Talk:2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 5 years  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 February 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160314001619/http://dcist.com/2016/03/_dc_republicans_who_account.php to http://dcist.com/2016/03/_dc_republicans_who_account.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
GamerKiller2347's Opinion on Trump in the Infobox
editTo go back to the discussion on Trump in the infobox, I would like to bring attention to the fact that 1860 winner Abraham Lincoln does not appear in the infoboxes for Kentucky, Maryland, and Virginia, which were states that Lincoln was on the ballot in and still failed to receive at least 5% of the vote. Also, 1820 winner James Monroe is the only candidate that appears in the infobox, despite the fact that 19.4% of voters did not vote for Monroe. With these 2 reasons, I don't see any reason why this infobox should be treated any differently. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Surely someone more familiar with current consensus on US infoboxes inclusion criteria can bring more light on this, but I'd say that's because Trump was the main challenger here, even if falling below the 5% threshold. Lincoln finished in fourth place in all those three states you mention in 1860. As for Monroe in 1820, well, there was really no alternative candidate to bring in so I dunno who else could be put in the infobox. My two cents as an occasional reader of US elections. Impru20talk 00:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- In addition to the above, there was another RfC which specifically referred to this contest. It also determined that we should always include at least two candidates in elections infoboxes (if at least two candidates run). There was a more recent RfC on a similar issue which was largely inconclusive, and does not seem to have overruled the previous consensus. If someone really wants to reopen this issue, I would recommend a RfC on the Elections and Referendums project. It would also be wise to advertise it widely (perhaps hist, pol & style). That said, I think it is pretty clear we should have two candidates in the infobox here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Dubious
edit1944 Mississippi margin was greater, and i don't know what else may have been bigger; clearly a wrong statement 2402:8100:396D:7B55:BC3E:C4B5:ACCD:9483 (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)