Talk:2012 United States Senate election in Maine

Maine Mid‑importance

	Maine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maine 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.MaineWikipedia:WikiProject MaineTemplate:WikiProject MaineMaine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) event(s).

Elections and Referendums

This article 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 Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Woods in infobox

I am still somewhat new here so I'm not sure, but I'm wondering if Mr. Woods is prominent enough a candidate to be included in the infobox at the top. As far as I am aware there is not yet any polling where he gets any significant support, although he is on the ballot. If we include Mr. Woods, then should Mr. Dodge and Mr. Dalton be included as well? 331dot (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have an article of his own right now, so perhaps if you create one, that's another story. The primaries haven't even happened yet, so we don't even know who the Dem. and Rep. candidates are going to be. King is in the infobox because he polled at a high enough level not only to be considered, but to win the seat. If Woods, Dodge and Dalton have any significant support in polls (i.e. more than 5-10%) then we can add them. Otherwise, they will probably be non-issues in deciding the campaign. Bkissin (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if this will get through, as the procedure to provide timely information is not efficient. My name is David E. Harrison. email david.harrison@jax.org. At 5 pm, 6/12/12 I tried to vote in Bar Harbor in the Maine primary election. They gave me a State of Maine sample ballot to look up candidates, but the Independent ballot was completely blank. No names were listed. Only Write-in names were accepted. This differs from the Independent Senate ballot listed by Wiki - either Bar Harbor sample ballots are wrong, or Wiki is (I cannot get a real ballot without using it to vote). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.101.216 (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate Candidates do not have to run in the primaries, they are already on the ballot for this November. (And you are probably better off not putting your contact info on the internet. Bkissin (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is no "independent ballot". All independent candidates will be on the November ballot, along with Summers and Dill(the primary winners). 331dot (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

I am certainly not an expert in the subject, but I hadn't removed Dill's photo because it is her official Legislative photo and I thought that was OK to leave(I didn't place it there) since it was from a governmental body. 331dot (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox order

It makes no sense to not alphabetize the infobox. Giving privilege to the "major party" candidates is not the prerogative of Wikipedia. The only fair way to order them is to alphabetize the candidates by last name.--TM 12:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been much involved with the order of the infobox; but before being alphabetized the Republican was listed first because a Republican currently holds the seat, according to those trying to keep it that way. I don't think it's about giving preference to parties- if King was the incumbent he would be listed first in such a system. Having not been a registered Wikipedian long, I'm not sure which way is correct, but I think it should be discussed here before any more reversions take place. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

331dot characterized the longheld policy correctly. Gage (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Snowe were running for re-election, I could see your point. However, with no incumbent, it is wrong to prioritize Summers just because someone in his party held the seat. If there is a longheld policy, please point us to it. I am not aware of said policy.--TM 04:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open seat Unable to source this to a discussion at either WikiProject Politics or WikiProject U.S. Congress, and I'm not going through the +13K pages my search limited it to, but the standard has been alphabetical order of political party, and I see it's been changed again since I started looking. Ladies first, someone editor desperately trying to grab the limelight, regardless, former Governor King probably won't care which order it's in if he gets elected. Every change of it without consensus constitutes Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, which is blockable. You have very little time to discuss this before it ends up at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, or Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Dru of Id (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Could someone please move the links to the candidates up from the bottom? I don't most people are going to go to the bottom to find them....maybe just above the references. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadalt40 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They should not be moved; most, if not all pages on Wikipedia have external links at the bottom of the page. Users can easily access the links using the Table of Contents at the top of the page. 331dot (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary candidates website links

What is the procedure or policy for dealing with the campaign website links of the primary candidates that did not win? Does that section stay the way it is, are the links of the losing candidates removed or put in a separate section, etc.? 331dot (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moore consulting poll

From what I gather by reading the blog discussing the Moore Consulting poll, it is a partisan poll as that agency usually polls for Republican candidates. The writers of the blog entry state they feel it is not biased, but I'm not sure if that is good enough for our purposes. Is such a poll valid content for this article? 331dot (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Charles"

I realize Secretary Summers' given name is Charles, but he is commonly referred to as Charlie in the media and by the candidate himself on his website. I understand that the results section should probably list the name he has on the ballot, but is is OK for other uses of his name in the article to say "Charlie"? Mitt Romney is not usually referred to as "Willard" (his actual name). What is WP policy in this area? 331dot (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chrono order

I assume the polls should be in chronological order of their administration, not order of release- which is why I've put the new Critical Insights poll where I did. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map or no map?

I can't tell if the map is filled in with the winners of each county or if it's blank. It seems that the color used here to signify King is just too similar to the base color of the map. Did he win everything? 67.220.13.11 (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, King did win every county. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Senate election in Maine, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120923035413/http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/2012/09/17/candidates-clash-senate-debate-maine/b6mZTap9vq3VfActwXliIL/story.html to http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/2012/09/17/candidates-clash-senate-debate-maine/b6mZTap9vq3VfActwXliIL/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]