Template talk:Future election
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why "content about candidates"? Isn't all content in a future-election article prone to rapid change? -Joshuapaquin 20:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, "Content" in general would be more suitable. Also, since the template includes ongoing elections, it should say something like "as the election approaches or unfolds". --Gabbec 01:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I'm going to be bold and make that change. -Joshuapaquin 02:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] removal of template from articles about candidates
A user, John Broughton has removed this template from all articles about candidates, giving the following edit summary: ( removing "future election" tag - it's adding CANDIDATE to "Future elections" category, which is wrong.) Since there has been no discussion here, nor at Category_talk:Future_elections. I'd like to hear some opinions about this. Is it a problem to have candidates in the Future elections category? Do we need a separate template and category for candidates? -MrFizyx 20:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a problem to have candidates in the Future elections category. As is, that category has a useful number of entries (on the order of 200 to 300 elections). Add candidates, and there would be thousands of entries instead, mixing two very different things.
- I removed between a dozen and two dozen individual entries in the "Future elections" category (by deleting the template). If the template is changed to keep individuals out of this category (perhaps a new template, and a new category: "Active candidates for election" or similar?), I'd be happy to add the (revised/new) template back to the articles where I removed it. John Broughton 22:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- There is now a template for future candidates (Template:Future election candidate) which puts those articles into the category "Future election candidates", which is a subcategory of "Future elections" (the category that articles get put into when given the "Future election" template).
-
- I think that's a fine way to keep candidates and elections from being mixed together (which would happen if the "Future elections" template were put directly on candidate article pages) while still providing access to those interested. John Broughton 15:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Election vs. Candidate/Future vs. Former
Glad I found this discussion. I was confused about what is being attempted through the use of these templates, which I find helpful to identify both people and elections. So if we parse the two, through these two categories, it seems clear. The entire notion of a temporal tag in this case seems silly, if only because there are no past/previous/former tags that I can see.--BradPatrick 14:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] candidate no longer?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a running news source. As such, therefore, it ought to contain past information. If a candidate has dropped out before the election, for example, she/he should still be included for the sake of historical reference.—Markles 14:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Of course Wikipedia doesn't discard information when it's no longer "immediate" in nature, but I don't think what you added to the template is particularly useful. The purpose of the template is not to indicate which articles are about current elections - it's to alert the reader to the fact that the information will be rapidly changing (which has reprecussions for reliability). If the candidate is a "past candidate", their article will either continue to be subject to rapid change or editing will drop closer to pre-election levels. If it's the former, we leave the template up in all its glory; if it's the latter, its usefulness has come to an end. -Joshuapaquin 13:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
