. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Gary Johnson image

I don't like the current Johnson infobox image and I'm not sure why it was changed. I think the old one was better, because it was consistent with the other three candidate images. The current one is from a photoshoot. Could we change it back please? Ghoul flesh talk 00:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• 
  Original image
• 
  Current image
• 
  Proposed image 1
• 
  Proposed image 2

I agree with the photoshoot photo looking out of place with the other images, a more casual photo should be used instead, but not the one you posted to the right. Calibrador (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

we use the best picture, not one that looks better to YOU...--Stemoc 05:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You realize you are hounding. Calibrador (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Leave the Johnson image the way it is. Why replace a free-to-use, high-quality official portrait with an image randomly taken when Johnson was in the middle of a sentence. There is also a well-supported proposal to replace Clinton's current photo with a higher-quality portrait made available by Hillary for Iowa. If that proposal passes, Johnson's portrait will be in good company when it comes to quality and consistency. --Proud User (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Come on. Johnson's image looks so out of place, it's ridiculous. Can we please reach a consensus? I'm pretty sure whoever changed it in the first place did not do so with consensus. Ghoul flesh talk 15:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that the current image is fine, I don't like the proposed one as he is looking downwards. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: It will not look as much out of place if the proposed Clinton photo passes (which right now, it looks like it will). --Proud User (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

so Ghoul flesh, you are basically saying "Remove the nice image because it looks too nice alongside those 2 crappy ones"? be glad that the Johnson campaign decided to release their images on a free licence, the Hillary and Trump campaign refused to (why would they, their policies say nothing about things being free) ..Most of hillary's recent official images are no longer free and Donald trump looks like a 'smuggy idiot' in every pic taken of him, we can't really help it..Wikipedia is about using the best image available, not the poorest available so that it can match with other poor images..--Stemoc 17:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

What the proposed Clinton photo would look like alongside the current Johnson photo

--Proud User (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly the current Johnson image looks like a passport photo or a highschool yearbook photo, which, in contrast to another candidates' photos, makes him like an amateur-ish candidate.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 07:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, from my understanding, the current Johnson image was never even approved of. It was just changed randomly. I think most of us can see that it looks out of place alongside the other photos. Including next to that Hillary photo. Johnson would still be the only one looking directly into the camera, and with a blank background. Ghoul flesh talk 18:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

New image that fits well with the other photos, as it is a non-posed shot, as the others aren't, has a smile, which is preferred, is recent, which is preferred, and is mostly straight on without the subject looking directly at the camera. When it is added to the infobox it looks better than it does in this gallery format, and more so matches the other photos than any of the other proposed photos. Calibrador (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support The current infobox photo. The pose and smile in the photo Skidmore keeps trying to add is horrible, in my opinion. The more staid image is preferable until something more casual can be found that doesn't have a weird smile and sideways glancing pose. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Voted Yes. The current photo looks like a mugshot which is not fit within the infobox.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 12:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support the middle image in the list of photos at the top of this thread, which is marked "current image" but - as of the time this comment is being posted - has been replaced in the infobox by the one marked "new image" proposed by Calibrador. I agree with Winkelvi's assessment of the latter photo.--Newbreeder (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have restored the middle image above until a consensus can be reached. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support The image seems to fit best with the other three. I vote yes. Ghoul flesh • talk 23:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay sorry, could you say which image? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed image 2. Ghoul flesh • talk 18:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Pictures of Stein/Johnson

Do we need pictures of Stein and Johnson below Trump & Clinton? Seems kinda like a waste of space. Those two are going to be getting electoral votes, and will receive a very small portion of the national vote. The pages for past elections don't include those candidates, so why should this one when the two 3rd party candidates are not relevant, and will not be relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:345:8300:2C7:64E9:F0C3:6FAA:CC60 (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I think that if you want to put a candidate at least should be getting 6% at the polls, I think Gary Johnson has a chance but Jill stein is irrelevant, she doesn't even get 3% at the polls. (I said this without the intention to offend any Stain supporters). TexasMan34 (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Read what it says above:

“ It has been agreed by previous consensus that political parties with access to at least 270 electoral college votes are to be included in the infobox. They will be ordered by the number of electoral votes they have earned in the previous election, and for the included parties that has not earned an electoral college vote in the previous election, they will be ordered by the number of electoral college votes they have access to. ”

--Proud User (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, if any candidate received less than 5% of the vote in the election and received no electoral votes, we will remove those candidates from the infobox. This will most likely mean the Green And Libertarian Parties will not be in the infobox after election day. Also, see the 1948, 1980, and 1992 presidential elections for third party candidates who are featured in the infobox. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

1990'sguy, Gary Johnson is receiving more than 5% in most polls, and so if these results are reliable indicators then he will probably still be in the infobox after election day. However, even if Jill Stein only gets 3 or 4% of the popular vote, she will still have done very well for a candidate not a member of the Democratic or Republican parties, and thus should not necessary be eliminated. Display name 99 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99, these are good points, but to the best of my knowledge, receiving 5% of the popular vote is the consensus cutoff for being displayed in an infobox on a Wikipedia election article. Receiving 3-4% of the popular vote is a big achievement in modern American elections for a third party, but I don't see why we should change the standards just for this case. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The longstanding concensus is that that any candidate that a) received any number of pledged electoral votes (votes awarded by faithless electors don't count); and/or received 5% or more of the popular vote is be included in the infobox post-election. See this discussion and this one for explanation and rationale.--JayJasper (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

1990'sguy and JayJasper, thank you for the explanation. It appears likely that 3 candidates will be featured in the infobox following the election. Display name 99 (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Vice Presidential selection articles <merge suggestions>

I suggest merging the following articles into this one:

• United States vice presidential election, 2016 (archive)
• Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2016
• Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2016

These should not be deleted as there is some useful information. However, these articles are not independent. They are all subsets of the same event and news story. Too much of them is speculation.—GoldRingChip 13:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Content forking for a good discussion of content forking, pro & con.—GoldRingChip 13:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Excessive meaningless speculation without context. There should just be a couple paragraphs here or the campaign articles discussing the selection process and confirmed shortlists. Reywas92^Talk 22:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose I don't agree with the statement that the articles are not independent; both major parties select their vice presidential candidates independently, and given the huge amount of media coverage of these selections, both selections are independently noteworthy (even if neither became vice president, I would argue). The speculation is from reliable sources, which is fine, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Orser67 (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2016

Lynn Khan qualified for the Iowa ballot putting her at 47 Electoral votes. Iowa needs to added to her State list and electoral votes updated. See source 120

Independent candidate, Richard Duncan, qualified for the Ohio ballot putting him at 18 electoral votes. He needs to be added to the list because that was his first state. See source 117

Lynn Kahn is qualified for the New York Ballot, and should be added.

Guidestone94 (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I'm not sure where or what sections you'd like modified. Also, your last item requires a reliable source. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia say whether candidates make a lot of false statements?

You are invited to participate in Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

WaunaKeegan11's edits

I just had to redo the entire third party candidate section from this edit here: [5]. So I want to ask @WaunaKeegan11:, what are you doing? You have been placing states in the wrong sections such as here: [6], and here: [7]. I have been going by this source: [8] for the green party, and this source: [9] for the constitution party. If you move states to other categories can you please provide some sources? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Darrell Castle Ballot Access in New Hampshire and Vermont

The Constitution Party's Ballot Access web page http://www.constitutionparty.com/get-involved/election-central/ballot-access/ currently has New Hampshire and Vermont shown as being in progress for write-in access on their map, yet the text list below that map on the very same page shows New Hampshire and Vermont as already having write-in access. Which should the article and our map favor, their map or their list? VladJ92 (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Third parties without 270 electoral votes

Is there a reason why all of a sudden a bunch of minor parties are now being significantly highlighted with their own photo section, map, etc. despite not having the 270 electoral vote criteria that was the previously agreed upon threshold for highlighting such candidates? If a candidate does not meet the requirements of being Constitutionally eligible (35 years old, American citizen, etc.), and does not have ballot access to achieve at least 270 electoral votes, they should be kept in the list format that was present in this article not too long ago. The Green Party and Libertarian Party, as well as potentially the Constitution Party, should be the only third parties with a section like the major party candidates until any of these other parties meet the criteria I mentioned that has long been agreed upon. Calibrador (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. I find Rocky De La Fuente to be an interesting fellow, but that's not the standard for a longer listing; access to 270 electoral votes is. A secondary point about this is that the recently-added images are not of very good quality, especially the image of Gloria La Riva's podium. That's reason enough to advise against using the images on its own. Darrell Castle seems to qualify again at this point, so his longer section is not an issue. The other two candidates should not have expanded sections. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

As the change was undiscussed originally, I went ahead and reverted it back to the list format. Calibrador (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

New Trump photos

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.

---

Photo from August 31, 2016.

I was at the immigration policy speech yesterday, and have uploaded several dozen photos of Donald Trump. I uploaded one that I thought would work as an infobox image, but would welcome users to look through the others, particularly the ones of him smiling. The link to do that is here. Calibrador (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging some users involved with past discussions Ghoul_flesh, SquidHomme, Jean-Jacques Georges, TexasMan34, ShadowDragon343. Calibrador (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Not bad at all, maybe if you take the microphone out, will be better, this is perfect, HD, smiling, what else do you want in a photo? TexasMan34 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As the microphone is not obscuring his face, (and the fact that the current photo also has a microphone) I don't think there's really an issue with it. Calibrador (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I Oppose this image, the microphone is an issue and I don't like the smirk. Can we please focus on more constructive things here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no issue with the microphone being in the photo, and a smile is preferred over a frown. Calibrador (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Side note, please be sure to also go to the link I provided at the beginning of this section. There are several other smiling photos that don't have a microphone in the photo if it were to be cropped. Calibrador (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually it is a constructive issue the current image needs to be updated badly, it has him leaning over and it is from last year. Here is one I propose, no microphone or anyone else behind him. Just Trump lightly smiling and standing upright!!!

File:Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore 13.jpg

Photo from August 31, 2016.

ShadowDragon343 (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the second photo ShadowDragon343. Calibrador (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There is something very odd about that smile, its looks very 'forced' ..compared to his image we are currently using, it looks off....I prefer an image like these but with his mouth slightly open..maybe its botox or something but i'm sure his lips were fuller before--Stemoc 03:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The first photo's smile looks very natural, and is vastly superior to the smile in the current photo being used. Oh wait... Calibrador (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally I prefer Gage Skidmore's offerings—they cleverly give the man the appearance of a smug buffoon. But the existing photograph already has consensus. Also Knowledgekid87 hit the nail on the head; there are far more important issues to address in the article. A pointless distraction, this thread is a waste of time. Unfortunately it's also par for the course at political talk pages during presidential campaigns. Writegeist (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You realize by simply complaining rather than contributing to a substantive conversation you are contributing to what you are complaining about. Also the article states in a note to obtain consensus on the talk page in regards to changing the image. That's what I've attempted to do. Calibrador (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Trying to inveigle a photograph into the article that portrays a serious Republican candidate for President of the United States as a smug buffoon ill-befits WP and shamelessly insults the supporters who (one need only refer to his Facebook page) regard him as (a) the only possible savior of the nation and also as (b) a man who has been looking wonderfully presidential in his latest appearances. This is not the place to pursue an anti-Trump agenda. Writegeist (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I honestly think that the first photo would be perfect TexasMan34 (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2016

November 8, 2016
538 members of the Electoral College 270 electoral votes needed to win
Opinion polls
Nominee Clinton proposed photo Trump proposed photo Party Democratic Republican   Nominee Gary Johnson Jill Stein Party Libertarian Green Home state New Mexico Massachusetts Running mate William Weld Ajamu Baraka
The electoral map for the 2016 election, based on apportionment following the 2010 census
Incumbent President Barack Obama Democratic

I think it looks fantastic.

Don't know about Trump but this photo https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/29270335682/in/album-72157673261299025/ looks good for Pence. TL565 (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good replacement for the photo that's currently on this article. Calibrador (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

How about this one?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@ Anythingyouwant, personally I am in favor of any image which he has a smile, but I think the first photo above may be the superior one, as he is looking forward more rather than down. Granted it is a minor detail, but any of them would be better than the current one. Calibrador (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but which photo looks more like him? Which one captures The Donald?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant That one doesn't have good shading, TexasMan34 He has his head turned a bit and the microphone is in the way which is why I prefer the second one.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Calibrador : all the photos are fine, but that one, IMHO, is by far the best. However, I think it may also replace the current one in the Donald Trump page's infobox. So, on this page, we may use that one, or that one. that one. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

How about this one (on the left)? --Proud User (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, good work User:Proud User. I think that's the best one yet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

He is looking down too much in that one, I like the one's where he is looking forward, as well as the flags in the background. Calibrador (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, he's not smiling in that one, right? It looks like a glum passport photo. Only my opinion, of course.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The first photo was the one I was referring to mostly. To me that one looks sort of like a proud father or something like that. Calibrador (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Anythingyouwant that that the photo on the left submitted by Proud User is the best Trump pic so far. He is smiling and (slightly) looking forward.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact that he is slightly looking down is not a problem IMHO. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, looking down a little is no problem, it adds spontaneity. The first one just doesn't look as much like him as the Proud User pic; he also looks kind of dazed or day-dreaming in the first one, IMHO. And teeth add a lot to a smile.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You can't hardly see his eyes, and the lighting is not as good as it is center stage. Calibrador (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The only good thing in my opinion is the showing of teeth, but that doesn't outweigh the first photo. Calibrador (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

And the microphone?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

These talk page beauty contest threads all smack of primary sourcing and OR to me. I think the best way to handle candidate's mugshots is to use official photos issued by their campaigns. I understand that, in the case of Sec'y Clinton or the Libertarian candidates they had governmental official photos before they were candidates, so possibly the sourcing could be any official portrait approved by the relevant individual within the past 5 years or something like that. With a candidate as camera-happyphotogenic as Mr. Trump, there will be infinite replacements, RfCs and worse if we start to cherry pick from the thousands of available free photos. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

[10].Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The criticisms about the new photo look like nitpicking to me. The "smiling" photo is much better, more flattering and more neutral than the current "grumpy" one. As for that one, I think it should be used in the infobox of the Donald Trump article.

As for the photo with Clinton in green, I think it's also better than the current one. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Pr we could go generic: [11]. Green is off-color and should not be used. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The color looks fine to me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not the question is it? OR. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is required to make any sort of change on this article, this discussion is attempting that. Calibrador (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why this discussion still lingering here for months, I'm surprised. Why can't users here with so much time, brain and energy, solve a simple picture issues? We should stop bragging and start compromising and listening to others' opinions. Anyway, this one has the smile, looking at the camera, and clapping. It's perfect. Also, what green is off-color? I don't get it. Is that because of green usually represents islam?—SquidHomme ^(talk) 04:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

For the six reasons listed below, I feel that Skidmore's 2013 pic (right) is still the best photo:

√ Muted US-flag field (same field used in the third photo at "About Donald J. Trump").

√ No microphone.

√ No smirking, smug, dazed, or glum expression.

√ Eyes relatively open, not squinting into the lights.

√ No forced, taut-lipped smile.

thumb|√ Presidential-aspirant pose (uncannily like Obama 2006).

In the Phoenix AZ photo submitted by Proud User, Trump looks more like the gloating victor in a takeover battle. But it does meet the other standards I listed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

In that photo, you cannot get a clear, undistracted view of Trump's face. Fails priority one in my opinion. --Proud User (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I was reverted. Can we please get a consensus so that this old photo can finally be taken down? To me it is quite clear the first photo is the best one. The one Proud User posted is not focused correctly. The others are too squinty, or look like a passport photo (the second photo) as someone mentioned. These little nitpicks about whether it's a smirk and the presence of a microphone, which is also present in the current photo, is keeping a high quality, recent, and much more visually pleasing photo from being added. Calibrador (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support the current photo already in the infobox. It still works fine. The recent suggestions for photos show him with a smirk, as others have noted, and are not better than what we already have. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Please realize there is a reason this frowning photo is consistently brought up here. Most everyone who has commented here has been in favor of replacing this so-called better photo, and your reason for being opposed to changing it is against all odds. The first photo is more than a year newer, is straight on, he is standing straight up rather than hunched over, and whether it is a smirk or smile is nitpicking. Calibrador (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It's my opinion, I'm entitled to it, and will continue to express it. That's what consensus building is made of. I note you pinged (canvassed only specific, pro-Gage-photo editors under the guise of pinging sundry editors who have commented on your images previously. I also note you changed the Trump article infobox photo with less than a day's worth of discussion toward consensus. Providing your own images is fine and good. Forcing your byline images into articles without consensus and selectively canvassing isn't. You've been warned about this before. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking back at the last discussion, it seems you thought this very low quality photo of an open mouthed Trump, screen captured from a video, was the best photo of Trump yet. Your opinion is a very unpopular one. Calibrador (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That previous opinion was based on an editor feeling we should have a photo of Trump with a flag in the background. The one I opted for in that discussion was the best of the others offered, considering that specific criteria. Consensus isn't meant to be a popularity contest for which editor is better liked, as you are suggesting, it's about what's best for articles, what's best for the encyclopedia. If you want to start flaming and beating up each other (as the direction of your comments seem to now be heading) , I can do that too, but engaging in such is against policy and is wholly unhelpful. Please just stick to consensus building rather than bullying and tearing down editors who disagree with your opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Well unfortunately I do not think there will ever be 100% consensus, much to the suffering of the article. Calibrador (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Please take note that when we change the photo, we'll also have to change it in Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support the current photo already in the infobox It feels like this has been discussed to death, why cant this be discussed after the election? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: The sole official photograph of Trump as president (& CEO) shows his upper canines and incisors. (Source: "Donald Trump Biography", The Trump Organization.) So does the "smiling photo" (4). But photos 1, 2, 3, and 5 don't show any teeth at all; nor does the current photo ("0").

In that official biography photo, his frontalis (forehead) muscle looks relaxed, as it does in photos 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, but not photo 0.

Also, he's looking at or near the camera, as in photos 1, 2, 3, and 4, but not photos 0 or 5.

Also, the cropped background is rather neutral, as in photos 3, 4, and 5, but not photos 0, 1, or 2. And the microphone is absent, as in photos 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, but not photo 0.

Raw scores

Current photo: -5. Photo 1: +1. Photo 2: +1. Photo 3: +3. Photo 4 (smiling): +5. Photo 5: +1.

I still like photo 5 best, but that's my problem. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There's currently a discussion ongoing over at Talk:Donald Trump with a poll of support. Calibrador (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2016 (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.

Row of three

I just reverted this on the article. As I have stated before, I am fine with having a row of three but the current size of the pictures screws with the rendering of the article on smaller screens. So does anyone have objections to shrinking the size of the images to accommodate three photos on each row? --Majora (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

There are only four candidates in the infobox. If Castle ever makes it into the infobox, then 3 + 2 might make sense, but with four candidates, it makes more sense to have the four on a single row as is done on many other election articles. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

4 on one line will just revert back to the same issue we had before with the larger pictures. Why do people keep wanted to screw with the rendering of this article on smaller screens? This is not acceptable and this is an accessibility issue for the entirety of our readership. If there are only four candidates in the infobox, there is a previous consensus. The two major parties on top and the two third party candidates in the second row. That was decided on a long time ago and I can dig through the archives tomorrow to find it if you want. I strongly oppose 4 on one line and will continue to oppose anything that lessens the reader's experience with this article. They are our audience and their needs should be priority number one. --Majora (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This whole thing is moot anyways. The template does not support four pictures in one row as you have been told before here. --Majora (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks ridiculous every election has only 2 at the top unless there is significant third party performance. Until the election happens and there ever is I think the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties should be in the 2nd row as a row of three.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Templates serve editorial decisions, not the other way around. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Majora, for that info on mobile/accessibility. We have discussed the issue of the number of photos per row recently without obtaining consensus and without reference to any known previous consensus. Yes, if you have a link, I would like to review any previous discussion/consensus on the issue. Accessibility for mobile users, etc. is a consideration. How about organizing the candidates in a vertical column? That would work on both wide screens and for mobile devices. Another option I suggested a long time ago to just get rid of the photographs all together and put a presidential seal or something in the infobox. That would save an awful lot of editor time trying to figure out which pictures to use and how to arrange them. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification of run-off vote

There is currently a poll taking place regarding the infobox image at the Donald Trump article talk page those involved in editing this article might be interested in here. The polling is set to conclude on September 20, 2016. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Is Utah a 'swing state'?

Two of us are having a dispute about whether Utah is one of the swing states in the election. I appreciate it's not the safest state particularly as Clinton is relatively up currently, but what is a manageable definition of swing that means we don't have the Republican's 4th safest state and thereby we have to have 40 states in the swing states section? Tom B (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC) One innovative method might be to use the top 10 or so of the 'chance of tipping the election' list on 538 [5]? Anyway need to find consensus on using a method that results in a small list Tom B (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Tom B (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want to narrow the states down then okay I am on board with that, but is there more than one source that agrees with 538 when it comes to the top 10 or so flipping states? I don't want to have to rely on one source here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

thanks, agree to narrow down states. like you say it'll be hard to find sources agreeing on a definite 10 or 11.... we could perhaps build in the other direction e.g. everyone agrees at least FL, Ohio, N. Carolina...Clinton's current supremacy is bringing more states into play so it's a moving target. Tom B (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I added Utah back to the chart. Let me explain why. Not one political pundit, whether strictly by polls or polls + demography, has Utah as GOP safe. On it's face it seems absurd to consider Utah a swing state, I agree there. But Democrats have now opened offices there and it's possible it could seriously come into play. Utah has voted strongly for third-parties, and it would be no shock if they did so this year as well leading for the winner of the state to win with only 30%. Yes, it hasn't gone Blue since 1964, but every year is different and never precedent bound. Main Point : NO pundit has it as Republican safe. What other criteria is there for a state to be there? It's not Wikipedia's job to judge whether non-political experts are making assertions many of us think is crazy. Manful0103 (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The pundits are idiots quite frankly, if the primaries didn't tell you that already. Even in 1992 Utah was still overwhelmingly Republican when other "safe" Republican states flipped for Clinton. It went 70% for Romney. It is not a swing state.108.51.205.28 (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The section is for swing states i.e. about 10 key states. If we include all the states which haven't been confirmed as 'safe' that would be 40 states. Again this section is for swing states not for safe or unsafe states, thanks Tom B (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion about lead picture at Donald Trump

You are invited to participate in an ongoing talk-page discussion about the lead picture at Donald Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Forecasting missing

There are basically three ways in which you can try to forecast the result of an election: opinion polls, betting odds, and scientific/academic models. We have whole pages dedicates to the polls, shouldn't there be information about the other two types of forecasts as well? KarlFrei (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Five Candidates?

Is there a legitimate reason why Jill Stein and Darrell Castle are displayed? Jill Stein has not polled more than 7% nationally and has been averaging at roughly 3% since polls began to include her. Darrell Castle has been included in a negligible amount of polls (2-5 in last two months) and has failed to poll past 2%. The rule in my opinion to be in the top infobox should be an average of at least 5% in the polls according to Reuters, RCP or another credible polling source that averages multiple polls. The only candidates who currently meet those standards are Trump, Clinton (Major Parties) and Johnson (9.2% as of yesterday). Just my two cents. Computermichael (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Computermichael the rule is the candidate must be on the minimum required electoral vote ballots, which is 270, to be on the infobox. All five have access. Chase (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, this exact situation is being discussed above: #Infobox inclusion, again. clpo13_(talk) 23:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

This thread (Inbox) directly duplicates a pre-existing thread. Please discuss this topic at: [12].

Why is a fifth & sixth ticket (which doesn't have ballot access in enough states to win 270 electoral votes, for that matter) being added? GoodDay (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC) @GoodDay: This is already being discussed in some of the above sections. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC) The understanding I get from those above sections, is that write-ins aren't sufficient for inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC) I'm not the only user that has expressed support for write-in access inclusion in those sections. Obviously there is some disagreement between what the consensus currently is. In 2012 Virgil Goode was included in the infobox based on write-in access; last month users agreed to continue this consensus. Now it's being challenged by some people while others are defending the old consensus of including write-in access. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC) A user re-added Castle to the infobox. If we are going to use write-in access as criteria then Evan McMullin should be added as well so then we are being consistent. If not then both candidates shouldn't appear in the infobox. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC) I had re-added Castle as there was no consensus at the time, and there still isn't, regarding his removal from the Infobox; I'm of the camp where if a vote for a specific candidate is valid in a State, whether being Write-In or on the Ballot itself, then it should be given equal weight in terms of determining their access to Electors to the Electoral College. Evan McMullin has apparently also made that distinction and rightly should be added, but I'll shy away from making that edit myself; I already got reprimanded once for putting Castle back in, and there is a chance adding McMullin at this stage, while the correct thing, would only serve to make the debate more volatile. --Ariostos (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Why is McMullin now listed at the top when both Rocky De La Fuente and Gloria La Riva have more ballot access? Also, if people are confused about the differences between ballot access and write-in access, here's something to consider. When Free & Equal does their debate, they don't count write-in access toward ballot access. They only count states where you are physically on the ballot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.120.101.23 (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2016

Write in access for Alyson Kennedy should be to 116 electoral college votes, not 246. I am guessing that 246 was put there because that is the amount of write in access for Evan McMullin, who is directly above her on the table.

104.231.243.40 (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 23:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Fixed earlier, but was still off. Re-corrected SWP EV total. Thanks for noticing. Bcharles (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight

Way undue weight with the third party candidates table. Based on its size alone, one would think that its entries played as big a role as the two major parties. Needs to be shortened or otherwise evened out with an eye for due weight czar 06:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been feeling that the major parties sections took up too much space, particularly with the many primary candidates. There is also the controversial expansion of major third-party candidates section with McMullin and Castle. These seem to have undue weight.

Any cut-off of the third party table would be arbitrary, and it would sacrifice completeness to save a few lines. The list of parties and their level of organization actually reveals social trends and a rich history of alternative politics across the spectrum. Bcharles (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly, because I don't think anyone is trying to do that right here.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2016

In response to the temporary removal of the 5th and 6th candidates, if the Constitution and Independent candidates are to be removed, please revise the formatting to display Johnson below the line as to not leave blank space. I would also like to add to the consensus to not display the Constitution candidate unless he achieves enough ballot access. Please consider removing the Constitution and Independent candidates to make the infobox have four candidates with enough ballot access and have two above and below the line rather than 3 above and 1 below.

BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Castle's removal from the infobox is still being discussed in #Infobox inclusion, again and we do not need another parallel discussion on the same topic. That being said, if only four candidates remain in the infobox, you are correct in that we should display 2 candidates per row. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 21:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Section 9.2: the first TV debate needs its time changing to 9pm ET

The wrong time, "9:00 ET", is given. As a priority it needs changing to '9pm ET'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:440:8350:AC4E:AE3D:4A51:E7E9 (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I added the "edit semi-protected" template to this request, which did not originally have one. In my opinion this does need to be changed sooner rather than later. For clarity, it's the table in the Debates subsection which needs changing. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Rocky De La Fuente & Major Third-Party Candidates

I have some improvements for anything involving Rocky De La Fuente. First off, he should be included in the "major candidates" section of the Democratic Party. He was included in over 40 contests, more than Martin O'Malley, and came in fourth overall. Also, instead of saying "withdrew on ___", it should say something on the lines of "running as third-party candidate". Also, Rocky De La Fuente has write-in status in Indiana, so please update that.

This next part may be up for debate more. Darrell Castle and Evan McMullin are now listed as major third-party candidates. This is purely false. Access to electoral votes as a write-in is not "ballot access", it is "write-in access". Therefore, Castle and McMullin should be listed with De La Fuente, La Riva, and others who didn't make it to 270. Castle's picture should also be taken down from the top of the page, since he does not have pure ballot access to 270 electoral votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.120.101.23 (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of De La Fuente in among the significant primary candidadtes has been controversial. I would prefer to err on the side of inclusion, but i will leave that to others to hash out. Rocky did not have write-in status in Indiana for the primary, and he does not have write-in status there for the general election either, according to Indiana.

I agree that Castle and McMullin do not meet a reasonable threshold to be included in the Major third-party section. Unfortunately there is disagreement on that, and on what past consensus has been. It will take more discussion to resolve that dispute. Bcharles (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Charles. It is too far up on that.Ramires451 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Write-ins

This edit added a large number of write-in states to the third party table, but the reference is not identifiable. Our consensus is that write-in access should only be counted if the candidate has actually nominated electors in that state, and it's not clear if that's the case with these new additions. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 16:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. Write-in access should only be counted if there is a slate of actual electors that can be voted for, and only if those votes would actually be counted. Access to the write-in line that exists merely in principle should not be counted. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The informal consensus you mention regards counting for ordering of candidates. It does not relate to listing names of write-in states.

The discussion of the election infobox seems to have consensus around only using ballot lines to calculate the threshold for inclusion, Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Infobox_inclusion.2C_again. That seems to be a better measure of party or campaign viability, and it is much easier to keep track of. Write-in states are of interest, but only parenthetically. The source given is page 4 of the July issue of BAN. It list states that do not require a filing or declaration for write-ins. These states should count all write-ins, and electors could be assigned after the election. Bcharles (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ballot access and write-in status are two different things. One is about a candidate's name being placed on the ballot, while the other is about whether or not the candidate is qualified for the office they are seeking, e.g., meets the age requirements, or is a resident in the jurisdiction, etc. Sometimes candidates will seek a predetermination of their eligibility (write-in status) prior to an election so they don't have to put in a bunch of effort and then find out after the election that they are not qualified because of residency or some other technicality. Ballot access (being placed on the ballot) often requires some additional hurdles beyond simply being eligible for the office. Which of those two topics is this discussion about, write-in status or ballot access? Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I updated the reference to point to the URL for the specific issue. Still, do you have evidence for the statement that "electors could be assigned after the election"? My impression, based on how we've been doing things in the past, was that an elector slate needs to be named before the election, otherwise the write-in votes would not count at all. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't get an answer to my question above regarding the subject of this thread, but it sounds like it is about write-ins so I refactored the title of this thread to reflect that. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Johnson, Stein, Castle & McMullin will be excluded from the infobox, in 6 weeks. So, likely no harm in leaving them where they are, til then. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If any of them get 5% of the vote or any electoral votes, they will remain in the infobox after then. If current polling is correct, Johnson will likely pass the 5% threshold. XavierGreen (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

But I thought the consensus was one or more electoral votes, not any count in the popular votes count that's been made unofficial by the media! Ramires451 (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a stupid double standard! Evan McMullin has achieved 270 with his write-ins. If Castle is included, the independent should as well. Otherwise, if these votes don't count, both should be removed. There's also something wrong with what happened to the Huckabee profile there. Ramires451 (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

And, I have one more thought, in addition. I'll talk about it now, but you are going to have to see this with a few weeks' barriers. Interestingly enough, those are not the party nominees that are given right there. It's simply unfair. Honestly, though, I would recommend just Johnson and Stein, for these cases. Both of them have been featured in virtually every major poll, especially the national ones, while, to my knowledge, no other candidate – except for Clinton and Trump, of course – has appeared in even one. Ramires451 (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing IN, ME, MN, and MO form swing states table

The states Maine and Indiana are considered safe. Minnesota and Missouri are not indicated as swing states by any of the measures listed. Unless something dramatically changes, these do not belong on a list of swing states. I intend to remove these four states from the table, but mention this here in case it is controversial. Bcharles (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I would like to voice my support for removing these states from the table. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Maine is not considered "safe" in a literal sense, Maine apportions its electoral college delegates by congressional district, and Trump is leading in polling in Maine district two.XavierGreen (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

We can remove the state of Maine while keeping Maine's 2nd district in the table. Maine as a whole is not a swing state, but one of its districts is a swing district. FYI, Maine only apportions half of its electoral votes by congressional district. The 2 statewide electoral votes and 1 of the congressional electoral votes appear to be "safe" for Clinton. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I also support this. In my opinion, for this article to list any state as a "swing state" there should be an independent source (preferably more than one, but at least one) that describes the state in those exact words. An editor conclusion that the state is up for grabs or that current polling goes against the state's recent history is not a sufficient condition. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe Missouri is considered a battleground state, but it is leaning Trump now, so it might as well be off the list. As for ME, IN, and MN, I definitely agree they should be removed with the exception of ME CD2. Crashguy42 (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It isn't really – and any more now doesn't fit in with what had been discussed earlier.Ramires451 (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Update for Ballot access for the American Delta Party and Reform Party map

Map that is currently on page

New updated version of the map

HI i would like to update the map that is shown on the Other third parties and independents section on the page with a new map that contains more information This new version of the map contains the same information as the previous one but also have all the states that are in Write in status (medium blue) and lawsuit to get into Ballot status (ligth blue) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammythesquirrel123 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

References

The source you mentioned does not seem to include any information on De La Fuente lawsuits. Only lawsuits regarding his general election filings (not primary), that have not yet been decided (still pending), and which can be confirmed by reliable sources, are indicated. Bcharles (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfair campaign advantage

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.

---

HIGHLY concerned as to why this logo appears when google is searched for " when is election day 2016" [SEE LINK]. https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=when+is+election+day+2016 I propose this image be changed to a non-partisan graphic or patriotic symbol, not an image which promotes a specific presidential campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydneyw18 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia has any say in how Google presents information. I suggest you contact Google with the "Feedback" link. There was a similar complain some weeks or months ago about Clinton's portrait being used by Google. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

When I search for that phrase, there is no image at all. It's probably a Google Personalized Search result based on your browsing history and any Google accounts you may have.- MrX 14:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly when I followed the link I got a 'featured' link to this article using the Trump/Pence campaign image. I agree with above that Google's algorithms control what is used as a featured link on it's page though. jmcgowan2 (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

For some reason it only shows up on google.uk per the above link. I agree that Wikipedia has no control over what google puts up though in terms of images, it looks like they got the Trump/Pence thing from Wikipedia as well. My opinion is that either it is bot controlled (grab a random image from the snippet the user is most likely to search for) or someone at google goofed up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As others have said, Wikipedia has no control over Google, and I seriously doubt it was intentional. Instaurare (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2016 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016

Add Arizona (write-in) for McMullin [13][14]

75.172.182.59 (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Bcharles (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Darrell Castle infobox image

(Inaccurate question deleted by OP. Sorry. I mixed up Castle and McMullin.)    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 01:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Rocky De La Fuente (primaries)

I would like to update this table due the resoults and numbers Rocky De La Fuente achieve.

Candidates in this section are sorted by date of withdrawal from the primaries
Bernie Sanders	Rocky De La Fuente	Martin O'Malley	Lawrence Lessig	Lincoln Chafee	Jim Webb
	File:Roque De La Fuente portrait.jpg
U.S. Senator from Vermont (2007–present)	Entrepenur (1984 to present)	61st Governor of Maryland (2007–2015)	Harvard Law Professor (2009–2016)	74th Governor of Rhode Island (2011–2015)	U.S. Senator from Virginia (2007–2013)
Campaign	[Campaign]	Campaign	Campaign	Campaign	Campaign
LN: Jul 26, 2016 13,167,848 primary votes and 1,846 delegates	LN: July 26th 2016 67,366 primary votes	W: Feb 1, 2016 110,423 votes	W: Nov 2, 2015 4 write-in votes in New Hampshire	W: Oct 23, 2015 0 votes	W: Oct 20, 2015 2 write-in votes in New Hampshire

Roque qualified in far more states and participated in far more primaries and caucuses than everyone other than Clinton and Sanders (competing for the Democratic presidential nomination in 47 of the 56 primaries for that party's presidential nomination (including 5 territories and D.C.), which is one of the metrics that should be used to evaluate the legitimacy of a candidacy..

Polls and debates aren't valid metrics. Chaffee and Webb only got included in a few polls and one debate because the Party permitted it due to their long-term Party commitment. Lessig embarrassed the Party by forcing his way into the polls. The Party then promptly changed its rules to exclude him from the debates, so he withdrew. Essentially the polls and debates are controlled by the DNC, which ignores the will of the people.

The other major metric, and clearly the most valid one, should be votes because that is the only metric which demonstrates real public interest and commitment. In that regard, Roque received 67,000+ more votes than Lessig, Chaffee and Webb combined. How, can Wikipedia acknowledge their candidacies and ignore his?

In fact, Roque amassed more votes than current Governors Walker and Jindal, former Governors Chafee, Perry, Pataki and Gilmore, current Senator Graham and former Senators Webb and Santorum combined. He also received more votes than Carly Fiorina, former Governor Mike Huckabee, current Governor Chris Christie and current Senator Rand Paul and did so without the support of the State Parties (that unilaterally can decided which candidates are placed on the ballots), without the support of the DNC (which decides who to promote via advertising, who to include in the polls, and who to showcase in the debates & town halls), and without accepting money from a Super PAC. These other candidates each received the monetary and advertising support of their Parties and benefited from being supported by their Parties for inclusion in the polls (which is the gating factor that determines who is invited to participate in the debates and town halls). Roque enjoyed no such advantages and yet beat all of them in terms of votes.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammythesquirrel123 (talk • contribs) 13:58, September 29, 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to alter the primaries section now. And I could be making this up but I'm pretty sure there was a previous discussion that ended with a decision on that box. It was that only those recognized by the Democratic Party could be there. Also, Roque is not running as a Democrat. So why would we put him in that box? --Majora (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Rocky was at least recognized by some state democratic parties as he was on the ballot for about half of the state primaries. He is no more marginal than several other candidates listed. He is fourth, behind O'Mally, in total votes received.

Rocky did run as a Democrat in the primary. His decision to run as a third party candidate does not diminish his participation in the primary, any more than it would for Sanders, if he decided to bolt from the party after the convention. Bcharles (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This same situation came up with Mark Everson and the Republican primaries. I doubt you can get a solid consensus to include someone in the primary box that was not mentioned in any substantial number of polls, was not recognized by the DNC, and dropped out of the Democratic Party race as soon as the primaries were over. Seems like a lost cause to me but other people may think differently. As a side note, the image of Rocky is a copyright violation. --Majora (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2016

Laurence Kotlikoff, Mike Smith, Tom Hoefling, Joseph Maldonado, and Rocky de la Fuente all have write-in access in Arizona. Their totals should all be increased by 11 electoral votes for AZ.

http://apps.azsos.gov/election/2016/General/home.htm

104.231.243.40 (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Introduction section

I'm new, so forgive any errors in my discussion style. Looking at the last paragraph of the introductory section:

"Various third party and independent presidential candidates are also running in the election. Two are on the ballot in enough states to mathematically win the electoral college: Libertarian Party nominee and former Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson; and Green Party nominee, Jill Stein; both of whom have appeared in major national polls."

Shouldn't this also include a clause about the Constitution Party and its nominee, which technically has enough to win if write-in's are included? I suggest:

"Various third party and independent presidential candidates are also running in the election. Three are on the ballot in enough states to mathematically win the electoral college, if write-in access is included: Libertarian Party nominee and former Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson; Green Party nominee, Jill Stein; and Constitution Party nominee Darren Castle. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein have appeared in major national polls." (September 24th 2016, 21:00 UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstraPeregrine (talk • contribs) 20:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue of write-in status (recognition as a write-in) vs. ballot access (appearing on the ballot) has been discussed at some length in other threads. Write-in status is relatively easy to get (just by filing a form in most cases) compared to ballot access (which usualy requires getting a bunch of signatures), although it varies from state to state. The issue is weight. The R&D's get most of the press, followed by Johnson, who seems to be getting more as the campaign progesses, followed by Stein, who gets much less than Johnson. There's been even less coverage of Castle, McMullin and the others. Actually, I've seen more press on McMullin than on Castle, but neither gets much coverage at all. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

He'll most likely get more votes with what he has, though. It's just that McMullin was short on time. Even then, his bigger profile and (slightly) more favorable media coverage will get them there. Neither of them, of course, alters the campaign nearly as much as Johnson or Stein. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Pence photo

Why was this photo reverted? It's newer and the expression a lot better than the current one now. TL565 (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's another instance of a photo being clearly superior, but you have to have everyone on Wikipedia agree and if anyone dissents you're out of luck. Calibrador (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course you would think a photo you took is "clearly superior". You took it! To lament the consensus process that makes Wikipedia run is not exactly the best way to get people to agree with you however. And to attempt to force the photos you have taken into every article is also, probably, not the best method of getting what you want. --Majora (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I took both photos. The staring at the sun photo should be replaced. Calibrador (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

And this question is still up in the air? I just don't see the importance. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Although I can understand a long process for consensus when discussing Trump and Hillary photos which have been discussed countless times before, I don't know why we need this kind of discussion for Pence. There wasn't any firm consensus for the current image either, it was the only photo that was available at the time. I'd say just put the new photo up. No one has objected or showed any preference to the other one yet. TL565 (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Just for clarity this is what it would look like;

Republican Party (United States) Republican Party ticket, 2016
Donald Trump	Mike Pence
for President	for Vice President
Chairman of The Trump Organization (1971–present)	50th Governor of Indiana (2013–present)
Campaign

I however do not like either photo. So I have no preference in changing it or not changing it. I slightly like the new one better.Chase (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Calibrador, you've been contributing to Wikipedia long enough and have been warned enough to know how things work in the way of consensus. Just start utilizing the talk page first when it comes to replacing photos, wait for a reasonable amount of time for consensus, since you'd be involved don't declare consensus yourself, and this kind of issue will be averted. It's really quite simple. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• 
  A
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E
• 
  F

• Support A as it fits better alongside the current Trump photo. --Proud User (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Added more photos and support B. Seems like a no-brainer to me. TL565 (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support B Technically the best (lighting, color, etc.), and A looks like he is staring directly at the sun. Calibrador (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support B the best photo so far, A you can tell the photoshop, C has the microphone and is not looking to the camera, D looks like he has something in his ass, I think that if you put photo B with this trump photo, they kink of match.

Republican Party (United States) Republican Party ticket, 2016
Donald Trump	Mike Pence
for President	for Vice President
Chairman of The Trump Organization (1971–present)	50th Governor of Indiana (2013–present)
Campaign

• Support C - it improves upon A without clashing with the present Trump photo. Harrison (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Prior to B being released I would have agreed with you, but in comparison C is looking to the side and has a microphone in front of his face. Looking forward and no microphone seems better suited to me. Calibrador (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Current photo is fine (A); next, F with E as secondary to F. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate, way too early close by involved editor with bias. Claims that because there is a similar discussion at another article talk page that this one shouldn't exist. Need I point out how disruptive this close and how ridiculous the reasoning is? is? I think it's important to note that the same editor, a short time ago, essentially vandalized one of the photo considerations at the other article talk page and, by doing so, committed a BLP vio (he labeled the photo a mugshot). Someone needs to reopen this one or an uninvolved admin should close appropriately. That said, consensus is being sought here and we are still far from that. Someone needs to reopen this one or an uninvolved admin should close appropriately. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This user is currently involved with hounding my edits across many different articles. The discussion is nearly identical, including many of the users involved with the discussion casting the exact same vote for a photo on both pages. There does not need to be a discussion here, as well as at Talk:Mike Pence, one discussion about the same photo choices can suffice, as was done with the Trump photo section only a couple sections above this one. Calibrador (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Two different articles, two different discussions. That's the way it is, and always has been done. Consensus at one article

Then why didn't you revert Knowledgekid for doing the same exact thing above with the Donald Trump photo discussion? You are hounding. Calibrador (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree, Winkelvi needs to cut the crap. He showed his bias as soon as he tried to introduce his own photo. He is running a campaign against any photo taken by Gage Skidmore. TL565 (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I will note that your !vote at the other article talk page was the result of biased canvassing by Calibrador based on your preference for his images in the above discussion just closed inappropriately by Calibrador (who is the photographer of the photos offered above). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

They started this discussion on this page, why should they not be involved in the same exact discussion elsewhere? And all you did was add your own uploads, you didn't try to create or foster any sort of consensus at all. As someone who constantly harps on getting consensus before any change is made whatsoever on any article, I've yet to see you constructively respond to anyone opposed to your viewpoint in order to create a consensus among the two parties. Calibrador (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, he has been stalking you for days harping about "consensus" but doing absolutely nothing constructive except doing everything he can to undermine you. The fact that he had to scramble to upload a new picture of his own proves this has nothing to do with consensus building and everything to do with his own preferences. TL565 (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

And then, after that, it goes inside? 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Reopened due to inappropriate close by highly involved editor and all the wrong (stated) reasons for close. We don't decide what happens at one article because of what's being discussed or decided at another. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Way to edit your original vote again. If you're going change your vote, at least strike the old one out. Don't just edit it behind the scenes making it seem like that was your vote from the very beginning. Btw if you are going to reopen this section, you might as well reopen the Trump one. TL565 (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

As I have done elsewhere recently as in the past throughout my nearly 24k edits, I can reword my choice(s) however I choose as long as it's not against policy or guidelines. Anyone can. Not sure why you are taking umbrage over something that neither affects you nor is a violation of policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You create unnecessary confusion especially when there was a discussion that followed about your original vote. Note, you changed your vote both on this page and on the Pence page days after you initially voted because I called out your bias. Did you forget on the other page you added your photo, then responded to me days later(didn't even mention you) saying I'm wrong because you support a photo you clearly didn't. You did not indicate which photo you were talking about or tell me you changed your initial vote in your response.(You edited your vote after that.) Then, instead of trying to clarify any confusion when I said I couldn't see anywhere in the photo(you knew which one I meant) that it was taken by Gage Skidmore, you tell me to do my own research and say I shouldn't be posting on Wikipedia. That is not good faith. Any reasonable user would say "Are you referring to photo C or E? I changed my vote recently." No, instead you play dumb and make excuses saying you always meant to support another photo but made a mistake. Now you're doing the same thing here, changing your vote today(I'm sure that was a mistake too.) and you wonder why I have a problem with that? TL565 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the drama you seem to enjoy creating, perpetuating, and fostering here and everywhere else I've been lately. I'm also not a fan of your misrepresentations of the chain of events. On both talk pages where I later edited my choices and comments, there were no responses by others in regard to those specific choices. If you're finding I've violated policy, then take me to a noticeboard. Your personal attacks against me (noted by others and removed by others that you chose to reinstate regardless) are also unwanted. Your complaints and attacks are unwarranted and unproductive - they need to stop or, if you have something truly valid, take it to a noticeboard. In other words: Comment on edits, not editors; shit or get off the pot. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Calling out your obvious bullshit is not a personal attack. You still have yet to explain why prefer your own photos or why you backtracked on them. Don't want drama? Maybe you should have thought about it when you wrote this comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Pence&diff=738401847&oldid=738359657 TL565 (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Btw, I would like you to show me where I reinstated a "personal attack" against you. TL565 (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The disagreements I see here are particularly disheartening. I know there is some bad blood in the past, but all of you have contributed to this problem. At this point, it doesn't serve good to any of us, if we continue this argument. It stemmed from a simple misunderstanding. How about remending your relationship, and resolving your problems peacefully? And, just as a cautionary note, if this heats up some more, you could both be stripped of your rights. So perhaps we should think through this again, because I'm only trying to help.

• Support B along with new Trump photo. These photos have a much higher quality, and they are much more recent as well. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• As the person who originally took the photo B I'm not allowed to judge consensus, or add the photo to the article, but given this has been up since the beginning of the month and no action has resulted, could someone else judge the consensus of this discussion? @1990'sguy:? Calibrador (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far to say that there is a "consensus" to change the photo, but several editors, including myself, support including the new photo, and there has been no activity on this discussion for a week, so I changed it. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• A This discussion should be pending deciding on the current trump photo. Which ever trump photo makes it to the page should result in discussion about which photo here is best with the "new" photo of trump. That is probably why this discussion has been aray for a week. Chase (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• It's been another 9 days with no additional opinion, want to try again @1990'sguy:? Calibrador (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I changed it again, as I think that the new Pence image is the commonsense option. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment / Expression of Support - I believe that what we see with 'Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore 10' and 'Mike Pence by Gage Skidmore 6.jpg' is best, although I don't have a strong opinion here, and I think that we should have things in the article like that. Incidentally, shouldn't we have an RFC or something over this formally, maybe? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Evan McMullin section

This newly-expanded section has serious problems and should probably be reduced to the previous smaller listing. In particular, there is no source listed anywhere in the section that I can find which credits McMullin with access to 270 or more electoral votes. If such a source exists, it should definitely be added now. A second point is that the image of McMullin is a copyright violation - it's a copy of the main image from his LinkedIn page, but with no evidence of genuine premission, and it's had an "OTRS pending" notice for longer than 30 days so it should be presumed that permission is not forthcoming. That would eliminate most of the point of the current longer section. Again, if there is a source for the claimed ballot access, or an image with proper permissions, those definitely should be added instead, but without those there is no point to the longer section. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

center|100x100px It appears the photo was removed. Here is a better photo I found in Wikimedia Commons titled "Evan McMullin Portrait.jpg" that could work for the infobox photo.Computermichael (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

That image is dubious as well - it was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license, but the source is NPR (which doesn't release images under CC) and NPR credits it as "Courtesy of McMullin for President Inc." which isn't a Creative Commons release either. I'll go nominate it for deletion. What's actually needed is for someone to go take a photograph of Mr. McMullin and upload it themselves. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I tagged it for speedy deletion on Commons and removed all instances of it on enwiki. --Majora (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems that even with the recent addition of AZ, McMullin does not meet the 270 vote threshold, even counting write-ins that he filed electors for. The states AL, NH, NJ, PA RI and VT (54 EVs) do not have a process for filling as a write-in. That leaves McMullin with 263 EV (317 - 54), if all of the states that his web site claims, accept his filling, and presuming they all require a slate of electors. I suggest that he be returned to the "other third party" candidates section at least until he has passed the 270 threshold. Bcharles (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

What sources do you have to prove this claim? JC · Talk · Contributions 18:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I do have a source – McMullin's own website, in fact – and it clearly shows that he's over 270 when write-ins are counted. Just because this page's editors are deadlocked as to what to do doesn't mean that Castle is in, while he is out. That's completely unfair. I get that some editors are wary of changing the status quo, and feel that four or six candidates harms their cause. But this is also absolutely wrong, as the two are in exactly the same the position. Here's the link that's used for the 'minor candidates' section: https://www.evanmcmullin.com/despite_the_odds 198.84.229.179 (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)