Talk:2010 United States Senate election in Georgia

Infobox
Can someone point me to where I can find this "must have 5% in polling to be in the info box"? Also, can someone show me a poll that includes more options for this race, other than the democrat and republican candidates? The pole on this page only has two chooses, so it is not possible for Chuck Donovan to get 5% if he is not even on the poll. Dustin Townsend (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The way it is in every single election article is that a canidate must have at least 5% or more in one pre-election poll. After the election, a candidate needs to have obtained at least 5% of the electorate. The reason why this rule is in place is because if we didn't, the infobox could include more than 10 candidates and would look horrible. The point of the infobox is summerize the results of the article. This is due process and the way it always has been. I have edited hundreds of election articles (presidential, senate, gubernatorial, etc.). I'm a veteran editor.

As far as where this rule has been discussed. Refer to:
 * United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010
 * Talk:United States presidential election, 2008/Archive 8
 * User:GageSkidmore

Thank you for reading.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you and don't think your 5% rule applies in this case. There are only three candidates, not 4, not 6, not 10. I could understand in cases where there were 6-10 or more candidates, but that is not the case.

I decided to request help on this issue from wikipedia, because I don't think we will be able to come to an agreement. Dustin Townsend (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources showing candidates...
 * http://qual.sos.ga.gov/QualifyingSearchResults.asp?RaceID=5
 * http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G10/GA#S3

Dustin Townsend (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

3rd Opinion
The articles pointed to by Jerzeykydd do NOT show clear consensus about thresholds for candidates in infoboxes and there is NO OFFICIAL Wikpedia policy or guideline on this, so if you two can't reach agreement, i suggest you raise a request for comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We compromised already asshole so leave it alone.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your courteous comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I requested a RFC, because another Editor has removed Chuck Donovan from the infobox. Yes, it was compromised already, but it looks like we are going to need additional help to settle this.Dustin Townsend (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Does candidate need a certain percentage of polling to appear in infobox?
This issue was compromised on by the myself and another Editor, but the issue is coming up from other Editors. The argument was that the Libertarian candidate, Chuck Donovan couldn't appear in the infobox, because he didn't have 5% in the polls. It was agreed on previously that he could stay in the box, since he was the only "Other" candidate that will be on the ballot and the polls indicate that Other is polling at more than 5%. Another Editor is now claiming that "Other" doesn't mean Chuck Donovan. This Editor removed Chuck from the infobox and didn't leave any comments on this discussion page. To avoid an another edit battle, I think we need comment from someone to settle this reincarnating dispute. Dustin Townsend (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll agree that Other doesn't necessarily mean Chuck Donovan, even though he is the only Other candidate, some people probably said something like Mickey Mouse. But he should certainly appear in the info box, as the Libertarian candidate.  There is no reason why the Libertarians (or any other third party) shouldn't have their candidate in the box.  Chances of them winning are slim, but it's important that they be included.  Just my two cents.  Lolinder (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll second Lolinder in that Donovan should IMO be in the box. The case could be different if there was a large number of candidates but as there only appear to be three, I don't see why any pruning should be done. --Dailycare (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: is this RfC intended as an attempt to forge a consensus on this issue that will apply across all election articles, or simply to clear up the issue as it stands in this article? If the latter, I think the title is misleading and should be changed so as not to give the appearance of a universal precedent when this inevitably comes up in another article. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 23:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless the polls specifically refer to Chuck Donovan, it would not be fair to include results for "Other" under his name. If his name is being included in polls, that should be accounted for; if not, it is misleading to include him. ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 04:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on United States Senate election in Georgia, 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101028234525/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-senate to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-senate
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101003124320/http://southernpoliticalreport.com:80/storylink_928_1619.aspx to http://southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_928_1619.aspx
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100822150516/http://www.wsbtv.com:80/news/24689714/detail.html to http://www.wsbtv.com/news/24689714/detail.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)