File talk:Mike Maturen ballot access (2016) (1).svg

Should the map distinguish states by filing rules?

Should this map distinguish between: (1) states which permit all write-ins automatically (listed here [1]), and (2) states that require write-ins to file paperwork, in which the ASP has indeed filed that paperwork?

Currently, they are both the same color on this map. Is it worth distinguishing these? Or would that just be unnecessary detail? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 02:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certain states debated

A recent edit [2] to the Mike Maturen article has dropped MI, MN, NY, VA, WI, and the IL counties because they are unsourced. Can they be sourced, or should they be removed from the map? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So rather than removing the states on the map, it makes more sense to add sources for their inclusion, which seems to be happening on the Mike Maturen and American Solidarity Party pages. PeRshGo (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to see these states confirmed, but these states have not yet published lists of qualified write-ins. When reliable sources can be found they should be added. In the case of IL Maturen is not among the 23 candidates that filed in any county. Bcharles (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As this map displays on the United States presidential election, 2016 page please respect the consensus there to not include states without a reliable source. Displaying anticipated states seems to be advocacy violating NPOV.

DC has a law requiring presidential write-in candidates to file by the day before the election.[3] Bcharles (talk) 05:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we shouldn't add unsourced states. However, I see no objection to a "pending" category to indicate states that the Maturen campaign is seeking access to and expect to get it, but hasn't been approved yet. Of course, a source would still be needed for that, but the source could be a statement from the campaign that they expect to achieve write-in status by election day. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The campaign saying they expect to get a state is too tenuous. The campaign could be a source if it confirms having ballot access before the state publishes its list. Bcharles (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How did this Talk page become an article?

This used to be the talk page for a graphic. How did it become an article? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See page history )) --XXN, 09:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]