Template talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 1

message: This template needs to match the pages it's associated with.  Any candidates not listed and sourced on the candidate pages (third party; Democratic; and Republican) shouldn't be listed in this template.  --Tim4christ17 talk 20:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfectly true. To some extent, this should be none by sourcing entries there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does David Koch (candidate) count? He lacks an independent source (third-party is ambiguous here). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  The section says "notable" independent candidates.  How is Koch notable?  I'm inclined to remove him. PubliusFL 05:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who should be here

message: The Reuters report was poorly written. According to other sources, Gore still maintains his current position that while he does not plan to be a candidate, he has not ruled it out.--Folksong 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the only reason Gore should stay on the list is because of what's been discussed on United States presidential election, 2008.  Every other candidate has expressed "serious interest" or has filed, and there are links on the page indicating that.  Gore is a compromise because of his widespread media apparances.  Whie several OTHER candidates have not said definitively yes or no (Bloomberg, Pataki, Nader, etc.), for some reason Gore's an exception here.  This template ought to reflect the reality of the main article, and not the other way around.  So, Gore (reluctantly) remains. Zz414 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Gore 

message: Wikipedia lists him as being an official candidate, which to my knowledge isn't correct. Although he has made it pretty clear that is is going to run, he hasn't declared yet, and his page says that he hasn't yet started an exploratory Committee either. So I'm going to move him back into the potential candidates list, I mean, he could always change his mind. Thethinredline 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Joe Biden

message: The newspaper link from The Trentonion works fine Will Corzine be hearing ‘Hail to the Chief’? Corzine should be listed until he either announces he is or is not running. Quinnipiac University even recently polled to see if Corzine has soft or hard support from New Jerseyians Poll: New Jerseyans Don't Want a President Corzine Looks like he is interested. 67.98.154.56 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Trentonian is not a reliable source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jon Corzine

message: I attempted to revamp this template based on the three pages, and I came up with this:
United States presidential election, 2008                    	United States presidential election, 2008
General articles: Opinion polling (D • R) • Election timeline	Other 2008 elections: House • Senate • Gubernatorial
Democratic primaries • Democratic primary polls • Democratic Convention
Candidates: Biden • Clinton • Dodd • Edwards • Gravel • Kucinich • Obama • Vilsack
Candidates with exploratory committees: Richardson
Potential candidates: Clark • Gore • Sharpton	
Republican primaries • Republican primary polls • Republican Convention
Candidates: Brownback • Cox • Giuliani • Hunter • Romney • M Smith • R Smith
Candidates with exploratory committees: Gilmore • Huckabee • McCain • Paul • Tancredo • Thompson
Potential candidates: Gingrich • Hagel • Pataki • Savage
Announced Third party candidates: Kubby (Lib.) • Milnes (Lib.) • Phillies (Lib.) • C Smith (Lib.) • Stanhope (Lib.) • Swift (Green)	
Announced Third party candidates: Kubby (Lib.) • Milnes (Lib.) • Phillies (Lib.) • C Smith (Lib.) • Stanhope (Lib.) • Swift (Green)
Potential Third party candidates: Amondson (Prohib.) • Baldwin (Const.) • Corsi (Const.) • Dodge (Prohib.) • Garrett (Green) • Gilchrist (Const.) • Jay (Pers. Choice) • Keyes (Const.) • Kwiatkowski (Lib.) • McKinney (Green) • Root (Lib.) • Rotzler (Green) • Mary Ruwart (Lib.) • Sheehan (Green) • Thompson (Lib.)	
Potential Third party candidates: Amondson (Prohib.) • Baldwin (Const.) • Corsi (Const.) • Dodge (Prohib.) • Garrett (Green) • Gilchrist (Const.) • Jay (Pers. Choice) • Keyes (Const.) • Kwiatkowski (Lib.) • McKinney (Green) • Root (Lib.) • Rotzler (Green) • Mary Ruwart (Lib.) • Sheehan (Green) • Thompson (Lib.)
Potential independent candidates: Adams • Bowles • Chapman • Cordell • Daley • Ferrari • Greenspon • Hargis • Imperato • Jones • Koch • McCall • Moore • Moriarty • Morrow • Regan • Schriner • Thompson • Washington • Lisa Weltman • White	
Potential independent candidates: Adams • Bowles • Chapman • Cordell • Daley • Ferrari • Greenspon • Hargis • Imperato • Jones • Koch • McCall • Moore • Moriarty • Morrow • Regan • Schriner • Thompson • Washington • Lisa Weltman • White
This didn't look right, what with all the red links. I don't think anyone who makes a website "announcing" their run for President deserves a page on Wikipedia, but people who announced within a pre-existing party structure should. So, I removed the "Potential Third Party candidates," as a lot might be wishful thinking and most of these people haven't responded to their "potentiality." I also reduced the Independent section to those who have notable activities other than their announced 2008 run.--Tim Thomason 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revamp

message: Some anonymous users have incorrectly been reading the documents.  For instance, Brownback filed a retraction about candidacy in December 2006 to state that he was just forming an exploratory committee, but in January 2007 he filed for official candidacy:.  Please be aware that the filings state "exploratory committee" or "candidate" on them, and they are distinguishable.  Please refrain from future edits and reversions as such without carefully examining the actual scanned documents. --Zz414 16:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved McCain from "exploratory committee" to "candidate," per his new FEC-2 filing on 1 March. PubliusFL 18:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FEC filings

message: Now that Tom Vilsack is the first formally announced candidate to drop out, should there be a category for former candidates? - Prezboy1 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the decision over at the Election page, with a new category for "Candidates who filed with the FEC and dropped out before the primaries." --Zz414 19:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that candidates who formally began the process and then withdrew (like Vilsack) should be mentioned in the box under Withdrawn candidates, and I've added that.  There's no need to include potential candidates who never started running at all (like Kerry).  Wasted Time R 17:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former Candidates 

message: I altered this to provide separate lines for candidate bios and campaigns. It got reverted back.  At the moment it doesn't have a direct link to bios of Hillary, Obama, and Mike Gravel, which is a mistake.  I want it to have both. DavidYork71 10:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidate Biographies vs Campaign Articles 

message: Without explanation User:Hobie Hunter reverted my edit here in which I integrated the views & campaign section into the whole. I think my version is better for two reasons:
# It makes the template slightly smaller, it makes better use of available space
# It is more ordered, the elections are about politicians with views and campaigns, not about politicians separate from their views and campaigns.
Therefore I have revered hobie hunter's action. C mon 14:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I happen to agree with C mon's version of the template. —Nightstallion (?) 12:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to prefer [[C mon's version.  I think it is cleaner and more concise.  I think shorter templates are better in general as they are an add-on to an article page.  I feel that with Hobie Hunter's version, I have to move my mouse to completely different parts of the template to see the different article pages for a given candidate.  With C Mon's version, all three pieces (campaign, views, and person) are within several pixels of each other.  Theflyer 13:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that shorter is better.   Wasted Time R 14:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Integration vs. separation

message: Michael Moriarty is currently a resident of British Columbia (see Michael_Moriarty#Personal_life).  Thus, he is not eligible to be elected President per Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Qualifications_for_office, as he hasn't lived in the US for the past 14 years.  He should be removed from the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohrr (talk • contribs) 20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't he that guy from Law & Order?--69.118.235.97 23:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he is. Valadius 00:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moriarty is not necessarily ineligible to be elected President. It is a point of some dispute among political scientists as to whether the residency requirement means fourteen consecutive years, as the word "consecutive" does not appear in the Qualifications clause. Nor is it made clear whether or not the fourteen years must be consecutive immediately prior to taking office. It is also possible that, although Moriarty's primary residence for the past several years has been in British Columbia, he may have maintained a legal residence in the U.S. (many celebrities have multiple residences in different countries, after all). If this is the case, he is most definitely eligible for election. This being said, I agree his name should not appear on the template until his eligibility has been firmly established. --JayJasper 17:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Moriarty 

message: Are these really necessary on this template?  Surely the main bio page will link to them if they are extensive enough to have been split off to their own article.  As it is, the template gives extra weight to certain candidates, which gives an appearance of bias.  That said, an article that summarizes the positions of all the candidates on the issues (a for/against table), if it existed, would be a great one to add to this template IMO.  Also, should the template link Wikia:campaigns:United States presidential election, 2008 as a source of additional campaign-related info? ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think having the shortcut is well worth the extra space it may take up. Makes the sorting and finding the info one would want to know much more available for the viewer. Lord Metroid 16:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not bias, it simply reflects what articles are available.  Nothing prevents editors from writing political positions articles for candidates who don't have them.   Wasted Time R 01:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  links to select campaigns/views → bias? 

message: He really isn't important enough to be listed once as a potential Republican candidate and once as a potential 'other' candidate.Flatterworld 16:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hagel listed twice