Template talk:Historical election article

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles

Mainspace?[edit]

Moved from User talk:Markles § Template:Historical election article

Why not use it in the mainspace?--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I suspect it is a self reference.—Markles 19:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Ok.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Actually Template:future election in the United States seems to be a self reference which has been used in the mainspace several times before (not just by me). Why is it ok to use that template?--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just have a hunch that's it's not mainspace-worthy, but I can't really figure out why. Can you figure out one way or the other?—Markles 21:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's one idea: The {{future election}} templates tell the reader what to expect from the article. However, {{Historical election article}} tells editors how to edit the article. —Markles 21:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll buy that.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we prevent misuse of this template by those who insist on inserting non-candidates in candidates' listings in articles with this template in their talk pages? Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates that were speculated upon by media sources are relevent historical facts... I recall on User:Lar's talk page you (Steelbeard) only say they shouldn't be given equal footing (not deleted)... this statement is further proof that you never intended to follow Jayvdb's compromise that you previously agreed to.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that while speculated non-candidates can be included in the body of articles, they do not belong in candidates' lists because they were never candidates. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A" historical[edit]

Should it be "…a historical…" or "…an historical." I like AN but I think A is correct anyway.—Markles 21:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're both correct and I too like "…an historical" better. Dr who1975 changed it almost three years ago with the explanation “grammar” and then changed it back, saying that “an historical” was a Britishism, but that's not really true. To me, “a historical” sounds like a pretentious hypercorrection. As he originally thought it ungrammatical and changed it, and you think “an” sounds better, I changed it back. mcornelius (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]