Talk:List of United States presidential candidates, 2008

message: An overview page with the major candidates from both parties would be useful. The information from 2008_Republican_presidential_candidates#Candidates_with_national_campaigns and 2008_Democratic_presidential_candidates#Candidates would be moved into Template:2008 Democratic presidential candidates and Template:2008 Republican presidential candidates. This page would then transclude them both:
This article lists official Democratic candidates and Republican candidates in the upcoming United States Presidential election. Potential third party candidates are listed at 2008 United States third party presidential candidates.
==Democrats==

==Republicans==

The disadvantage would be that one would have to edit the templates to change the information about the main Democratic and Republican candidates. However, these pages are not edited very frequently ( ), so it shouldn't be a major problem. Λυδαcιτγ 05:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Λυδαcιτγ 03:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transcluding Democratic and Republican candidates

message: The article's current name, "2008 Presidential Candidates", is bad for a couple of reasons: (1) it does not conform to Wikipedia policy on capitalization; (2) it does not specify which country it refers to. Unless anyone objects, I will move to "United States presidential candidates, 2008" --Mathew5000 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it for you :-) Λυδαcιτγ 01:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename this article

message: Some of you editors are still anti-democratic.  A few months ago I made sure the candidates who are not Democratic or Republican got respectable mentions in this or some predecessor article--and now you've taken them out completely and ghettoised them in another article with the stupid innumerate heading of "third party".  With people like you, no wonder the USA's empire is crumbling and you have an idiot Hitler for president. Should I bother fixing it? Or will you just make it fascistic again? Korky Day 07:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: You editors still anti-democratic

message: This has been discussed on the template for 2008 Election page.  Cox has been invited and will attend a major MSNBC debate on Nov 7, thus solidifing him as a national candidate.  Please add him.  Casey14 02:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add Cox to Republicans

message: He announced he was running, do we take it seriously?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.27.191 (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If/when he files with the FEC, then he can be added here.  Right now you may as well consider him a "declared" candidate, but not official without the filing. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stephen Colbert?

message: We must report on his canidacy. Various media outlets have already responded, Wikipedia must not be left in the dust, especially after Mr. Colbert's contributions to our endeavour.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnguyen (talk • contribs) 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Colbert

message: How come this article mentions that Obama, if elected, would be the first black president, but doesn't mention the same thing about Keyes? - Billy
Please, @ least sign,.......:
# (cur) (last)  20:18, 8 December 2007 Southern Texas (Talk | contribs) (6,110 bytes) (assess) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 01:53, 22 October 2007 208.76.138.251 (Talk) (6,045 bytes) (→First African-American President) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 01:53, 22 October 2007 208.76.138.251 (Talk) (6,050 bytes) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 20:30, 20 October 2007 SineBot (Talk | contribs) m (5,856 bytes) (Signing comment by Cnguyen - "- →Colbert - new section") (undo)
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 02:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First African-American President

message: We should merge any good stuff from List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2008 into this article.  This article has been around longer and seems to have more material, and the two pages are redundant. Bssc81 (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the two pages are redundant, and should be merged. The material from the newer article about ballot access is very helpful, and should be kept. I am not so sure it's necessary to keep all the images in this article, since there are separate articles for the Democratic, Republican Third Party and independent candidates which have the images. Since this a list, I'm not sure it's necessary to keep all the candidate info, either. After all, it is also available on the aforementioned articles (as well as the candidate bio pages). It might be might be best to redirect this page to the newer article. Just a thought.--JayJasper (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, and I also prefer the format of the new article as well. Cmrdm (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the the relative lack of discussion on this matter, and the fact that no one has commented on it in two weeks, it would seem that such a move would be uncontroversial. It appears there is a consensus among the small handful of us who bothered to comment, so I am going to make the page move as suggested in my previous comments (redirect the page). If the move does prove to be controversial, it can always be reverted. So, here goes.......--JayJasper (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: merger proposal