Talk:2016 Republican Party presidential candidates

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: Should the candidate tables contain state maps and logos?[edit]

Consensus against maps and logos. No consensus on whether it should be replaced by plain text, or text plus something. (Default to plain text unless and until there is sufficient agreement to add something.)

Only two participants offered rationales supporting map+logo. Those were "visual appeal" and "good to be visually reminded of their home state". The Yes !votes lacking rationales, at best, reflect agreement with those rationales. On the other hand several No !votes cited concrete problems with recognizability, confusion, and decreased readability. The merger of state+logo makes it difficult to recognize either, particularly where white blends into the background. The concrete negative impact it has for some readers outweighs the luxury of "visual appeal".

Editors are reminded to look to MOS:Icons for guidance. Alsee (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Should the tables in the "Candidates" section contain state images and logos, or just text? Techgeekxp (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous section for prior discussion.

  • No. Both the logos and state outlines add nothing of value to the page. Words suffice. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes to logos. State images don't matter so much.--81.129.83.26 (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Words suffice. Too much clutter decreases readability. There is such a thing as information overload. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Logos and state images make the table visually appealing. Inclusion does not make the table too cluttered or tough to navigate. Meatsgains (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Kimpire (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Lj123 (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Neither the outline nor the flag adds to the usefulness of the table. The combination of the two makes it hard to recognize either and makes the table as a whole ugly. --Khajidha (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Neither add to clarity, they appear messy and untidy (just a guess but …) I suspect many are not immediately recognisable to US citizens and know they are (with a few exceptions) wholly unrecognisable outside the US. Pincrete (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No They're cool, but the lack of borders on some of them makes the white parts blend into the background, causing the table to look confusing to the eye. Instaurare (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - It is good to be visually reminded of their home state. It is important in the election. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it important in the election? The voters aren't selecting a state, they are selecting a candidate. --Khajidha (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Adding the logos would increase how recognizable a given row is, but this is outweighed, in my opinion, by the visual clutter that this would add. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Carson lives in Florida, not Maryland[edit]

Ben Carson lives in Florida, not Maryland. (He moved in 2013.)

Here are citations for Carson being a resident of Florida:

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2014/december/is-the-doctor-in-why-conservatives-want-ben-carson/?cpid=RSS_FAV

and

http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/authors/228856/candy-carson

Please do not edit the article to indicate that he lives in Maryland (you will not find any credible citations to support that allegation, because they do not exist).

209.212.5.67 (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan7W,
On, 21:58 16 March 2016, you edited Carson’s state of residence from Florida to Virginia (?!?) – without supplying a citation.
Please supply a citation for your edit, or reverse your edit.
209.212.5.67 (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

What happened to Trump, Cruz, Kasich etc etc, pictures & the big map at the top of the article, showing which contests were won by them? It's been deleted. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate Ages[edit]

The ages for candidates appear to be their current ages. Would it be more appropriate to give their ages on election day in 2016? There's only a few years difference now, but it will continue to grow and will get really strange when one eventually dies. PaperKooper (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The Cruz campaign logo should be modified to one that was used at his later rallies that says: Cruz-Fiorina 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.194.182 (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates that did not run[edit]

is there any value in listing candidates that did not run? I think that section is unnecessary and can be removed. 2603:800C:3942:1D00:74BA:6DA1:5E09:1EFC (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Republican_Party_presidential_candidates&oldid=1196714668"