Jump to content

Talk:2010 Illinois gubernatorial election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of Green Primary and Rich Whitney from polling table

[edit]

I see no reason why this information was removed from the article other then the bias of a particular user. In Illinois there are only three legally established political parties the Democrats, Republicans, and the Green Party. Only these three parties have primary elections in Illinois. So it makes no sense to remove the green primary section, and lump Rich Whitney the green candidate in with the other independent and third party candidates especially when none of these candidates has even qualified for the November ballot yet. The info is referenced and relevant so I am restoring it to the article. Highground79 (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep the information regarding the Green Party primary, that is fine with me, based on your explanation. His inclusion in the general election polling is not necessary, however, and he should not be included until he obtains either significant support in multiple independent polls, or he is included in the debates (see Talk:United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010). Until then, he should not be noted in the polling just because he was included by one polling firm, receiving very minimal support in the single digits. Gage (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion you point to (see Talk:United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010) had more to do with inclusion in the info box at the top of the page (which has nothing to do with this discussion), and what was there about being listed in the polling data isn't very relevant to article because the situation there had to do with listing Joe Kennedy in the polling table using references (polls) which listed percentages for 'some other candidate' rather then specifically him. Here the poll specifically lists Rich Whitney. As I had said on your talk page previously if Whitney is only listed in 2 out of 10 polls or so I don't think he belongs in the table, but so long as he is listed in 1 of 3 or some other minimal number of polls, I feel he belongs because it is in the best interest of everyone, to accurately depict the data. Once more polling is listed It will become obvious weather or not to have him listed in the polling table on a permanent basis, but with such limited data currently available (space is no an issue) why not include him so that the polling data is accurately presenting the information in the reference (poll). Highground79 (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he's included in another poll, readd him. Until that point, there is no reason to include him, based on existing precedent. Gage (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to take a side until I get some time to look into it more, but please abide by some advice. DO NOT edit war anymore. Please discuss the issue here instead of continually reverting each other's edits. Remember that you both could be blocked for edit warring. Timmeh 22:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Whitney is a major party candidate. Therefore he should be in the polling table with the rest of the major party candidates. I don't see what the problem is here. Dunnsworth (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to include him in the infobox, then we might as well put him in the table as well. I haven't even had a chance to look at these polls yet but if he is getting around 5%+ it seems like he should be put in. -Marcusmax(speak) 16:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cohen should be added to Infobox?

[edit]

It seems Scott Cohen is polling over 5% according to the Chicago Tribune. Should he be added to the infobox ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kommie27 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cohen is getting national attention from the handicappers99.142.13.144 (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's significant and notable.99.142.13.144 (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently deadlocked

[edit]

Right now the election stands with an 8,000 vote margin between Quinn and Brady, final results are expected to be ready by tomorrow or later. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A formal discussion for including Cohen, Whitney and Green in the infobox

[edit]

I propose that we include Cohen, Whitney and Green in the infobox for several reasons. All are within the vote differential between Quinn and Brady and Cohen and Whitney, if not Green, received widespread and substantial coverage (the key measure of inclusion in the infobox, in my opinion). I would rather discuss this here than having edit wars which are unproductive, unhelpful and generally make Wikipedia a less fun place to edit. Thoughts?--TM 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly doubt GOP voters jumped ship to vote for either the left-wing Green Party or the Libertarian Party (neither of which were included in any debates); I don't want them added. I'd be willing to add Cohen, who gained national coverage for leaving due to controversy, gained a decent number of votes, and may have either turned the election from the GOP or took away solid Dem votes; he was the swing in this election, not the Greens or Libertarians. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any proof that Cohen, the formerly Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor, attracted the votes of Republicans? Or is it just more conjecture and bias?--TM 02:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No; I'm simply suggesting he might have, but I honestly don't know, and I don't like you accusing me of editing in bad faith. At all. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be civil. As I said many times before, we need to come up with consensus over all election articles. We can't simply have a seperate discussion for each article, or we will have endless edit wars.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
There are an astounding 19 entries and three subsections in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
Trim links and remove tag. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Illinois_gubernatorial_election&oldid=1196568144"