Category talk:Candidates for President of the United States

Discussion from Categories for deletion

This discussion moved from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion:

Category:United States Presidential Candidates

Ok, this is a complicated listing—first, it should be Category:United States presidential candidates instead, so the articles should be retagged and the original category deleted.

I started Category:U.S. presidential candidates, but I refrained from moving all of the articles over there until we decided exactly who gets to be included. Postdlf 18:26, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But I also wanted to have a nonbinding discussion here over whether this should be kept at all, without yet outright proposing that it get deleted (and why not here, since no one seems to do anything with category talk pages). I honestly don't know yet if I support it, I think it would be interesting to have it, but I don't know if it can be reasonably limited. What would qualify someone to be in it? Actual party nomination? Lasting through at least one primary? Just announcing a candidacy for President, no matter how quickly they dropped out? And do we list only the failed candidates in here? Obviously, all the candidates would include the ones actually elected, but it would look really stupid for an article to be tagged with Category:Presidents of the U.S. and Category:United States presidential candidates, and possibly even kind of confusing. However, that could be solved just by crosslinking Category:Presidents of the U.S. under the candidates category though, because I don't believe there has ever been a President who didn't run at some time (even if their stint in office wasn't the result of being elected, as with Ford).

If we can come up with a sensible way to handle it, then I'd support it. Right now it's looking pretty damn troublesome though. Postdlf 05:28, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If we do keep such a category, I think it should be higly limited. Certainly those who make it to election day would be in. I'm not sure how many others should. All those who made it to (in modern times) televised/radio broadcast debates? - UtherSRG 07:05, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Then there's the problem of excluding every modern third party candidate except for Ross Perot. Of course, if we don't limit minor candidates, then we're just including every yahoo in the country who ever managed to finegle their way onto a ballot (which isn't as hard as you'd think) no matter how insignificant, and we run into the problem of having to decide how many states in which they'd have to be on the ballot to be included—one? a majority? just enough to cover the requisite electoral votes necessary to win? all 50 states? Blah. More trouble. Who would've thought that "presidential candidates" would be a hard classification to narrow down? Unless we can figure out some objective standard, a presidential candidate may be just about anyone who says they are. It may be damn difficult to be elected in this country, but it's too damn easy to run.  ; ) Postdlf 07:20, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should only include candidates that actually ran (and lost) against the President in the November elections. Obviously, inclusion of the president category would by implication include those that won. Perhaps the category should be Category:United States presidential candidates that lost in November. (Naah, too long.) Of course, the next question, should this include candidates that lost once and won in a later year? --ssd 13:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest simply grouping Category:Presidents of the U.S. under the candidate category, but unfortunately I just read that four presidents that succeeded to the office due to death never actually ran for president, before or after. I am really opposed to retagging president articles with a "presidential candidate" category (which would just look stupid), so I think we should limit the category to candidates who never achieved the office. Postdlf 17:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Another viewpoint here -- If they have an article in Wikipedia already, perhaps that alone is a good enough criteria to add them to the category no matter how minor they might be. However, there's no need to generate stub articles or make lists of candidates that may or may not have even made it to the primary. --ssd 13:35, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds fairly sensible. Postdlf 17:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think a fair definition is any person who was on the ballot or registered as a write-in candidate for any US Presidential election in any state. anthony (see warning) 15:50, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are you really a candidate for president if you're not even on the ballot in enough states to actually win the election? I don't like the idea of including write-ins. Postdlf 17:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, technically you don't even have to be on the ballot in any state to win the election, do you? After all, the electors' votes are the ones that matter. Looking at the dictionary.com definition, a candidate is "a person who seeks or is nominated for an office, prize, or honor." It seems that anyone registering as a write-in is seeking the office, and anyone on the ballot is essentially nominated. We should probably add anyone on the ballot or registering as a write-in for a primary too. anthony (see warning) 17:58, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Once again, we're looking for limiting factors to actually make inclusion in this category meaningful. Postdlf 18:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since no write-in candidate has ever won the presidential seat (that I know of), I think it is silly to include them at all. On the other hand, Ross Perot did make it on the November ballot, so he'd definately be included, and not as a special case. --ssd 21:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see how the definition I have given is not meaningful. If someone famous enough to have an entry in Wikipedia has gone to the trouble of registering as a write-in candidate for election, this is something that should be listed here. If you want a subcategory for those who were on the ballot, fine. Alternatively I guess we could have a subcategory for those who weren't on the ballot. But in those very rare cases of people who weren't on the ballot, yet still registered as a write-in, and have an entry in Wikipedia, I don't see the harm of including them somewhere in this category (see Dick Gregory). The number of people who have registered as a write-in for President is certainly very small. anthony (see warning) 15:09, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Subcategories by party

There doesn't appear to have been any discussion about the X Party presidential nominees subcategories. Which parties would it be useful to have those for, ones with 5+ candidates, 10+...? Esquizombi 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Unsuccessful candidates for nominations

Do people who campaign unsuccessfully for a party's nomination for president belong in this category? At present Howard Dean is included although John McCain is not. Esquizombi 17:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)