Talk:2024 Wisconsin State Assembly election

LaKesia Myers
@Asdasdasdff Do you know if Rep. Myers should be counted as not running for re-election, as she has said she will be running for the vacated 4th Senate District, would that imply she is going to not run for re-election to her Assembly seat? Talthiel (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I would put her in the same category as Marisabel Cabrera. Both are running for some other job in the Spring, but if they don't win those offices, I would expect both to run for Assembly in the fall. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Open seats/incumbents
So Ill pull this here from the Senate talk page @Asdasdasdff, I think a big issue I noticed while going through addresses and incumbency is there seems to be no consistent list of moves, only incumbent pairings. For example my searching shows Greta Neubauer got put into a district with Robert Wittke, but no online sources show such a pairing as happening. So either the sources are all wrong and are missing some pairings, or I am wrong somewhere. But if you notice any other errors you can tell me about them and you or I can correct them to the best of our abilities. Talthiel (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I honestly don't think we're going to get definitive information until people start taking out their nominating papers in April/May. When that starts, the WEC will begin publishing a weekly list of people circulating petitions (with which office/district they're seeking).  -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Asdasdasdff Idk if this is the right place to have this discussion, but do you think you'd be able to modify the colors on the map that was added here, and the map that was added to the Senate election page? Since both don't really indicate retirements, and both, in my opinion, don't really show open seats in regards to redistricting. Now I have tried to change them but find inkscape to be a bit unintuitive regarding modifying those maps. So I thought maybe you'd be able to take a shot. File:2022 United States House of Representatives elections retirements or losses of renomination map.svg and File:2024 United States House of Representatives elections retirements or losses of renomination map.svg are examples of how I think the WI assembly/senate maps' color schemes should go. Talthiel (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As has been previously stated in this discussion, I don't think we will have a clear picture of which seats are open and/or will have incumbents running in them until the filing period is finished. I created the maps to show which seats are held by which party so that people could see the new maps and where each party currently controls seats. I think that's better than having no maps at all. Because this is state legislative redistricting, not congressional redistricting, seats are not being "created" or "destroyed," only moved around. The rule that I follow for maps like these is to have the seat control follow the number of the district unless there is an obvious district that it is being switched with. See 2002 Texas House of Representatives election for an example. Unless we can come up with a consensus on how to color the maps, I think we should probably wait until the filing period is over. OutlawRun (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The convention from the 2024 congressional map is the one I've followed, primarily, since for example Boebert did not yet move to the 4th, she still lives in the 3rd, yet her district is listed as open. the Colorado's 3rd district was not destroyed or remade or created, it was left without an incumbent in 2024, this is similar to Alabama's 2nd district, it was neither newly made or destroyed, it was shifted in its boundaries, just as many districts have been for Wisconsin. Talthiel (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose maybe I'm pre-empting the discussion that I know will happen after the election itself. I'm not sure how much I agree with the convention from the 2024 House map, but if you want to try to follow it and re-color the map accordingly, go ahead. Inkscape isn't that bad to use for these maps once you get used to it.
 * I just want to make sure that after the election, we aren't marking these open seats as "gains" for their respective parties unless the seat number it is attached to actually changed parties. This ensures that the number of gains on the map will match the change in partisan composition in the infobox. OutlawRun (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The main reason I bring it up here is I have actually tried to modify them in inkscape but couldn't seem to really get the hang of it and my modifications did not work out well, and I also did not want to act unilaterally. Also don't worry, I have some plans for how to properly show these open seats. I mostly couldn't get the hang of inkscape and modifying/making these SVG files. Talthiel (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried to make the organization of the SVG files work with all the outlying islands that some of the districts have. If you click on the state and the whole thing gets selected, double click again and Inkscape should let you select an individual district. As long as you stay in this mode, you should be able to single click on districts to select them. Once a district is selected, go to the "Object" tab and select "Fill and Stroke." From there, you can go to the "Fill" tab on the right side of the screen and paste the hex code of the color you want where it says "RBGA." Hopefully this helps! OutlawRun (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like you guys worked this out fine without me. I generally try not to edit other peoples' image files (in case they have multiple intended uses), but I am able to edit SVGs if there's an emergency.  -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah it seems to have resolved, I will try to edit the images myself, but if I still cannot get the hang of it, I will probably return here and see if you or OutlawRun would be willing to edit them. Talthiel (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright so I have hit a snag where I apparently am not allowed to overwrite an existing file, which I found out after trying to update the state senate election map, so it seems you might have to do it @OutlawRun. Sorry for the inconvenience. Talthiel (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I added the "Current" flag thinking that would let you overwrite it, but if that wasn't working, I just added the "Allow Overwriting" flag, so you should be able to overwrite the files now. OutlawRun (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright so I overwrote the file, but at least on my end it does not appear to have updated unless I open it up in Media Viewer. Talthiel (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * EDIT: it seems to only be an issue for me while I'm at my PC, it displays it elsewhere. I might just need to restart it I guess. Talthiel (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For future reference, wikimedia images are cached in browser, so when you overwrite an image you need to do a hard refresh in your browser window for you to see the new version. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Predictions/page expansion
@Asdasdasdff I don't know if it's against convention, but should we add in predictions, such as the predictions for Assembly? Or should we hold off on that until more predictions are made later in the year? Secondly, do you think we could or should add in information about the remedial process for redistricting such as maps or charts which could be relevant? Talthiel (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Other information we could include in a background section, if we decide to add such a section, is a brief history of the gerrymander and some past elections or the shift in campaign messaging Clarke v. WEC caused among WISDems, among other things already mentioned. Talthiel (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you mean including the projections for each district vs just the overall projections for chamber control? I definitely think we include the overall chamber projection (we typically do this).  For individual districts, I'd like to see options for how we could do that in the candidate table similar to PVI for congressional races, but if we have multiple projections that disagree on some districts I think we need to see how that would be resolved for the display (we can't fit multiple columns of projections).
 * I'll keep my eyes open for charts on redistricting, but I don't think I have a good resource right now to fit that need. Also if you have seen something that you think we could mimic on a different page, feel free to reference and I'll see if its something that can be built.
 * I do think a background section is probably warranted this year, and should have robust discussion of the history of the gerrymander and the changes that resulted from the new district plan. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you mean including the projections for each district vs just the overall projections for chamber control?
 * I mean for the chamber as a whole. Though something we could do to show district level predictions is use a chart like the one on 2024 United States House of Representatives election ratings, where we could then use it to show different predictions for each seat and put it under a heading titled something like "Predictions/Ratings".
 * For individual districts, I'd like to see options for how we could do that in the candidate table similar to PVI for congressional races...
 * I think we should actually show PVI for these various districts within the incumbents/races chart, but I don't know if we'd have to calculate that ourselves or if some resource online has such numbers.
 * I'll keep my eyes open for charts on redistricting, but I don't think I have a good resource right now to fit that need.
 * Not exactly my original thoughts for this idea, but we could implement a section on the Assembly/Senate election pages which is similar to the "Seats with multiple incumbents running" section on the 2024 US House of Representatives elections or the 2022 US House of Representatives elections page @Asdasdasdff. Talthiel (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For chambers, I think definitely yeah (I'm thinking like this from 2022). For the individual district thing, maybe we have a section just for "competitive seats" where (if we have enough projections) we can make a table like that for the different competitive districts.
 * If we can come up with a metric for PVI by district, I'm in favor of putting it in the candidates table.
 * On seats with multiple incumbents section, I think that should definitely be a subsection, either under "Outgoing incumbents" (since at least 1 incumbent in that scenario will be "outgoing") or "Incumbents and candidates". -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How does this write-up look to you @Asdasdasdff? Would you recommend any changes?
 * === Seats with multiple incumbents ===
 * The following districts currently have multiple incumbent representatives residing in a single district, a product of the 2024 redistricting cycle in Wisconsin.
 * 2nd Assembly district: Shae Sortwell (R) and John Macco (R)
 * 3rd Assembly district: Ron Tusler (R) and Ty Bodden (R)
 * 4th Assembly district: David Steffen (R) and Elijah Behnke (R)
 * 7th Assembly district: Daniel Riemer (D) and Bob Donovan (R)
 * 13th Assembly district: Tom Michalski (R) and Robyn Vining (D)
 * 25th Assembly district: Paul Tittl (R) and Amy Binsfeld (R)
 * 32nd Assembly district: Tyler August (R) and Amanda Nedweski (R)
 * 55th Assembly district: Nate Gustafson (R) and Michael Schraa (R)
 * 68th Assembly district: James W. Edming (R) and Rob Summerfield (R)
 * 84th Assembly district: Nik Rettinger (R) and Chuck Wichgers (R)
 * 86th Assembly district: John Spiros (R) and Donna Rozar (R)
 * 97th Assembly district: Cindi Duchow (R) and Scott Johnon (R)
 * I formatted it to generally only include representatives who have not yet declared where they will run, so we can remove pairings as we get closer to the election. Though I did include some actively running incumbents who were paired and want to run in the same district. If this is good, we could plug this into the "Outgoing incumbents" section or the "Incumbents and candidates section. Talthiel (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Something I've been thinking about @Asdasdasdff, that I might get a second opinion on, is whether we should arrange the candidates in the table in full alphabetical order. So far I've been listing incumbents first, then all other candidates alphabetically, which is not something I think any election pages do, so what do you think, should we just have all candidates listed alphabetically regardless of incumbency or keep it the same as it is now? Talthiel (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have strong feelings on it. But I do try to keep it consistent when I'm editing one.  I probably default more to full alphabetical. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Moving incumbents
@Asdasdasdff Something I've been thinking on, lately, is how are incumbents who declared a desire to run in a district they do not live in treated? I know with Congress Lauren Boebert was shown as having "moved" to CO-04, but I don't know if she actually lives there yet, So should where a representative (in this case Senator/Assemblyperson) placed in the chart be based on their pre-election residency, or where they intend to move post-election? I still kinda lean on the former since someone who announces a move to a new district isn't always guaranteed to win that primary or general election, but I don't know, hence why I want your thoughts on this before I do some editing. Talthiel (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I think we leave the left side as being based on last reported voting address, and the right side can reflect where they file in 2024 (if they file in 2024). -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Recalls/specials
@Asdasdasdff on the topic of Recalls and specials, do you think we should include them in the assembly/senate election articles in their own section as opposed to just on 2024 Wisconsin elections?

I want to see your thoughts as a precursor to another idea I have for the article once we get to the primaries and general elections. Talthiel (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think since they take place in the same year, they should be folded into the Assembly/Senate pages, in a section for "special elections and recalls" similar to the way congressional election articles have handled these. And they should also be listed as separate elections in the 2024 Wisconsin elections article in their own sections (as currently done with the 4th Senate district), since they are distinct from the general election.  (Though I am starting to doubt whether there will be a special election for the SD-04.)  But it does look like we'll get a recall of Robin Vos, but I'll be interested to see if that recall is run in the old AD-63, or the new AD-33 (or the new AD-63??). -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will probably add sections for the 4th special to the senate page and (if the petitions go through tomorrow) a recall section on the assembly page.
 * Another thing I wanted to ask was how you feel on doing a section for detailed district-by-district results, such as how it's done on pages such as 2024 Texas House of Representatives election. I think it'd be useful (and also just a good standard to abide by for the upcoming and future elections imo) but I was curious to see your thoughts first, since this would not likely be added to the page until the August Primaries (unless there's notable races shaping up before then). Talthiel (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I could see doing district-specific analysis for the competitive contested seats, and I'd be willing to help identify which ones I think belong in that category after June 1. But I wouldn't want to do the work for 99 district elections in this article, especially when probably 50 will probably still be unopposed.  I won't object if you want to do every district, but it seems like a lot.  Either way, I'd definitely want to keep the summary box format and have any election-specific analysis be below in their own subsections.  -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah thats fair, I guess its also still too early to think about a whole section for each district's results, so I'll probably sit on this and think about it again in the primary season and then in November. I lean towards doing all the races just to have this page be a useful resource (besides the actual gov't website), but I think it'll depend on the end results after each stage of the election.
 * I thought it'd be a good idea to use such a section to discuss incumbent pairings that occured, whether incumbents moved districts to run, and other things like that. But like I said I'll probably think about this more in August/November. Talthiel (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So in light of the potential recall I've been thinking of how to format a table for it, I was looking at how special election tables are structured, as well as how recall election tables in the 2012 Wisconsin Senate recall elections and I came up with something like this, which sort of takes aspects of several tables and combines them.
 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

! rowspan="2" |Dist. ! colspan="3" |Incumbent ! colspan="2" |Recall petition ! colspan="3" |This election !Member !Party !First elected !Signatures required !Signatures approved (%) !Status !Candidate(s) !Status !TBD
 * Robin Vos
 * |Republican
 * 2004
 * 6,850
 * TBD
 * Running
 * colspan="2" |Robin Vos (Rep.) declared
 * }
 * How do you feel about this? Do you think it's too cluttered with information? Or does it largely work in your opinion @Asdasdasdff? Talthiel (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem too cluttered, but if you're looking for something to cut, probably don't need the petition/signature info. We don't collect like nominating petition signature counts for normal elections, so I think it's fine to exclude. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, also, I made some revisions to the table, how do you think this looks @Asdasdasdff?
 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

! rowspan="2" |Dist. ! colspan="3" |Incumbent !Recall petition (certification?) ! colspan="2" |This election !Member !Party !First elected !Status ! colspan="2" |Candidate(s) and ballot status !TBD Recall election to be held on a date TBD.
 * Robin Vos
 * |Rep.
 * align="center" |2004
 * Recall petition filed on March 11, 2024, 6,850 signatures required.
 * Robin Vos (Rep.)
 * }
 * I merged the recall petition info into the status column, where we could include signature requirements and their total valid signatures. Talthiel (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, added the table, while I was at it I added some background to the recall election. Talthiel (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So per the Recall petition memo, @Asdasdasdff how should we proceed with this recall stuff, should we keep the table? I am inclined that even if the recall does not happen that we keep the section intact to some degree, whether as general background or within the recall section because it will likely impact the 2024 generals, or we could see another recall petition if the SCOWI rules the new lines must be used over the old ones. Talthiel (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would say keep it. This is all a pretty unique situation happening in the context of this election, and makes sense to be recorded as part of that history.  But it hadn't even occurred to me that the WEC wasn't around for the last recall.  Very funny.  -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Asdasdasdff I have a thought, should we split off the Robin Vos recall stuff into its own article where we can go into more detail? Or would you say the process isn't to that point yet? Talthiel (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think a stand-alone article is warranted at this point. I could reconsider if it ends up actually triggering a recall election.  -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah jeez, here we go.. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We should hold our breath, because they still have to decide what district is to be used, since the recall petitioners, somehow, got the required number of signatures in the 63rd, but if the WEC says that one should be used, the recall would be dead, again. Talthiel (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well they rejected it again, and they still haven't commented on what maps should/would be used @Asdasdasdff, I know talk pages aren't exactly for commentary on the page contents but the developments of the recall are getting quite ridiculous at this point. Talthiel (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah. A real clown show.  I think the ambiguity about the maps certainly didn't help, but any Wisconsin campaign manager could tell you you can't turn in signatures that are dated past the due date!! -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely. I think a rewrite for the whole recall section might be necessary, feels a bit too like a play by play as opposed to a proper summary, which is mostly my fault, though it should be easier because the 2nd, and most likely final, recall push is dead in the water. Talthiel (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To utilize this section, @Asdasdasdff, will there be special elections held for Cabrera and Drake's seats this cycle, or are they going to be left vacant for the remainder of the 2023-2025 legislature? This won't be entirely relevant until those two actually leave office in (maybe) July and August. (Apologies if this is a bit of an asanine question, I don't really know the laws surrounding special elections.) Talthiel (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there's close to zero chance of special elections for these seats. The statute basically says that if the vacancy occurs after the end of the regular floor period (which ended in like March) then the vacancy shall not be filled unless there's a special session or veto review session scheduled.  So the language doesn't require a special election in this case even if there's a special session.  It just says there can't be a special election unless there's a special session. So I could be surprised, but I think it's close to zero chance. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there's close to zero chance of special elections for these seats. The statute basically says that if the vacancy occurs after the end of the regular floor period (which ended in like March) then the vacancy shall not be filled unless there's a special session or veto review session scheduled.  So the language doesn't require a special election in this case even if there's a special session.  It just says there can't be a special election unless there's a special session. So I could be surprised, but I think it's close to zero chance. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Table & PVI
So in light of the new table (I don't entirely know how to feel about it being added). I think we should discuss how to handle PVI @Asdasdasdff. Should we leave the current 2020 PVI's in the table, should we try to figure out 2022 PVI? Talthiel (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Looks like he reverted himself on making a separate table and instead combined the PVI into a column on the existing incumbents and candidates table. I don't really know best practice for PVI, since 2024 electorate will probably be more like 2020 (presidential year turnout) than 2022, but 2022 could be indicative of more recent voter attitudes.  -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is important to remember that 2020 election margin is not the same as PVI, which is calculated by the Cook Political Report using 2016 and 2020 election results. I've seen this column added to the 2023 Mississippi House of Representatives election and basically nothing else, so I'm not a super big fan of it. Instead, if sites start to release race ratings for these chambers, it could be useful to have a separate "predictions" table that could include this as a column in addition to the prediction itself. CNalysis has already put up ratings, and more might in the future because of how competitive the chamber will be. For that, though, I would suggest only including non-safe seats in such a table as to not overly bloat it. OutlawRun (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Wispolitics resource
Hey, have you seen this resource from wispolitics? https://www.wispolitics.com/2024/whos-in-whos-out-whos-on-the-move-redistricting-forces-tough-decisions-for-incumbents/. I haven't had time to compare it to what we have yet, but it could be useful if they keep it updated. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * oh I linked that to the "candidates" section of the table, I have been using WISpolitics for a while to update candidacies, but it's a bit frustrating sourcewise that I cannot find anything online about some of these candidates, with the only sources (sometimes only search results) for their names or campaigns being that website in particular. Additionally, fear not, since I added all announced/intented candidacies from that page on to the table, though there are some I am mildly suspicious about (such as Sarah Harrison being listed for the 14th and 16th districts for some reason) @Asdasdasdff Talthiel (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Candidacies
@JuggernautMapper Hello, so I think your edits are welcome and helpful, though I've been having a hard time double checking them, would you be able to show where you're finding some of these candidate announcements? As I rely on the WisPolitics resources as well as any campaign declarations I can find online, a lot of the ones you add turn up empty on my hand, so I was curious where and how you find some of the ones you add. Talthiel (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The Wisconsin Campaign Finance Information System (CFIS). Which is often what WisPolitics sources from when there are not press releases. JuggernautMapper (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

New District 33 GOP candidate
No sign of Vos paperwork. Days away from deadline. We're officially on Vos retirement watch. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's my thought. Though filing all the paperwork the day before the deadline isn't entirely unheard of, pretty sure there's numerous examples of this in prior elections. On another note, should we be on "retirement watch, for any other candidates, and if so, who? Talthiel (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The only other big one that jumps to mind is Jessie Rodriguez. She's in a very competitive district now and she's being targeted because of her seat on JFC, and I don't think she has given any indication she's running again. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think they could still file, the deadline is 5PM on Monday, so there's still a window, albeit a tight one, where Vos and Rodriguez could still file. Like I said it's not unheard of to file at the last minute, but yeah we should def keep an eye on the stragglers or last minute noncandidacy filers Talthiel (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Asdasdasdff It seems both Rodriguez and Vos have submitted their paperwork to the WEC, they're running (and I added Vos in). I also added some other candidates from the WEC and WisPolitics trackers, but I didn't do a very thorough go through, so you might want to do that if you have time. Talthiel (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been traveling this week so will take a look next week. Disappointed that Vos decided to run, but excited by the prospect that he might lose a primary. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also @Asdasdasdff I'd maybe leave the "unopposed" tab empty as of now, since I think some candidates can still file, and the WEC has said there'd be a backlog Talthiel (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, wow, that turned out to be a good call. Surprising amount of delayed data, with the Dems saying today they'll have a candidate in 97 of 99 districts.  -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok so, regarding Cegielski dropping out, wouldn't he still be on the Primary ballot, and thus we should still list him in the article, no? @Asdasdasdff? Talthiel (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All candidates defeated in the primary are removed from tables like this afterwards anyway, and a dropped-out candidate is highly highly unlikely to win, so removing a candidate when they drop out, even if they're still technically on the ballot, makes the most sense to me. OutlawRun (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its an odd situation. My first instinct was to remove him, since he's basically out of the race now, regardless of the ballot situation.  Alternatively, it's maybe something that could be described in a "status" column if we wanted to do that for each candidate.  Like "withdrawn" for this guy or something.  OR, if we do end up doing separate sections for each race, that could be another way we could go beyond the top level currently active candidates list. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * that is true, though part of the reason I wonder is because Vos nearly lost his last primary to a complete rando in 2022, granted the chances of Vos losing this time are, likely, 0 now that Cegielski dropped out.
 * On another note I am leaning more towards making race by race sections on the page, especially given the notability of Dems fielding candidates in 97/99 seats, plus there's dozens (I think) of intraparty primaries in various districts. Talthiel (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If separate subsections were made for each race like exist for congressional races (or some more expansive state legislative races), then Cegielski would be in the infobox (probably with the "withdrawn" marker), but also the table as it exists currently would no longer be necessary. OutlawRun (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "but also the table as it exists currently would no longer be necessary."
 * How so? At least as I see it, the table we have now is a summary of the election which shows the candidates and results for an election, whereas district-sections get more into the nitty gritty, showing primary results, different candidates, maybe endorsements, etc. Though I might just be imagining how it would work differently to you. Talthiel (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose I just think a table like that would be way too bulky and redundant if most of the information were already available in the expanded section. I imagine a table like that just being one row per district where readers can sort by vote share to see which seats were the closest, though that would only come into play after the election had happened. I suppose either way is a stylistic choice. OutlawRun (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose the table as it is now works, for me, in regards to consistency, at least once the election is over it will, likely, look similar to tables which have come before it, which doesn't list primary election candidates, vote totals, and only lists the general election candidates and seat holds/pickups for a party, which seems pretty bare all things considered. I could work up a district-by district set of sections and we can work from there or improve it all first. Talthiel (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Maps & Charts
Hello again @Asdasdasdff, I was wondering if there would be any place for File:Wisconsin State Assembly 2024 R Candidates.svg & File:WI State Assembly 2024 Dem Candidates.svg in the article, the two images show where and how many candidates filed from each party (excluding Independents because there are like 5 of them total).

I kinda want to go in depth with this election, but I don't know if we should have extra maps, data, tables, or charts, in the article at all, because too much things could clutter it up. What are your thoughts on that? Talthiel (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This would definitely be a unique approach to expanding on the page. If you could find enough sources talking about how filings this cycle are different from other cycles, I think the maps would fit. On going super in-depth in general, I know this is kind of self-plugging, but you could base the page structure on what I've written so far for the 2024 Texas House of Representatives election. This cycle has been very notable for the Texas House because of the very high number of incumbent primary challenges. On that page, I'm planning on adding a map showing which incumbents had opponents endorsed by AG Ken Paxton and which had opponents endorsed by governor Greg Abbott. You should definitely go in-depth with this election because of how chaotic it will be compared to the past 6 cycles. Not sure if those maps best fit the type of information we should go in-depth on, but I like your thinking. OutlawRun (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh definitely, as an aside, background on this election, any at all, is something I've been wanting to add to the page for a while. I have added some information there for tonight, though I will work more tomorrow to make the redistricting and clarke sections be more originally written, as opposed being mostly to pulled from other Wikipedia articles.
 * Overall I think the background/issues of the election could cover things like the PFAS funding "standoff" redistricting, the Supreme Court, securing the majority, the high number of retirements and candidates running, funding advantages, etc. Any help or advice would be much appreciated. Talthiel (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)