Talk:2014 Kansas gubernatorial election

not List of Gubernatorial candidates
An IP keeps reverting from prose to list. However, this is not List of Gubernatorial candidates and our readers are competent enough to read whole sentences. In fact the only reason that "declined" candidates should be included at all is through text explaining why they were considered potential candidates in the first place, something you cannot do in a list. That content should either be appropriately expanded to give the context or removed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * any inclusion of "hypotheticals" would especially need to have actual prose content stating who had hypotehticized that they would run, why they hypotehticized and why the hypotehticized running never occurred be of any encyclopedic value. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're on about. There are no "hypothetical" candidates listed anywhere on the page. Tiller54 (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * this is not a List of people who didnt run for governor. A bulleted list of of people who never entered the race is pathetic non-information. IF there is a reason to include them in the article about the race, the only way that could possibly be meaningful is to include a textual context about who thought someone might run, why they thought they might run and any explanations of why they did not end up running. Our readers deserve better than 1) to be treated as idiots who cannot read a prose sentence and 2) have irrelevant information tossed at them forcing them to click into the sources to have any idea why we might have included such otherwise nonsensical material on the page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not "pathetic non-information". All the people listed publicly said they weren't going to run for Governor and it is certainly relevant to the article. This article and all the others like it are overviews of the entire election, not just the Democratic nominee versus the Republican nominee. As such, this includes who ran and who didn't, who endorsed who and what the polling showed. As for your suggestions about "textual context", that is done in a lot of articles but in addition to the listed candidates, not instead of. For example, see here, here, here and here. Tiller54 (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Any case where someone specifically rules it out, it's worth including. Remember, an election is a historical event, not a tally sheet where we add and cross off names. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your list is the "tally sheet where we add and cross off names". And as you said, the lists in the other articles are IN ADDITION to the actual prose which is the important part. And Yes, simply bullet listing a bunch of people who have no actual participation in the subject of the article is "pathetic non-information". The context for them being considered potential candidates and the manner and reason for them not being actual candidates are what would actually matter and that cannot be provided in bullet lists.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's why it shouldn't be a list, but rather prose that follows the natural order of things. Take a look at Baltimore mayoral election, 1999, which I'm working on, for an example. In that case, Kweisi Mfume's non-candidacy was quite important. As was the timeline. In this case, we should write about Kobach's consideration of the race and decision not to run, and that of anyone else who was discussed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to go and add backgrounds on all the races. I've done all the ones I've listed above (OR-Gov, IA-Senate, NE-Gov and a couple of others) but I simply don't have the time to do them all. Lists are useful though and they're the standard across all election pages for good reasons: they're easy to read and present all the information. Tiller54 (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * they DONT present all the information. especially for the "declined to run" - a bullet list provides NONE of the information as to why anyone would care that someone didn't run. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That information is contained in the reference provided. Tiller54 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * but if the declined candidates are in any way important enough to include in the article, then the reasons are the actual important parts that need to be included too. we do not make our readers click to the sources to find out why we bothered to include otherwise irrelevant content in the article. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, it's not "irrelevant". I refer you to the top of this very page, which says quite clearly: "This is an historical article, not a daily tally sheet. If someone drops out or loses, do not erase them; rather, refer to them as having ran and lost, dropped out, etc." Tiller54 (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * most of them are not drop or loosing, they WERE NEVER PART OF THE RACE AT ALL except for someone's hypothesizing they might do so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please calm down and read the first part again. As this is a historical article, this means including candidates who talked about running but chose not to. The second bit refers to editors who delete withdrawn candidates, which was a thing on pages like this for a while. Tiller54 (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Can I just point out that not all who decide to run are equally noteworthy? Why should this be "remove them all since they're not running" or "keep them all since they're all verifiably not running"? Some non-events are better verified, given more weight, than others. Please exercise editorial judgment, and leave the one-size-fits-all for the freshman comp essay. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

request for comment

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What should the 1) format and 2) content of the article be?

1) Should the article be primarily in a List format like this] or a Prose format like this? 2) Should the content of the article contain information about people who did not enter the race for governor? If so, what should be included about those people who did not enter the race?

1) Primary format: List or Prose?

 * Primary focus: prose - This is an article, not a List of candidates, therefore the primary method of presenting information should be in prose, with some additional highlights potentially provided in an embedded list. Our readers are smart enough to be able to read complete sentences, this is not SIMPLE English Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Both. These pages are partly lists of candidates and lists are used on every single election page, whether it's Senate, gubernatorial, House, Mayoral or presidential elections. And it's not just limited to US elections, it's standard for elections in all countries. A prose section detailing the respective primaries and the general election should be included as well. A good example is this page, which uses both. Tiller54 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: Your suggestion sounds nice. ← Abstruce  16:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Primary prose, lists can be included A list can be helpful in presenting the information in bullet points, but it should not be a replacement for prose, which will give more context as to which (potential) candidates were favored by the establishment/advocacy groups/the voters. It creates a narrative that shows who got in when and who stayed out when, which develops needed context. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

2) Content: Include people who did not enter race? If so, what should be included?

 * Only include content about people who didn't run if we include context from third party sourcing (preferably multiple sources so that we are not WP:UNDUEly emphasizing a single opinionista's view) making an assessment for our readers, in the article, about why the person was considered a potential candidate or why their not running is important. Simply listing a bunch of people who did not participate in the event is WP:COATRACKing. Listing names without including context is just confusing to our readers. Making readers click out of Wikipedia to read from the sources why we had listed a name is also a disservice to our readers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes As long as it doesn't just mean that people who were speculated but never filed or said anything are moved to the "Declined" section after the filing period ends. There is a difference between that and people who actually come out and say "I'm not running". As it says above, this is a historical article and people declining to run can often have a significant impact on an election. As for including context and "an assessment" of each person who declined to run, that is already done on some pages (like the example listed above). It should be done on more but it is time consuming and there's a backlog of dozens of articles. However I hardly think it's "confusing" to people if they're presented with a list of people who competed in an election, a list of those who withdrew from the race and a list of those who declined to enter the race. Tiller54 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree If a source like Roll Call throws out a bunch of names, and then one of those people never gets in the race or even says anything about it, then we can chalk it up to an isolated view. Keep them in the "potential candidate" section while the filing deadline hasn't passed, though. If the person actually states publicly that they won't run, well that means they considered it and should be included in the historical context of the article as "declined". If they never say a word about it, then they should be removed from the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: Your suggestions sounds nice. ← Abstruce  16:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page protection
Because you're all edit warring, I've requested full protection for this page. Play nice. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've done so. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Kansas gubernatorial election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130910134048/http://vote4kansas.com to http://www.vote4kansas.com/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"Conservative values"
I am not sure whether this exhibits bias on Wikipedia in saying that this election was viewed as a referendum on Brownback and his conservative values. If it does, then it should be removed. However, the citation for it says the exact same thing. What do you guys think?