Talk:2012 United States Senate election in Maryland

Changing Campaign Website format

I would like to invite other editors to weigh in on a current issue on this page: [1]. I strongly disagree with the changes made to the campaign website's because it makes them not as visable, and could be overlooked, and more importantly, this change is contray to how ALL election page campaign websites are done. My goal is to come to a consensus on this issue. Thank you! America69 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears I am not the only editor who agree's with reverting back to the original format:[2]. America69 (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you here as well. This is the way it's done on every other election page, past, present and future and there is no call for a change, nor has there been any discussion about any change. Attempting to force through changes and saying things like "It is not up to me to discuss my changes" and characterising an editor's changes as "your changes" when he is only reverting to the consensus way of doing things and calling for any proposed changes to be discussed beforehand is a very unhelpful way of doing things. Tiller54 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well. I looked at every senate election page and the only instance I saw using the proposed format was recently added by an anonymous IP address to the Wisconsin election page. That was done by an IP that I warned 3 days ago for a separate act of vandalism, and I have since reverted that edit on the Wisconsin page. It's a very clear consensus that the collapsible box is not the correct way to display campaign sites. Rxguy (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

As they all fail WP:ELNO#19 and most will be dead in 12 moths time, it is good compromise to have them in a collapsed table. Mtking ^(edits) 21:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't really help your case, in fact, it actually hurts it. As the primaries occur the campaign sites of losing candidates should probably be removed and all of them could reasonably be removed after the election as they no longer serve a purpose, and as you said will probably no longer exist. Your solution is to put them out of sight, out of mind. If editors are more likely to not see them with your edit, that means they are less likely to remove them when that time comes, increasing the chances of leaving dead links on these pages. Rxguy (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I accept that, in fact WP:ELNO#19 is clear that they should not be listed, so lets just remove them totally now. Mtking ^(edits) 06:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with that interpretation Tiller54 (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So how exactly do they meet that criteria ? They are clearly just links to organisations listed in the article, which is exactly what is proscribed. Mtking ^(edits) 09:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"What can normally be linked - Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." As these are official campaign sites, they should be linked to. Tiller54 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is not about the individuals, in the case of BLP's on the candidate then you could have a link to their campaign site, but as this page is about the state election it is a clear "Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article" so should be removed. Mtking ^(edits) 20:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

These aren't links to the DCCC or Crossroads GPS or any "organisation", they're links to the candidates official sites. Besides, all of this is irrelevant, it's long-established that external links to candidates campaign sites are included. It's the same on every other page and it always has been. It's just common sense. Tiller54 (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You will find that they are all sites belong to the campaign committee of the person up for election, which is an organisation, and as WP:ELNO is a WP wide guideline, WP:CONLIMITED applies here. Mtking ^(edits) 00:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:ELNO can be interpreted differently. I agree with Tiller54's view that official campaign pages qualify for what can be linked. Rxguy (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

ahmad photo available

the photo is at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dean4a.jpg thank you very much Deanahmad (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A little busy but will do asap if no one beats me too it. CarolMooreDC 20:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Election Results

I have updated this section with the unofficial results as of 12 November. I will update further with the final results (assuming any changes are necessary) once the MDSBOE certifies the election results. Elcid89 (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)