Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of unsuccessful major party candidates for President of the United States/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of unsuccessful major party candidates for President of the United States[edit]

List of unsuccessful major party candidates for President of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Orser67 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it is a well-written, comprehensive, useful list that satisfies the Featured List criteria. I hope that it will help guide interested readers in understanding and comparing unsuccessful major party presidential candidates. Orser67 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gonzo_fan2007
  • The column title "Office" could be reworded to "Previously held office", which would make the note somewhat unnecessary.
    • "Previously held office" would make sense for a list of presidential winners, but in many cases these candidates held office before, during, and after the presidential election. The note is also useful in clarifying that it refers to the most recent office the candidate held (e.g. Henry Clay in 1844 could also be referred to as a former Secretary of State, but he's referred to as a former Senator because he had held that office more recently) -Orser67
      • Orser67I still think this needs to be clearer. Footnotes should not present key information to the reader. They should be there to elaborate, clarify, or provide additional info. Previously held office or Office before nomination while still including the note would be better than the current column title. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not 100% convinced of it its necessity, but I changed the column title to "Office at time of election." Orser67 (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of a note, "PV%" and "EV%" would be better written using the {{Abbr}} template, ie PV% and EV%
  • NR should also use the {{Abbr}} template, i.e. NR.
  • All of the abbreviations in the table under "State" should either be linked in their first instance, or at the very least use the {{Abbr}} template.
  • The key with the † and ‡, in my opinion, should come before the table so the reader naturally knows what they mean before they start looking at the table.
  • You don't explain what the bolding means in the PV% and EV% columns.
  • The "Election" cell should span two rows. You can do this by moving the Election field up and adding the rowspan qualifier to the table. I.e. move ! rowspan=2 | Election above the ! colspan=4 | Candidate

I really only focused on the table for now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments, I implemented all of your suggestions except for the first. Orser67 (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TompaDompa
  1. An image or two would be nice. Perhaps a timeline of the major parties?
    Added an image, open to adding more. -Orser67
  2. Avoid using a "this is a list of" phrasing, as this is clunky.
    Rewrote the first sentence; not sure if this comment applies to anything else.
  3. The United States has had a two-party system for much of its history, and the two major parties have nominated presidential candidates in most presidential elections. – seeing as this assertion serves as the basis for justifying the construction of this list in the first place, this definitely needs to attributed to WP:Reliable sources.
    Done
  4. In the presidential election of 1820, incumbent President James Monroe of the Democratic-Republican Party effectively ran unopposed. – this should be explained in a bit more detail.
    Added a note
  5. Similarly, in the presidential election of 1836, four different Whig candidates received electoral votes; the main Whig candidate in the North and the main Whig candidate in the South are listed in the table below. – why those two?
    The source emphasized that they were two major candidates of the Whig Party, and I thought it made sense to only include the two main candidates. Harrison was on the ballot in all but one of the Northern states that had a ballot (Webster was on the ballot in MA), while White or Harrison were on the ballots of every state in the South that had a ballot (Mangum received the electoral votes of SC, which didn't hold a presidential popular vote). If we included every major party candidate who received electoral votes, we should include a several other minor candidates who also received electoral votes, and I believe this list is better of those types candidates are not included. -Orser67
  6. "PV%", "EV%", and "NR" should use the {{abbr}} template.
    Done
  7. The state abbreviations should use the {{abbr}} template and link to the states.
    Done
  8. The "EV%" column should use the {{percentage}} template and/or just write out the fraction.
    Done. I'm assuming the PV% column should also have a % for each record.
  9. I think the election years should use rowspans where there are several candidates for the same election year (1824, 1836, 1856, and 1860).
    Done
  10. In the 1792 election, the emerging Democratic-Republican Party did attempt – I'd say "attempted".
    Done
  11. The Whigs did not unite around a single candidate in 1836, and four Whig candidates, William Henry Harrison, Hugh Lawson White, Daniel Webster, and Willie Person Mangum received electoral votes. – the punctuation should be changed, and perhaps also the phrasing. I'd suggest moving "received electoral votes" to right after candidates", and using a colon before the list.
    I rewrote it.
  12. Greeley would have won 66 electoral votes (18.8% of the total number of electoral votes) – I'd write how many electoral votes there were in total.
    Done
  13. The "See also" section should be placed above the "Notes" section.
    Done

TompaDompa (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to all of your comments, thanks for the various suggestions. Orser67 (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well the article title is "List of United States major party' presidential tickets" so that entire "Other significant tickets" section could be removed, though I'm not why sourcing election results would be difficult... The main table in the loser list is just the same as the tickets list but with the winners and VPs removed, so it actually provides even less information.
  • That list also includes ages and years of birth for the presidential candidates, which are difficult to source even for some of the major party candidates. I like how this list cleanly and simply presents the list of presidential losers, and I think it works as a good complement to the list of presidents. Orser67 (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait so now you've added third party candidates, making it even more similar to the List of United States major party presidential tickets, despite still being a less-useful article by not listing the VP candidates or just having all tickets? That article could easily be modified to denote the winning and losing tickets better, with whatever criteria you want for the minors. At the least, now the title here is wrong. Reywas92Talk 19:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list is designed to be more biographical and mirror List of Presidents of the United States. The other is essentially a list of election results. It contains portraits/photos of each candidate, which aren't suitable for the other list. It also contains notes and refs that don't exist on the other list, as well as a further reading section and an external links section that are designed to help the reader find more information on defeated candidates. Anyway, you've already made it clear that you oppose this list. Orser67 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay well that wasn't how it was designed when it was nominated last week. And "major third party" isn't a thing. The title needs to be changed, otherwise Ross Perot, George Wallace, etc. don't fit here at all. I think adding the images is an improvement, but the name is something that can be easily fixed and I could then lean toward support. Reywas92Talk 01:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's true that I nominated the list prematurely, so that was my mistake. Orser67 (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92 do you still object to this list? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has improved substantially since its original state so I guess I can support it. Reywas92Talk 22:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LOL I was about to suggest moving the candidate's name to the left and adding running mate, but I just refreshed the page and voila it was already there!

  • The birth and death dates would be better if made small.
    • Agreed (and done)
  • I recommend changing the fully-shaded party cells (which are undesirably the most eye-catching elements of the table) to the thin strips of the list of Potus.
Good idea, done. Do you think I should move the thin strips to the other side of the "party" column?
  • I also think the images at 125px make each row too tall; if you add cropped versions of the pics (I'm looking at Goldwater or even McGovern as models of how tightly cropped) they appear easily visible even at 100px or lower. It's a lot of work though, cropping ~60 images, so I won't insist.
    • I changed the size to 100px and I agree it looks better. I've cropped several images since you left this comment, and I think I'm happy with all of the images as they are now, except for Landon and Dukakis, both of which imo lack good pictures on Wikimedia for whatever reason.
  • Office at time...: I don't think Fmr. needs abbreviating? Inconsistency in linking: President but not Senator, for eg?
    • Changed to consistently link to some office (except for "none"). I like abbreviating fmr. since it's shorter and focuses more attention to the office held, but that's not a deal-breaker to me.
  • State: probably needs a note explaining exactly what you mean, state of birth or what? Again, I don't think you need to abbreviate these.
    • Added a note clarifying that it's "state of primary residence" as opposed to state of birth. I think I prefer abbreviating the states since the abbreviations are widely known and it keeps the column narrow, but as with abbreviating fmr., that's not a vital point to me.
      • I don't think the abbreviations are widely known outside the US, so from a WP:Systemic bias point of view there is a good reason not to abbreviate them. TompaDompa (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a link to their presidential campaign somewhere?—indopug (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • " two major parties have " this is linked but not to an article about "major parties". Indeed, using that link, we would expect to see individuals only from the Republicans and Democrats in the list. It may have been covered in previous discussion here, but where's the definition of "major party" for this list please? And what makes it notable?
    Changed the link, and tried to make clear why the list is about major parties (their candidates have won most presidential elections). -Orser67
  • "electoral vote" is piped to a redirect.
    Fixed
  • Ah, re: my first point, I see you go on to explain it, using one source to define "major party"... is that enough?
    It was tough finding sources that explicitly listed the pre-Civil War major parties, so I tried to use a good number of sources that made clear what parties don't qualify as major parties.
  • "Vote[6][2]" numerical order for refs please.
  • Changed
  • (Birth–Death), just death, not Death.
  • Sure
  • Candidate and Running mate should sort by surname.
  • Done
  • If you have a key, why not add EV and PV to it?
  • Sure
  • "List of unsuccessful major third party and independent candidates" why are they in this list?
  • I'm ok with dropping them, but I'd slightly prefer to keep them because a)some of them were borderline members of major parties (as is discussed in the notes) and b)I think the list is simply more informative with them included.
  • Check refs for hyphens in year ranges per MOS. Should be unspaced en-dashes.
  • I think I got them all, let me know if that isn't the case
  • Don't split refs per 35em, either 30em or nothing.
  • Sure
  • Don't SHOUT in reference titles.
  • I think I fixed them all now

Enough for a quick skip through. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the constructive suggestions. Orser67 (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't understand why the birth & death dates are listed at all. I could possibly maybe see an argument for "age at time of election", maybe, but what does it matter whether the candidate lived for 5 years or 50 afterward? Seems the equivalent of listing candidate height or spouse's name or alma mater too. I see birth/death years are on List of Presidents as well, but would also be in favor of removing it from there too unless there's some significance I don't see. I'd also prefer just "born 19XX" for living people over 19XX-present, but that's just a style preference, no big deal either way. SnowFire (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "unsuccessful major party candidates for President of the United States" I do not think this needs to be in bold.
  • "If no individual wins a majority of the electoral vote, then the United States House of Representatives holds a contingent election to determine the election winner." I would say how many have been decided that way.
  • "The national popular vote has no direct effect on the winner of the presidential election" I would prefer "The national popular vote does not determine who wins the presidential election"
  • "there have been five presidential elections in which the winner did not win a majority or a plurality of the popular vote" I would list here the losing candidates who got more votes.
  • "One unsuccessful major party candidate, DeWitt Clinton, served as the de facto Federalist nominee in the 1812 presidential election even though he was a member of the Democratic-Republican Party. Clinton lost the 1812 election to incumbent Democratic-Republican President James Madison.[3] In the 1872 presidential election, the Liberal Republican Party put forward an unsuccessful major party nominee, Horace Greeley. Greeley, who was also nominated by the Democratic Party, was defeated by incumbent Republican President Ulysses S. Grant." These comments are of limited interest and better relegated to a note.
  • "Aside from the Liberal Republican Party, seven different third parties have put forward candidates who won at least ten percent of the electoral vote or at least ten percent of the popular vote." This nearly duplicates the statement in the first paragraph and should be deleted.
  • "Since 1796, just one independent candidate, Ross Perot, has accrued more than ten percent of the popular vote.[6]" I am not clear why you state this and not the achievements of Roosevelt and Breckinridge which seem to me more noteworthy.
  • "In the presidential election of 1824, four Democratic-Republicans competed for the presidency in the general election as the party was unable to agree on a single nominee.[10] Similarly, in the presidential election of 1836, four different Whig candidates received electoral votes; the main Whig candidate in the North and the main Whig candidate in the South are listed in the table below.[11]" In the table you list three in 1824 and two in 1836. Your selection criteria are unclear - not 10% as you list one below that.
  • I do not see why you need to abbreviate the details under 'Office at the time of election' - particularly the irritating 'Fmr'.
  • I do not think you should have the " Prior to the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment in 1804" comment four times. Similarly, you should not repeat the comment that no candidate got a majority in 1824.
  • This article seems to me basically sound but I have some niggles. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments, and I did make a few changes based on them. But to be honest, I disagreed with most of your suggestions. Orser67 (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This nomination has been open for a couple months now and still has no supports. I ask the coordinators to please withdraw the nomination. Thanks. Orser67 (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing as per nominator request. --PresN 05:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_unsuccessful_major_party_candidates_for_President_of_the_United_States/archive1&oldid=1086102474"