Talk:2014 United States Senate election in Nebraska

Stenberg's history
User:Tiller54 and I apparently disagree on whether the description of Don Stenberg should mention his four previous attempts to win a U.S. Senate seat; he/she prefers only to list his present status as state treasurer and his past position as state attorney general.

I submit that Stenberg's perennial candidacy is indeed relevant to this article. First, it's a reason for listing him as a potential candidate, even if he himself has issued no statement on the matter. Second, it will affect his chances of winning if he does choose to run: on the one hand see, for example, this Politico article concerning his chances in the 2012 Republican primary; on the other, he's got tons of name recognition and a base of support from his previous runs, which one wouldn't expect from a state treasurer and former attorney general.

Stenberg's yearning for office is a byword among Nebraskans; I can't cite a source, but among my acquaintance, both Democrats and Republicans, the initial response to Rick Sheehy's resignation was "Now Stenberg will run". A description of Stenberg that doesn't include his frequent runs for the Senate is an incomplete one. Ammodramus (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * When someone's held and run for as many offices as Stenberg has, listing every single one is overkill. His Senate runs are more relevant than his time as Attorney General so I removed that. Tiller54 (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Stenberg has a great deal of support from pro-lifers, a significant bloc in Nebraska politics; this support derives at least in part from his tenure as A.G. (vide Stenberg v. Carhart). Listing the office doesn't add unacceptably to the length of the article.  Ammodramus (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That has nothing to do with this article. It's a list of people who might run for an office, nothing more. Tiller54 (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Between now and November 2014, the article will undergo considerable expansion, including much more detail on those who actually file as candidates. If Stenberg runs, which is not at all unlikely, his serving as A.G. will need to be mentioned.  There's no reason not to do so now: the extra half-dozen words hardly constitutes excessive detail.
 * We should also make it clear that he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate in his previous runs: although Nebraska's unicameral legislature doesn't include a state Senate, not every reader will know that. Ammodramus (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It does not need to be mentioned. There is no such level of detail for any of the other speculated candidates and for a good reason - it's completely unnecessary. Listing his current position is fine; listing his four previous Senate runs is perhaps relevant; listing a position he held a decade ago is not. Tiller54 (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Regular format for polling"
User:Tiller54 and I disagree on the appropriate format for opinion-poll information. He/she has used in-text external links, under the names of the surveying organizations. I believe that the links should come in the form of formatted citations. Our two versions can be seen in this diff. Tiller54's edit summary was "Restore regular format for polling".

The in-text EL format appears contrary to WP:ELPOINTS, which states "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article", with a footnote that begins "Exceptions are rare...", and doesn't appear to comprehend this case in the list of rare exceptions. It's also contrary to WP:CITE, specifically to the subsection "Avoid embedded links".

I see no good reason for an exception to the EL policy in this case. ELs are subject to linkrot, and they don't convey as much information about the source as do formatted citations. It's possible that these and other points have been discussed elsewhere, and that a strong consensus has been reached among many editors for Tiller54's "regular format". If so, could we get a link to that discussion before restoration of the in-text ELs? Ammodramus (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I refer you to every other U.S. elections page on this website and also to the other polls on this page that you didn't change. For example, presidential elections, Senate elections, House elections and gubernatorial elections. If you want to make wholesale changes, please seek consensus first. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've brought up this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Congress and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums; I hope that we can get some input from members of these WikiProjects.
 * What useful purpose is served by using ELs rather than sourced citations? Even if ELs are acceptable, it seems like formatted citations should be preferred, for the reasons given at WP:EL and WP:CITE.  Ammodramus (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's really no need to switch. The polling tables list the name of the polling organisation, the URL, the date, the polling sample, the margin of error and the results for the candidates. Moving to a ref would add... the accessdate? It's just repeating information that's already there and using ELs makes it easier for people to click through and look at the numbers themselves. Tiller54 (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The current format doesn't supply the source from which the poll data were taken: newspaper article, campaign press release, Joe Schmo's blog, etc. A citation including this information allows readers to judge the reliability of the source.


 * The current format is also subject to linkrot; this is discussed at CITE and at the essay WP:BURL. A link consisting of a bare URL doesn't give the reader much help if a news organization restructures its website so that the old URL produces 404s.  If we know publication names, article titles, authors' names, and publication dates, we can sometimes find a working URL for the information.  Without that information, fixing a broken link takes a great deal more work.  Ammodramus (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually they do supply the source. Most polls links are to PDFs like this and this and this. The average reader might not click through a citation to read the poll themselves but an external link makes it much easier.
 * And I understand your concern but the current format really isn't susceptible to linkrot - the tables provide the URL, the name of the polling company, the date, the sample size, the margin of error and the results for each candidate. That's more than enough to find a working URL if the current one stops working. The other things you mention - author's names, titles - polls don't have specific authors and the titles are mostly generic things, like "Iowa Statewide Poll Results". Tiller54 (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Candidates own pages in external links
They're all available through the ballotpedia link, so leave them out per WP:EL and WP:NOT (especially WP:NOTLINK and WP:NOTDIRECTORY). The websites all exist to promote the individuals, and will all likely be gone within a year. --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What is or isn't included at Ballotpedia is irrelevant. The list of sites is hardly "excessive", nor are they "loosely associated", thus NOTLINK and NOTDIRECTORY do not apply. They are official campaign sites and directly relevant to the article, thus they are included. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What is included elsewhere is most definitely relevant: ELNO#1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Generally, this is interepreted in conjunction with NOTLINK to mean that redundancy in external links is inappropriate as we're not here to create (and maintain) directories. The topic is the election. When it's past, we'll report on the outcomes and add any historical highlights if applicable. --Ronz (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)