Archive 1

@William S. Saturn: I don't see any reason for including additional candidates that aren't contenders, that are either perennials or whatever they might be. Personally, I think they are a distraction when put with the credible candidates running, who might show up in the debates and primaries. I mean Waka Flocka Flame on the same immediate areas as Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton? I think its unnecessary, and unwarranted. Especially on the Republican side, when by month's end we'll have like 80 candidates... Spartan7W § 01:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It may be a future problem but it is certainly not a problem at the moment. The template is currently very small so there is no spatial reason to separate candidates into tiers subjectively. Each link is to a valid wikipedia article. The purpose of a template is for navigation to wikipedia articles. That is what the change is meant to facilitate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with William S. Saturn and support returning it to the previous format. Gage (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on what?--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolved - article in question has been deleted
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@NextUSprez: @JayJasper: @David O. Johnson: I don't think that Mr. Long is of sufficient note to be included in this template. There are thousands filed for President with the FEC, and Mr. Long has not received any stories, not even minor ones, that show up in a search, which others may have. Mark Everson was IRS Commissioner, and that adds notability even if a non-competitive, and such with others who are notable for a news story or their perennial nature. If no comments are taken otherwise, I will removed in 36 hours. I've pinged recent editors involved in this template Spartan7W § 04:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC) I have nominated his article for deletion, as he does not appear to meet the notability threshold.--JayJasper (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC) I agree with the deletion nomination. A google search and close look at the sources on his page convinced me he's not notable. With that said, we generally include on the template all the same candidates that are included on the main election, candidates, and primaries articles. It's good to have consistency. I don't think we should have a seperate inclusion standard for the template, if that's what being suggested.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC) No, thats not what I'm saying. But if he isn't notable enough to warrant an article, he isn't enough for inclusion under other candidates, for there are many. I removed him from the main and Republican candidates pages. Spartan7W § 17:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC) My count, there are 204 candidates filed as Republicans, so its not like this guy is part of a handful non-contenders running. Spartan7W § 17:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC) That would be improper and against consensus. This is a navigational template to direct readers to wikipedia articles. Spartan's actions should be reverted until the article is deleted.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I would disagree. Long's article only existed after he was a filed candidate with the FEC. Had he not filed with them, he wouldn't have had an article. The article is almost certain to be deleted, and my question is why it didn't get nominated for speedy deletion. Spartan7W § 19:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Actually his article was created about a year ago, long before he filed. Also, it was nominated for speedy deletion on the same day it was created, but the nomination was contested.--JayJasper (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Silly me. I scrolled to the bottom of edit history and saw July 15, I guess my brain decided it should be 2015, not 2014. My bad. Spartan7W § 19:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

...has apparently not actually filed to run, unless his secret birth name is the one that appears on this list: http://fec.gov/press/press2013/presidential_form2nm.shtml. Should he really be in this template? Kimpire (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because his candidacy is verified by reliable sources. Filing with the FEC is one of the inclusion standards, but it's not a make-or-break one. The reason it isn't is that the FEC doesn't require anyone to file until they have raised or spent a minimum amount of money ($5,000, I think) for their campaign.--Rollins83 (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2016 is missing from the template. Kimpire (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's there, it had been hidden for some unknown reason, but it's visible now.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of the candidates have "positions" articles, and some have links that redirect to other articles already mentioned, which seems redundant to me. I would get rid of the redirects. bd2412 T 14:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not just that he's ineligible. The fact that he hasn't registered with the FEC is determinative in his case because he has clearly spent (and/or raised as in-kind contributions from Rolling Stone and others) more than $5000 on his "campaign" videos: http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/23/rapper-waka-flocka-flame-is-running-for-president-what-are-his-views-on-foreign-policy/ -hugeTim ^(talk) 22:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Filing with the FEC is not a requirement to be a candidate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that confirms he has spent and/or raised $5,000? Because the one linked above dosen't do that.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it relevant that Waka Flocka Flame's article text nowhere mentions his supposed presidential run? You're right, no reliable source is reporting on his campaign expenditures because he's not running a campaign. The burden of proof is not on me. It's on you to find even a single reliable source that treats him as a presidential candidate without tongue in cheek. For instance, the WaPo refers to his "faux presidential campaign." In any case, Waka Flocka recently withdrew from the race, so I'm going to at least update the template to reflect that. http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/257585-waka-flocka-flame-make-me-house-speaker -hugeTim ^(talk) 14:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Including merely satirical candidates is one thing; including candidates who are not constitutionally eligible and are satirical like this "Deez Nuts" is another. Regardless of whether or not he is technically a candidate for legal reasons, he is not a real candidate and has no chance of winning. I removed Waka Flacka Flame for similar reasons. Dustin (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You are then editing against established consensus. One does not need to be constitutionally eligible to be president in order to run for president. Running for president is not the same as being president.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@William S. Saturn: Deez Nuts was not added until very recently, and I reverted soon after that. Where is this "consensus" you speak of? Dustin (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You can find the consensus at the talk pages of USPE, 2012 or USPE, 2016 or in their archives. This issue is not one taken on a case-by-case basis. NPOV demands it be consistent.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with William S. Saturn, there needs to be consistency in the criterion for inclusion. The same candidates that are included in the main election article, and in the corresponding candidates/primaries articles, should be included on the template as well. That is the simplest, most practical and NPOV application, is it not?--NextUSprez (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What consensus? I see not a consensus but mixed opinions here. It should require consensus to add it, so you are the one who needs to find consensus. Dustin (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, what consensus? Dustin (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If you did a little more reading, I'm sure you'd find it. Regardless, what you are proposing is a violation of NPOV. What you consider a "real candidate" or a candidate with a "chance of winning" is completely your own POV.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

And this "violation of NPOV" means you can make additions without consensus? If you think I misread the text somehow, then please explain to me why what looks like mixed thoughts is a consensus. Dustin (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't read your mind and explain why you misunderstand things. All I can see is that you are removing candidates against consensus based only on your POV expressed here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

A consensus that from my perspective does not exist. How do I know that this "consensus" you speak of is anything more than a fabrication? How do I know that you aren't just pretending that there is a consensus to get what you want? Dustin (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that satirical or ineligible candidates belong on this particular template. If they are kept, then they ought to be explicitly identified on the template as satirical or ineligible or whatever. But they really do belong somewhere else, not here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a navigational template to reach articles of a certain type. This is a not a place to put unnecessary labels on articles based on a misconception. It is a complete misconception that people ineligible to be president cannot run for president. They can and have.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So what possible objection could you have to saying "ineligible" on the template? I would prefer a separate template for ineligible candidates, but if they remain on this template then what's wrong with saying they're ineligible? Also, I believe there are plenty of candidates who are not listed on this template, so what criteria are we using to exclude them while including "Deez Nutz"? Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Because that's extraneous information. This is a tool to navigate to wikipedia articles and so only those candidates with a wikipedia article are linked.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What if person wants to navigate to ineligible candidates, or wants to avoid navigating to ineligible candidates. Why can't the template say which are which?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What if person wants to navigate to black candidates, or wants to avoid navigating to black candidates? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

We need to decide whether eligibility is relevant like political affiliation, or irrelevant like skin color. That oughta be an easy call.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It is irrelevant. Running for president is not the same as serving as president. We do not need to create a separate template for the two ineligible-to-serve candidates. Furthermore, we do not need to add any more extraneous information to this template. There's enough of that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Running for president isn't the same as being president, but it's very closely related. It's very misleading to say that someone's running for president without mentioning that even if they win the vote, they can't become president. So it's not extraneous in the least. I think the best option is either to add the word "(ineligible)" after each such candidate, or to add an asterisk with a note on the bottom. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we have reached consensus (which is not necessarily unanimity, but rather the conclusiveness of arguments). Whether a person is eligible to hold an office is particularly relevant to the process of them coming to hold that office. I'm not sure what could possibly be more relevant. And NPOV requires that fringe candidates/views not be given the same prominence and treatment as other candidates/views, consistent with the way reliable sources treat them. I like Ypnypn's specific proposal. -hugeTim ^(talk) 15:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not the template's purpose to display such specific information about candidates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you advocate removing all information about party and whether candidates have withdrawn? The thing is that Waka waka and Deez Nuts are not really candidates for President at all. If anything, they are candidates* for President. -hugeTim ^(talk) 18:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Party is a valid identifier because these individuals are running for the party's nomination. I would like to remove the withdrawn identifier because, in the end, all but one will be withdrawn. Whether there is a difference between a "candidate" and a "candidate*" is your personal belief.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the difference between a candidate and a "candidate" is determined by reliable sources, such as http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/08/21/deez-nuts-for-president-sparks-a-new-wave-of-fake-candidates/ -hugeTim ^(talk) 20:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ypnypn's and Hugetim's specific proposal, for the reasons explained above (by me and by them). We should either add the word "(ineligible)" after each such candidate, or add an asterisk with a note on the bottom.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you agree with Hugetim's recent vandalism to the page as well? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you are accusing me of vandalism? I think we should either list all notable ineligible candidates or none. By the way, you are in violation of WP:3RR. I would suggest reversing your most recent revert. You're just under the 3RR line. My mistake. -hugeTim ^(talk) 21:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You are adding nonsense to the template and linking to unrelated pages. It is evident you are only here to cause disruption.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

While I think adding Satan and Hip Hop to the infobox are definitely disruptive edits, I don't think it is accurate to discredit what may have at least originally been a good faith motion to change. I agree that some sort of "Ineligible" label should be used. Dustin (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That's the only reason I'm here, huh? Can you give an example of the nonsense and links to unrelated pages I've added? Seriously, these are notable names that have been submitted to the FEC and they have received marginal coverage in reliable sources just as Waka Flocka had (without actually declaring). I think people interested in this presidential election may be interested to know these names. I found them interesting, myself. -hugeTim ^(talk) 21:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If you truly believe "Ghost of Macho Man Randy Savage" is "Randy Savage" then there may be some serious WP:COMPETENCY issues here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Should the note also be added to Eugene Puryear since he is an underage running mate? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

William, let's just have this discussion here (rather than in two places), OK? What I meant is that the people who registered those names were referring to those people, just as Brady C. Olson was referring to a pre-existing concept when he registered as "Deez Nuts." Regarding Eugene Puryear, yes, of course. What I'm waiting for from you (the only person taking this position) is why this template should not reflect the way that reliable sources (as opposed to "my personal belief") repeatedly and clearly delineate ineligible and fake candidates from eligible and real ones. -hugeTim ^(talk) 22:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Because such delineation is not necessary.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So simply referring to someone makes that person a presidential candidate? Joe Biden is a candidate? Elizabeth Warren is a candidate? Don't be obtuse. It's clear what you were doing and it was disruptive.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@William S. Saturn: I admit that my edit was borderline WP:POINT (though I was not conscious of that guideline when I made the edit), but it was a substantive edit which took me quite a bit of time to carefully compile based on reliable sources--I attempted to include all declared candidates with names notable enough to have Wikipedia pages, which is what I understand the current criteria for inclusion here to be. You're the one being obtuse if you think a hyperlink to Ronald Reagan implies Ronald Reagan is a candidate. No, someone registered "Ghost of Ronald Reagan" as a candidate, completely on par with "Deez Nuts," and the hyperlink just explains what that absurd name is referencing.

How do you know what the name references? Did you file the report? Stop trying to justify your vandalism. You've already wasted enough of everybody's time.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand: delineating candidates as withdrawn or ineligible is absolutely necessary for a template such as this, which is directing people to information about on ongoing election. Including ineligible candidates at all is itself an attempted compromise with your extreme position. I think everyone else may prefer to remove Deez Nuts from the template altogether, since he is not a real candidate (though he is a story related to the campaign that should be linked to in the appropriate place elsewhere. -hugeTim ^(talk) 14:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"absolutely necessary" - why? Why can't people just click the link and read about it for themselves? "I think everyone else may prefer to remove Deez Nuts from the template altogether" - so you want to remove an FEC-declared and PPP polled candidate just because "everyone" prefers it? No. That's not how things work. You can't have "everyone" agree to remove George Washington from List of Presidents just because they want to. Facts are facts. It is a fact that Deez Nuts is a presidential candidate because the sources that matter—not the sources that simply assess his campaign—say so.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion one way or another about whether to have an asterisk/note for ineligible candidates. However, if we're going to do that, to maintain consistency we should probably do the same on templates of previous elections that also have ineligible candidates listed. E.g. Peta Lindsay in 2012, Róger Calero in 2004 and 2008.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to add the following points from the relevant guideline into consideration, all of which speak toward removing or clearly indicating fringe/ineligible/joke/fake candidates (as determined by reliable sources):

• "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use."
• "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines: ... 2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article; 3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent; ... 5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. If the collection of articles does not meet these tests, that indicates that the articles are loosely related, and a list or category may be more appropriate."
• "The article links in a navigation template should be grouped into clusters, by topic, or by era, etc. Alphabetical ordering does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links."
• "Disadvantages: ... 4. Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a point of view. It may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others; be used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places; or... 5. On the other hand, may not give the reader enough clues as to which links are most relevant or important when this would not be controversial."

(emphasis added) -hugeTim ^(talk) 00:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The current template is ugly, and does not follow the recommended format demonstrated by templates featured at the relevant guideline page, WP:NAVBOX. In particular, there are too many bolded titles in the space intended for hyperlinks. Also, the template is too large. The fringe parties at the bottom should be collapsed as they are at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016 in accordance with WP:UNDUE. I put some effort into improving the formatting, and YBG improved that, but then Willam S. Saturn reverted back to the original. I'd like to include WP:OWNBEHAVIOR as part of our discussion, which lists the following as an example of ownership behavior: "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version." -hugeTim ^(talk) 18:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me address your substantive points above:

• "The current template is ugly" - I disagree. Rather I believe HugeTime's changes in adding unnecessary boxes and making navigation difficult is ugly.
• "In particular, there are too many bolded titles in the space intended for hyperlinks" - Then unbold them if you think there's a problem, don't change up the whole template.
• "the template is too large" - This isn't true at all. All you want to hide is three rows so I can't see how that even makes a difference.
• "The fringe parties at the bottom should be collapsed as they are at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016 in accordance with WP:UNDUE" - They are collapsed on the 2012 template not because of UNDUE but because of spacing. Spacing required that the large number of third parties be collapsed. This template does not yet have the same problem.

--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have made some more changes, trying to incorporate the best features of the versions preferred by William S. Saturn and Hugetim, while also taking into consideration the difficulties each noted in their less preferred version.

• The long lists of multi-candidate articles (convention, debates, polls, endorsements) are moved into a separate horizontal color bar, which I believe nicely frames the two major party sections.
• I retained the italics in these lists mostly because I'm not sure whether it is better with italics or without.
• The three major party candidate lists are in separate color stripes
• The headings for these are retained within the color stripe, eliminating the need for unsightly abbreviations and small font.
• These headings are also retained as non-links, so that their black color nicely emphasizes the parallel structure
• The two long lists are on a separate line separated from their header ('Candidates featured in major polls').
• The non-major parties are grouped together in a third section.
• Line breaks are added to the left column so that it is relatively narrow.
• The left column of headers is top- and right-justified, which helps tie these headers together with the lists of multi-candidate links.
• The ineligibility comment is moved up to the top of the 3rd party section
• The ineligibility marker is colored red and no longer uses note/ref hyperlinks
• Overall, this divides the navbox into three balanced sections short, clean labels on the left and roughly equal text along the top. IMHO this seem clean and visually appealing.
• The only exception to the parallelism is the colored labels for the minor parties, which I believe provide sufficient prominence to compensate for being 'demoted' into a lower level of the hierarchy.
• I've probably made some other changes that I didn't list here.

I trust this helps move our collaborative improvements forward. YBG (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That looks very nice. The only change I'd suggest is using "Third" instead of "3rd." Other than that, I like the way it looks.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I was a bit extreme in my effort to narrow the first column. YBG (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Spartan7W:, since you ignored the consensus achieved here, reigniting an edit war, I think you have some responsibility to help resolve this. -hugeTim ^(talk) 17:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the periwinkle colored sublists to segregate contenders from others and withdrawn candidates. But aside from that, I fancy the old format better. Right now it seems crammed, less intuitive, and there is an awkward lack of uniformity between DNC and GOP categories.   Spartan7W §   17:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any issues with the current form? The only difference between the DNC and GOP categories is that there is no GOP Candidate Positions summary article like there is for the Democrats, and I made a small adjustment with the line breaks to hopefully make it look more uniform despite that. -hugeTim ^(talk) 17:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This looks quite better. Ideally, colorizing it to separate parties would be nice. #34AAE0 for DNC and #FF3333 for GOP.   Spartan7W §   18:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

First, the text is too small. Second, the blue boxes are disruptive and unnecessary. Third, it is unnecessary to hide information when space is not at issue.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I like some of Hugetim's ideas, but using a standard child navbox with such large group names forces either (a) very large group header boxes, (b) small font, or (c) clumsy abbreviations ("Feat."), or most likely two or three of these. Consequently, I believe the standard child navbox layout is a non-starter. But I did try out two alternatives (#1 & #2), which I immediately self-reverted. The difference between the two is just the row striping. I'm not really satisfied that either one is an improvement, but they may spark some new ideas for other template editors, e.g., @Hugetim, Spartan7W, and William S. Saturn:. Thanks, and happy editing. YBG (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I am in favor of either of those alternatives. Both keep it simple and actually improve presentation of the information.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I've added (and reverted) another option (#3). This one uses the standard child navbox, made more palatable my going back to the "Major candidates" nomenclature, with the explanatory text ("Featured in major polls") in the footnote at the bottom. Comments are welcome. Full disclosure: I'm not too fond of #1/ #2 because they take up too much vertical space, and I'm ambivalent about #3's Major/Other/Withdrawn group header boxes. YBG (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't care for the blue boxes on alternative 3. They make it uneven. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. When we hear back from other editors, maybe we can get consensus on this one issue and then tackle another area. YBG (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Why does the template list Deez Nuts as withdrawn from the race? I don't see that mentioned on any of the other related articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Because we’re not using {{ref}}/{{note}} properly, and it propagates validation issues[1] everywhere this template is transcluded, does anyone object to coding the template with asterisks only? Alternatively, if there’s a template better for this than {{ref}} and {{note}}, let’s use that. LLarson (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done^[2] LLarson (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Rod Silva (businessman) and this edit, I believe he should be added back to the independent candidates section, given that he has achieved ballot access in one state, something which several of the listed candidates have not done yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for responding so appropriately in the spirit of WP:BRD.

I am a bit cautious about adding Mr. Silva to this template as the article Rod Silva was only created three days ago, and -- except for one IP edit -- has only been edited by one editor, the same one who added him to this template. But I will defer to others who have had more experience navigating these issues. YBG (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Now that the primaries are through, i propose combining all of the withdrawn and other candidates into a single list for each party. There is no longer a need to distinguish withdraw from still running, and in retrospect, the distinction is dubious. The more substantial candidates are evident by the associated (campaign endorsements positions) links. Bcharles (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the other/withdrawn distinction is antiquated at this point. Time to merge them into simply "candidates" per standard established with the templates of previous elections.--JayJasper (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I agree as well. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Bcharles (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Angela Walker has been moved to Angela Nicole Walker. Please add middle name to avoid redirect.

TM 11:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete ::[[List of Democrats opposing Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016|Democratic opposition]], since it is a page that does not exist. Elisfkc (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please make the following edits:

• in the "above" parameter, expressions within parentheses: "National" -> "national", "Demographically" -> "demographically", "Statewide" -> "statewide", "International" -> "international",
• in the "group1" parameter, miscapitalization: "Political Positions" -> "Political positions", expression within parentheses: "Newspaper" -> "newspaper", "National" -> "national", "Statewide" -> "statewide", "Straw" -> "straw",
• in the "group2" parameter, expression within parentheses: "Newspaper" -> "newspaper", "National" -> "national", "Statewide" -> "statewide", "Straw" -> "straw",

Note: expressions within parentheses should only be initcapped if they are full sentences or proper nouns.

Thanks.

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done  Paine  ^u/c 17:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Given that this template is template edit-protected, I am just dropping a note on the talk page that if there is a dispute as to any part of this edit, I will be happy to revert my edit and discuss. Please let me know which specific part when you disagree. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)