Talk:2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania

Keith Roufus

Former Republican Congressman Keith Roufus has expressed interest in running. Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dr-oz-equipped-to-fill-void-in-pennsylvania-senate-race/ar-AAR52fA?li=BB141NW3

"Former congressman Keith Rothfus confirmed in a brief telephone interview he is mulling a Senate bid, part of the scramble among Republicans in Pennsylvania sparked by Sean Parnell’s unexpected withdrawal from the GOP primary. 'I’m taking a look at it,' he said. 'I have a list of folks I’m calling and reaching out to, and I’m going to continue doing that over the next several days.' Rothfus, 59, represented a western Pennsylvania district from 2013 to 2019". 2603:7081:4E02:54FA:3944:3382:10A1:8601 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Candidate Tables

Are we doing this now on all pages. Personally I hate the way it looks. I don't think we should change things unless three broad consensus. (Aricmfergie (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC))

• Agreed, the table looked messy plus all other U.S. senate races wiki pages did not have tables and only pic galleries. In this page only the republican candidates got a table and not the dem candidates which was weird. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Jeff Bartos Senate Picture

Hello all, I have been trying to upload the Jeff Bartos Senate Logo to the page, as the other Candidates have theirs up. However, Wiki Commons is saying that it can not determine whether or not it is okay to publish. Is there something I'm doing wrong? Flames675 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Publish it and say that it is your own work (if it is your work). Pennsylvania2 (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I tried doing that to no avail. Can you try? Flames675 (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no way to do such, as I do not have the photo. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems to have been uploaded now. Flames675 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

How to treat umbrella union emdorsement

Someone just want to list all unions under an umbrella union that endorsed a certain candidate despite the individual unions do not announce endorsement by themselves, By this standard how to treat the AFI-CIO endorsement that dem candidates often get in general election?list all unions in US? Geeky1127 (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Do not post proven fake poll

there is an alledget to exist fetrerman internal poll that some editors put it here, but the source itself has deleted it and there are multipke source, including fetterman campaign itself, say it do not exist, please do not post it again. https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/1488202687615311880?t=CJmn8LDAhAe366yQQt-dIQ&s=19 fetterman campaign deny it https://twitter.com/thehousered/status/1488214658897035276 another proof. Geeky1127 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@pennsylvania do not delete endirsement providen in the source YOU provided

wikipedia edition needs to be neutral, so the same source that list endorsements for everyone should be listed equally. Geeky1127 (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem that they talked about is not the source's reliability, but rather the notability about the people listed —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 01:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with the source. I removed it because the names you listed fail WP:Endorse. They are not independently notable as they have no Wikipedia pages. You have may only a couple of edits on here, so I recommend you familiarize with the standards for what qualifies as an endorsement to be listed. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

it is understandable. I concede. Geeky1127 (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

David McCormick Website link

Hey how come David McCormick doesn’t have a link in the external links folder 173.217.117.50 (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The most direct answer is because no one added it. With your notice of its absence, I've added a link to his campaign site. —ADavidB 06:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Fetterman endorsement

Is it not a little strange that this has Fetterman being "endorsed" by a person he's paying to do polling for him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.176.76 (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The endorsement dates from before Data for Progress became Fetterman's pollster. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Might want to make that more explicit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.176.76 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

In the template for the redirect, there are 2 things relating to the redirect being fully protected, when there should only be one. I'm not exactly sure what the fix would be since it's only there once in Wikitext. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 18:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Kathy Barnette link?

Where is Kathy Barnette’s page? 100.34.88.237 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is there no page for Kathy Barnette?

Are we living in a Communist or Fascist country, already? 2603:7000:3E03:BD00:2803:1BF1:CB6D:564B (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Simply being a candidate in an election does not get anyone (no matter their party) a permanent spot in the history books. Candidates who have a page have previously held major office or had great success in the private sector; Barnette has not. If she wins, she will immediately get a page. It's not political. We delete Democrat candidate pages all the time for the same reason, and get the same complaints from Democrats supporting their candidate. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

As per WP:POLITICIAN:

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."

A "Kathy Barnette" article will be created when she is elected to office. For now, she does not fulfill WP:POLITICIAN, and it is hard to argue that she is notable as a commentator/author as per Wiki guidelines. The candidates with already existing pages are notable outside of this election (most have held other positions, and Dr. Oz is notable for obvious reasons).

What you can do is make sure any significant, factual information you can source is added to the article. Frequent contributors to this page make sure any vandalism and misinformation is quickly removed. Mooonswimmer 12:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

See 2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Pennsylvania#External_links. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Commies scared! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.3.209.31 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I have created a draft for Barnette here: Draft:Kathy Barnette. If she wins the primary, I think a case can be made for her to have a separate article. Thriley (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• David McCormick 1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2022

Re-Add Kathy Barnette wikipedia page, and reference it in this article. Not doing so would be a form of censorship. She is, according to ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Kathy_Barnette, she is a political commentator. Isn't that enough for her to be on Wikipedia? Zifrs69 (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

fully agree. I am amazed how far consorship can go. what's NPOV about this deletion? BBird (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette (2nd nomination). ― Tartan357 ^Talk 15:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not. See WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

As per WP:POLITICIAN:

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."

A "Kathy Barnette" article will be created when she is elected to office. For now, she does not fulfill WP:POLITICIAN, and it is hard to argue that she is notable as a commentator/author as per Wiki guidelines. The candidates with already existing pages are notable outside of this election (most have held other positions, and Dr. Oz is notable for obvious reasons).

What you can do is make sure any significant, factual information you can source is added to the article. Frequent contributors to this page make sure any vandalism and misinformation is quickly removed. Mooonswimmer 13:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This individual definitely fails WP:NPOL; however, she has started to received some media attention and may soon pass WP:GNG for other reasons. For example, she is featured on the homepage of today's New York Times: "In Pennsylvania, a Hard-Right Candidate's Star Rises". We should definitely monitor the situation in case it changes, but certainly right now she would fail GNG in my view. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That article is about the election, and contributes to the notability of the election article. Creating articles on candidates based only on a typical degree of campaign coverage would be, in my view (and that of AfDs I've participated in) redundant with the election article. I think this is within the guidance of WP:PAGEDECIDE, which tells us that even if a subject does meet GNG, sometimes a new page is not needed when the content fits well within an existing one. For a separate article to be warranted, we'd need to see either an inordinate amount of campaign coverage or coverage not having to do with her campaign. It's possible she'll get to GNG (and I agree with you she's not there yet), but a separate article may still not be appropriate if she gets there because the content falls so neatly into this article. AfDs on candidates seem to hold political candidates to a higher sourcing bar than other bios for this reason. From PAGEDECIDE:

There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.

― Tartan357 ^Talk 12:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

CNN:[1]. Washington Examiner:[2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Zifrs69:, @BBird: I have created a draft for Barnette here: Draft:Kathy Barnette. Feel free to build it out. If you believe she meets notability, it is best to demonstrate that with a well-sourced and well-written article. Best, Thriley (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

John Fetterman Endorsements

Worth noting that John Fetterman was endorsed by the PAC, United Rural Democrats of America. See their website here: https://www.unitedruraldemocrats.org/our-candidates See John's post about it here: https://www.facebook.com/1632814840319802/photos/a.1633233130277973/2852266541707953/?type=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturdays (talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested Edit

This sentence has a typographical error: "Pennsylvania is seen by many Democrats as the best possible chance to pick up all of the Class 3 Senate seats."

Obviously, Democrats would love to "pick up all of the Class 3 Senate seats," but realistically, they are focusing on flipping the swing states. This sentence should probably read: "Pennsylvania is seen by many Democrats as the best possible pick up of all the Class 3 Senate seats." Or to be more clear: "Of all the Class 3 Senate seats held by Republicans, Pennsylvania's is seen by Democrats as their best chance to flip a seat in their favor." Or something to that effect. Since this article is locked, I request that someone able make this edit. Thank you. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Never mind. The article is no longer locked, so I made the edit myself. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Live GOP Primary Results

Should we be using CNN, or the Pennsylvania Election Returns from their Department of State? Multiple sources are using the election returns, like NYTimes and PBS, while CNN and NBC have their own numbers. Sponge12345678 (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Fetterman's endorsement from Ben Nelson

I was surprised when I saw Ben Nelson, a very conservative Democrat, on the list of endorsees of Fetterman, who is very progressive. I read the article in the citation and I don't think what Nelson said at the end is tantamount to an endorsement. Is it coming from the line "every Democrat interviewed said they would support Fetterman if he’s the nominee?" because that line was stated before Nelson was ever mentioned, so I'm not sure if it applies to him. Could someone look into this or clarify what the article means? I want to make sure we don't misrepresent an endorsement on such a key Senate race.

This is the article I am referring to: https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/john-fetterman-pa-senate-race-endorsements-20220511.html

OutlawRun (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Polling

It seems like all the available polls on Fetterman vs. Oz seem to be sponsored by Fetterman's campaign. Are there any non-partisan polling sources for that? (ex. 270towin, RCP, 538) --Cakepops4everr (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Cakepops4everr

None yet. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Michael Flynn Listed as Democratic Endorsement

Can someone provide a source for the claim that Michael Flynn is a Democrat? Every article I’ve been able to find says his parents were Democrats and that he initially registered as one, but nothing about his current registration. Yohannanx (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

He was a Democrat when he joined the Trump administration [3]. I can't find any evidence he's switched since then. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it. It's absurd to think he is still a Democrat, and it doesn't need to be said anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

My edit has been reverted and this unnecessary, unsupported claim was back. That he may or may not have once been a Democrat has no relevancy to the endorsement whatsoever, and I believe that having such a claim in the article would require a cast iron reliable source that confirms Flynn is a Democrat. I shall therefore remove it again until such time as this claim can be verified. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Flynn was a lifelong registered Democrat[4] Andre🚐 17:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

It still remains misleading to label an endorsement from Flynn as being from a Democrat. That same article makes it clear he no longer supports the party. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it's a bit weird and confusing to describe it that way, and probably should not be despite being technically true that he was a registered Dem Andre🚐 17:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight about general election campaign video

About two-thirds of the article's general election campain section is dedicated to information about a video published a few days ago. This should be trimmed or balanced with more content regarding both candidates' campaign activity. —ADavidB 13:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The video has received massive media coverage, with scores of reliable sources covering it and scores more providing opinion. It's easily the most notable event of the general election campaign so far, and the candidate himself has had to field many questions and talk about the video on TV. As such, I do not feel it currently violates WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Some mention should be given, but the current level seems unreasonably high given the video happened just a few days ago. We don’t really know for sure the true weight of the video yet. I agree that it should be trimmed. Dingers5Days (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a mention but Fetterman has taken notice of this section, apparently —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 00:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree. And just because it has a lot of press attention doesn't mean it's noteworthy and contributes to the article for the better. Cable10291 (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

This should be trimmed at minimum and likely removed. Is anyone going to remember this in 10 years? Probably not. Toa Nidhiki05 14:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it should kept in some form, not entirely removed. Andre🚐 15:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cable10291: The fact that the video and its fallout has received such comprehensive and extensive media coverage speaks to its noteworthiness, and is clearly a key event in the subject of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

That's up for discussion, given that other users have brought up concerns with guidelines like WP:10YEARTEST not being followed. Cable10291 (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:RECENT is an essay, whereas WP:NTEMP is policy. It is currently noteworthy, so policy says it will remain noteworthy. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The notability guidelines in general and the one you mentioned specifically (WP:NTEMP) apply to articles, not the content inside it, per WP:NNC. Cable10291 (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: Most of it should be kept because it is the most noteworthy feature of the campaign to date, backed by scores of reliable sources.This is a dated article specific to this 2022 election, and noteworthiness does not fade with time. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Nobody will be talking about this video in ten years, let alone one. Toa Nidhiki05 12:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant. As I state above, WP:RECENT is an essay, whereas WP:NTEMP is policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not how this works. I'll be trimming the section down to a size more likely reflective of its long-term notability. Toa Nidhiki05 18:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

You'll need to attract support for your changes, or they will be reverted. There is clearly no consensus here for such trimming. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You have my support. Another user is saying you "need to attract support", I've already voiced my support for the trimming given your reasoning. Cable10291 (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I initiated this talk section and declare my support for trimming as well. Dingers5Days' comment supports trimming too. Only Scjessey is fully opposed to a trim, with Andrevan wanting it "kept in some form". —ADavidB 05:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You can consider me fully opposed per Scjessey. Andre🚐 17:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

As a non-Pennsylvanian, I will say that the original form of the section seemed very bloated, and that a lot of the details in it were superfluous in the grand scheme of things. It is absolutely significant enough to warrant its own section, but I agree that its current trimmed form is better. OutlawRun (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it is relevant based on its notability and significant coverage, and will likely remain so. Andre🚐 17:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:NTEMP is a guideline, not policy, and has to do with whether a topic is worthy of its own article; it is not about information inclusion within an article. —ADavidB 06:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. Nevertheless, a guideline trumps an essay. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The guideline doesn't apply to the disagreement here. —ADavidB 18:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this is by far the most significant post-primary event in Oz's senate run and must be given the due WP:WEIGHT it deserves. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

it's really not. Probably doesn't even deserve its own section. Toa Nidhiki05 13:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I really don't know how you can say that. It is still getting news coverage, and even prompting people to do parody videos, etc. Some political commentators have said it likely killed any momentum Oz had against Fetterman. Is there any other post-primary event in Oz's campaign that has attracted even a tenth of this much media coverage? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it's far and away the most significant horserace event in this race. Andre🚐 14:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, it's very clear you're in the minority here. Toa Nidhiki05 15:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You seem to not understand WP:RECENTISM. This article is about a campaign that will happen this year, of course the events in the course of that campaign are worth covering, regardless of if they'll be talked about much in ten years. Including content on this video is definitely appropriate. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

And there is coverage in the article, right now. Just not four fucking paragraphs for a video about a vegetable plate. The brunt of our campaign coverage for this article should not be about this, and should instead focus on all aspects of the campaign - not a video nobody will care about in half a year, let alone 10. Toa Nidhiki05 14:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, there isn't a consensus here to remove the material. contrary to the revert by TN05. Andre🚐 14:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Among users discussing here, there is. At the very least there's no consensus for a four-paragraph essay about the intricacies of a Twitter video about a vegetable plate. Toa Nidhiki05 15:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete or at least trim it down significantly. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd also be in favor of deleting the section entirely. Toa Nidhiki05 20:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

By all means. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverted, this material should not be removed. We can start an RFC. Andre🚐 14:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Should crudites video be included in this article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article contain the section and info about the crudites video? Andre🚐 14:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - This video won't be notable in 10 years, it won't be notable in six months, and it's not even really notable now. The article should focus on issues that actually matter in the campaign, not "viral videos". Toa Nidhiki05 15:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support, proposer, most notable event in this campaign so far by weight in reliable sources. Will likely be remembered in the context of the election, as a major gaffe/snafu and as savvy social media marketing, especially if the current polling reflects the final result. Andre🚐 15:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Given the large amount of media coverage this has gotten compared to most other developments during the general election campaign, I think that in 10 years, we will be able to point to this as one of the defining things about the campaign. If people remember much of anything, it will probably be this, so I think it should be there. OutlawRun (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support: It dominates in present coverage, so it does not appear to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, though it's not of earthshaking importance either. If later coverage hardly ever mentions it, then consider removing it. Our articles are not frozen in time (except in article history :-).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support using a simple 10-year test is nonsensical given that this article is about an event happening in 2022. If a reader ten years from now happens to be interested in this election, then the crudites video would indeed be relevant to that, as it's been a significant part of the campaign. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Support The social media aspect of these campaigns has been significant and elevated in importance in comparison to the typical race. That said, I would see crudite as more of a single point to be made (not its own subheading) in a broader discussion of the social media aspect of the campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JArthur1984 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• If possible I'd prefer to replace it with higher level analysis. As I understand it Fetterman's social media campaign materials have been viewed as notably skillful and effective, whereas Oz's social media campaign materials have been viewed as notably bumbling to the point of backfiring. Surely we can find source(s) that comments on their social media efforts more generally, rather than us getting into low level discussion of an individual video? Alsee (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Every last drop of info is encyclopedic and essential. --Dashboard breaker (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. To date, the crudité video has been the defining characteristic of the Oz campaign, generating considerable media coverage and social media engagement. This is right up there with "basket of deplorables" and "very fine people on both sides" to my mind. I would also argue that notability, which this clearly has, does not magically "expire" with the passage of time. Is there enough notability for an independent article? No. But there is certainly enough for it to receive appropriate coverage in this article, with the due weight it clearly deserves. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Subsections

I know this is a massive can of worms because it applies to so many articles, but it really bugs me that we have so many duplicated subsection headings in clear violation of MOS:SECTIONS. Does anyone have a good solution to this problem? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Doubtful. This is an issue in pretty much every election article like this, and is likely to remain that way. The benefit to restructuring doesn't outweigh the costs of doing so. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a shame you can't have compound anchors. [[2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania#General election#Polling]], for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, now I think about it for a minute you can use 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania#Polling_3 to directly link. What's dumb is that the wiki software doesn't differentiate like this when creating edit summaries. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Oz vs. Fetterman debate

Should we update this page to summarize the debate yesterday? Apparently, it, and John Fetterman's performance in it, is being talked about quite a bit.[5]https://news.yahoo.com/john-fetterman-dr-oz-held-051244762.html [6] https://www.newsweek.com/john-fetterman-most-painful-moment-disastrous-dr-oz-debate-1754712 173.187.240.5 (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. We need a short description of the transcription/monitor arrangement for Fetterman, followed by a summary of their performances and any key takeaways. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Have a nice day. 173.187.240.5 (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The information needed to compare Oz and Mastriano's performance fairly

I think just "far right" can not show the special reason why Mastriano perform that bad since Trump is also far right, and within several words it can be listed here without undue weight. 128.194.2.104 (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

We do not list Trump as far-right. Plus, that much info is undue weight given the shortness of the section. If you go into that detail regarding Mastriano, then applicable info regarding Fetterman's underperformance would also be needed. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Updating images after the winner takes office.

This really applies to all election articles but I decided to go here because why not.

I've noticed that in articles about elections, after the winner takes office and his official portrait is released, his image in the election article is switched to their official portrait. For example, before John Fetterman's portrait was released the image portraying him was his official portrait as lieutenant governor and it was switched to his senate portrait.

Should this be done? Why is this done in the first place? RookieInTheWiki (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the photo should not be updated to one taken post-election. The purpose of the image is to show how the person appeared during the election campaign, not afterward. More recent images would be welcome, however, in the individual's main article or an article for an office held when the photo was taken. —ADavidB 23:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that if there is no other alternative, such as for obscure new House members, then their official portrait should be used, since it was still taken relatively close to the election temporally. If a high-quality, especially official, portrait of the candidate exists of them before the election, then I think that one should be used instead. Use the official portrait for their re-election campaign the next cycle. OutlawRun (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

We should use the official portrait. The date it was taken was closer to the election. GI Brown 1970 (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I vote in favor of using the official portrait. It's just what we tend to do elsewhere. ~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 16:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Double rounding

OutlawRun and TheXuitts, double rounding is controversial and you are both right. I would suggest discussing it here. I think the issue is that we didn't do the initial rounding to 51.25; that was done by the source that we cite, the PA state department. 25stargeneral (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)