Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Kentucky color needs to be changed

There is a Senate race in Kentucky in 2016 (as Republican Rand Paul is up for re-election), but the Senate map shows Kentucky as gray, not red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peach freak (talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix image

Could someone please fix the image File:2016_US_Senate_election_seats.png that the article is using. The Eastern Shore of Virginia is colored Blue, it should be Gray like the rest of the state.Naraht (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Color for Oklahoma needs to be changed

The color for Oklahoma needs to be changed to reflect the fact that Tom Coburn is retiring.

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Senate Map?

There seem to be two main errors on the senate map:

1) Map shows there is no race in Kentucky but there is with Republican incumbent Rand Paul running

2) The eastern shore area of Virginia is coloured blue, as if it were part of the state of Maryland yet it is not and as such should be colored grey as there is no race in Virginia in '16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyb123321 (talk • contribs)

Kentucky was fixed by changing map in [1]. The Virginia-Maryland border looks right to me in both map versions File:2016 Senate election map.svg (where Kentucky was wrong) and File:2016 US Senate Election seats.png. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The map still shows "undetermined incumbents" for HI, OK and SC. With the special elections having taken place it's now clear that those senators will be Schatz(D-HI), Lankford (R-OK) and Scott (R-SC). Someone should thus update the colors for those three states. -- fdewaele, 11 November 2014, 10:17 CET.

David Vitter

David Vitter is running for Governor of Louisiana in 2015. Can he run for governor and senator at the same time?2601:3:1000:593:8994:E37A:2B30:4BD8 (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He shouldn't have to run for both offices at the same time. On or shortly after election day in 2015, he will know if he will be Governor. If he is elected Governor, he will appoint his own replacement, as is the Governor's power in Louisiana in the event of a U.S. Senate seat vacancy. If he is not elected Governor, he has a full year to campaign for re-election to the Senate in 2016 if he so chooses.[1]

References

  1. ^ "David Vitter to run for Louisiana governor in 2015 Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/david-vitter-louisiana-governor-2015-102426.html#ixzz3IHApbfVx". POLITICO. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)

Orphaned references in United States Senate elections, 2016

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of United States Senate elections, 2016's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "West":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Ratings now available

Charlie Cook has published his first 2016 Senate rankings here: http://cookpolitical.com/senate/charts/race-ratings Larry Sabato has done the same: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/

I would imagine that we can replace the "Seats that are predicted to be competitive" section with an actual competitive seat section found in previous years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.245.18 (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map errors

California should be colored light blue because Barbara Boxer is retiring, and Hawaii, Oklahoma, and South Carolina are still black even though the new senators from all three states have now been sworn in. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map needs to be changed: Colors for Indiana, Maryland

As of 3/27/15, Dan Coats, Republican of IN has announced his retirement (3/24/15), as well as Barbara Mikulski, Democrat of MD (3/2/15) and Harry Reid, Democrat of NV (3/27/15). I don't know how to change the map colors, but someone ought to do it. - Dan Epstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.66.254 (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Party Nominations in California

California enacted blanket primaries several years ago for most elections, including Senate races, so party nominations are effectively abolished. I removed references to candidates seeking the Democratic or Republican nomination. If the wording I left isn't perfect, please update it. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly double counting election ratings: RollCall.com and Rothenburg & Gonzales Report

If you retrieve the RollCall.com 2016 Election Race Ratings[1], the page says: "The Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report/Roll Call Race Ratings for House, Senate and gubernatorial contests." The results line up exactly the Rothenburg & Gonzales Political Report Senate Ratings[2], so we probably should remove one or the other column. 96.231.151.159 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. I removed the duplicate ratings.Orser67 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Roll Call Election Race Ratings". Roll Call.
  2. ^ "The Rothenburg & Gonzalez Report Senate Ratings".

Bernie Sanders

I have heard he will remain a Democrat. He became one when he decided to run for president. Should he be listed as one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.34.222 (talk) 14:15, March 11, 2016

We have no reason to believe he won't run for reelection to the Senate as an independent (assuming he isn't POTUS). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He said he would run as a Democrat in future elections in this link. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f7eec73c6c714af7a25b6d60d4449599/sanders-declares-democrat-new-hampshire-primaryfuture 96.247.34.222 (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Competitive 2016 Senate seats.png

Could this image be updated to include Arizona? Surely if North Carolina is competitive, so is Arizona. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary dates

Primary dates are not significant and have not been used in previous Senate election pages. Also - not all races will have primaries because of uncontested party elections or because of other processes for nominations. Plus, many have already passed which makes them unneeded in the interim. I am removing the primary dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C5C6:4800:E0A1:4CF6:BE81:8652 (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About 2/3 of the states still have primaries, it is useful information to know, and the dates fit comfortably within the table. I also plan on removing the dates after the final (non-Louisiana) primary. Orser67 (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to put them below outside of the table. That is where they have been traditionally and you are not accounting for the other processes, runoffs, etc. 2604:2000:C5C6:4800:E0A1:4CF6:BE81:8652 (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If run-offs occur, they can be included in the table. I can't think of any other processes that would need to be included. Orser67 (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a special character that notes what states may have primary run-offs. Orser67 (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not sufficient - not all rules are 50% of the vote and you're not taking into account states like Colorado or Utah which utilize conventions. It's best to not put this in the box - but below. Or create a whole new list elsewhere that goes more in-depth. Bringing in others to weigh in. 2604:2000:C5C6:4800:E0A1:4CF6:BE81:8652 (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, but please keep in mind the rules of wp:canvas. I have noted the one remaining state has a run-off req different from 50%. Orser67 (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, currently, both Utah and Colorado use both primaries and conventions. In Utah, the law requires alternate means for appearing on the primary ballot aside from winning the convention. In Colorado, the convention merely whittles down the field of candidates. These relatively minor details (in the context of an article covering the entire 2016 Senate elections) don't seem to require a mention in the table (althouh ideally they would be mentioned in individual state sections). Orser67 (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: primary dates in summary table

The consensus is that primary dates should be included in the 2016 Senate elections summary table. Editors noted that since not all states had primaries or had runoffs or different ways of nominating candidates, any confusion could be cleared up with more information or explanation. Cunard (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should primary dates be included in the table 2016 Senate elections summary table? Orser67 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that it is useful information that helps readers understand when nominees will be chosen, and fits comfortably within the table. An IP editor has continually deleted this information, arguing that several of the states have already held primaries and the table fails to take into account other processes. Orser67 (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's an interesting addition to this article. I say we keep it.—GoldRingChip 23:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all states had primaries, and it's confusing to add to the table when some states also have runoffs, jungle primaries and other ways to nominate candidates. Plus, it has never been used in previous election pages for the Senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C5C6:4800:A87C:ABC8:BB2A:C10A (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can clear up the confusion with more information or explanations. And, if this works, it can be added in earlier elections' articles.—GoldRingChip 13:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which states didn't/won't have primaries? Orser67 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds quite relevant to me, especially since in many states the most important race. Reywas92Talk 05:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alaska Senate Race -- Democratic -- eligibility

I am, as someone noted from my IP address, Richard Grayson, and I edited the page to include that I have filed as the Democratic candidate for the Senate from Alaska. I see someone has added that I would be ineligible to hold the seat if elected, as I do not live in Alaska. As the Constitution, Article I, Section 3, "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." As three Circuit Courts of Appeals have ruled, you cannot bar anyone from the ballot based on their residence at time of filing since no one can predict where someone will be living at the time "when elected." (Also note: "Inhabitant" is not the same as "resident" or "citizen" of the state. I was inhabiting Wyoming on Election Day 2014, when I was running for the U.S. House there, and I fully expect, if in the unlikely event that I do become the Democratic nominee for Senate in Alaska, to move to Alaska at least long enough to be inhabiting the state on Election Day.

I'm not going to make the change myself -- or any other changes -- but I leave it up to fair-minded editors to consider my point and whether the "ineligible" language should be removed.

The court rulings I mentioned: Campbell v. Davidson, 233 F.3d 1229, 1235 (10th Cir.2000) Schaefer v. Townsend, 215 F.3d 1031, 1039 (9th Cir.2000) Texas Democratic Party v. Benkiser, 459 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2006)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.223.44 (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference to being ineligible. This article is a summary of all of the Senate races in 2016, and there's no reason to include so much information about one specific candidate in one race. Orser67 (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a single Republican got enough votes to make it to the general election"

Someone added this to the California section. I get that it's trying to make clear to the reader that no Republicans performed well enough to advance to the general election, but the wording is confusing, because it makes it sound like there's a vote threshold, whereas in reality the top two candidates (and only them) advance to the general election.

Maybe we need a better (but still brief) way of explaining how the California primary system works. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate elections, 2016. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two suggestions for discussion for the article

  1. In the Latest predictions of competitive seats section, include at the end the seats which are considered safe by all predictions with the party they are considered safe with.
  2. In the Race Summary section, somehow indicate in each row whether the primary has already taken place.

Naraht (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the race summary section, we could maybe use a shading like this to indicate whether the primary has taken place

Hawaii Brian Schatz Democratic 2012 (Appointed)
2014 (Special) 		Incumbent running. Brian Schatz (Democratic)[1]
John Carroll (Republican)[1]
Makani Christensen (Democratic)[1]
Karla Gottschalk (Republican)[1]
Tutz Honeychurch (Democratic)[1]
Eddie Pirkowski (Republican)[1]
Arturo Reyes (Democratic)[1]
John P. Roco (Democratic)[1]
Miles Shiratori (Democratic)[1]
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i Cite error: The named reference RCRG was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Orser67 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So last column in grey or not based on whether the primary has happened. Sounds good, just not sure whether grey or white should be used for before or after...Naraht (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added the shading to places where primaries have yet to take place, since I figure that takes less work for all editors involved. Orser67 (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change in composition section

The "After the elections" table currently has D34 as the last Democrat, followed by the seats up for election all listed as "TBD". Because the winner in California will be one of two Democrats, shouldn't the first seat up for election after D34 be D35, perhaps with an explanatory note? -Rrius (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest removing NYT & 538

Don't get me wrong these are great sources, but they are updated by the hour so they date very quickly. We already have enough estimate sources so my opinion is to remove these two. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who watches the article but doesn't edit it, I agree. I'd rather just see the major changes, not these arbitrary percentage changes, which will be changing up until next Tuesday. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They have it in 2014 too. I am the person who put them up. Ueutyi (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ueutyi: Thank you for doing so, but unless you are prepared to update the table every 3 hours or so the info is dated. Just because the content is in article x, doesn't mean it is a good idea or one not likely to be challenged. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I update them once to twice daily. @Knowledgekid87:. Thanks for the concern I will keep it up until the E-day. Ueutyi (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Results map

Why don't we have a map yet showing the results of the Senate elections? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The results map needs to be updated to reflect the outcome of the Alabama special election... --HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The results map in the infobox, right? That one usually only reflects the November elections, not special elections that are held on separate dates.—GoldRingChip 13:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on United States Senate elections, 2016. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Seeing as the 2017 special election has its own page, I do not see the reasoning of the current article titleBarryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 2016 elections where standard ones, it does not seem logical to group special elections into this article, was there some sort of discussion around this proposed changeBarryob (Contribs) (Talk) 02:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's just added on, typically. In the first 120 years, Senate elections by state legislatures were often in the months leading up to the new Congress in March of the odd year, so it wasn't unusual to have regularly-scheduled general elections in January 1849 or February 1903. Therefore, those articles were written with a two-year span. Since direct senate popular elections began, general elections have been contemporary with the House elections in November of the previous even year, and in those years the special elections have nonetheless been added on to the general election article. That has made some articles even-only and some articles even+odd. It's just the nature of it.—GoldRingChip 12:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that the title change should be reverted, as the article should only be covering elections that took place on Election Day, 2016, while others should get their own pages (but could be mentioned here). Hopefully we can get more discussion and eventually a vote. Dayshade (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would it also cover elections on other days in 2016? Only general elections on Election Day or also special elections held the same day? What about December general elections in Louisiana that has a jungle primary in November? You see, there are so many hairs that can be split here, so instead of cutting all of them out, we've decided to include them all but explain their inclusions when necessary. I hope that helps.—GoldRingChip 22:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primaries associated with Election Day (i.e. elections with a primary on or before that day) could be covered, which can be a clear criterion to use. Dayshade (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to United States Senate elections, 2016 as requested. Please note that this could have been done without discussion as the reversion of a bold move, or through WP:RMTR. If moves for any other previous elections are desired or further discussion of the plural is necessary, I suggest initiating that through adding all pages to a multimove request. Dekimasuよ! 18:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate elections, 2016 and 2017 → United States Senate elections, 2016 – The 2016 election was a normal election held under the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as per other articles on US Senate elections the inclusion of the United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017 is inappropriate as this was special election. It is not standard practice to group special/by elections into previous election articles. . support as nom Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • For many reasons, I strongly disagree. This article is about a collection of elections that happened at the same time; except that in many years those elections actually don't happen at the same time. There are elections in other years that do not conform this proposed rationale. For example, in 2013 there were two special elections that are well and properly included in United States Senate elections, 2012 and 2013. In 2014, there were THREE special elections held in November 2014 that are properly included in United States Senate elections, 2014. I could go on and on and on with these examples. What about other Senate election articles that don't conform to your standard… would you not include special elections held in an election year or general elections that are held on a different date, such as Louisiana December elections or Maine's September elections? There's a standard practice in these U.S. Senate election articles to include all elections in a two-year period and group them into one of three sections: 1. Special elections during the preceding Congress; 2. Elections leading to the next Congress; and 3. Special elections during the next Congress. This standard actually works for elections both under 17th amendment and before that. This standard actually works for elections both under the 20th amendmendment (January 3 commencement instead of March 4) and before that. This standard actually works for elections in the 18th century and the 21st century. It's complete, simple, and successful. And I suggest we maintain it by not renaming/moving this article. Thanks. —GoldRingChip 19:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was not a practice of grouping the special elections that are not help on the same day until you made the relevant changes recently. For example the United States House of Representatives elections, 2016 does not include the 2017 special elections. All other election articles are the same, yes there may situations where the special elections are help on Election Day which can be included in the article with relevant comment, with regards to the situations with California and Louisiana their inclusion is warranted due to the fact an election still take place on election day, either the first or final stages of the jungle primary Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are the "final stages of the jungle primary" actually different from a "primary"? What are the "final stages"? —GoldRingChip 20:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least for this article, I support Barryob's position. I find it very strange to include special elections taking place in 2017 with elections taking place in 2016. I would move odd-year special elections to e.g. United States elections, 2017, with brief coverage given in United States Senate elections, 2018 to explain the discrepancy from the last regular elections. 2018 special elections could have their own section in the 2018 article, as as seen in this article: United States House of Representatives elections, 2016#Special elections. I would make a distinction between pre- and post-17th Amendment elections, so for example United States Senate elections, 1912 and 1913 could remain because often legislatures didn't elect Senators until odd years. The Louisiana jungle primary does not present an issue because it is still held the same year as the other elections. Orser67 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding your statement concerning post-17th amendment elections, the articles for United States Senate elections, 1914 and 1915, United States Senate elections, 1920 and 1921, United States Senate elections, 1922 and 1923, United States Senate elections, 1924 and 1925, United States Senate elections, 1930 and 1931, United States Senate elections, 1932 and 1933, United States Senate elections, 1936 and 1937, United States Senate elections, 1940 and 1941, United States Senate elections, 1946 and 1947, United States Senate elections, 1948 and 1949, United States Senate elections, 1956 and 1957, United States Senate elections, 1958 and 1959, United States Senate elections, 1960 and 1961, United States Senate elections, 1974 and 1975, United States Senate elections, 1982 and 1983, United States Senate elections, 1990 and 1991, United States Senate elections, 1992 and 1993, and United States Senate elections, 2012 and 2013 have the same issue and should probably be evaluated as well.
    Agreed, any change should take those articles into consideration as well. I would just like to reiterate that we should probably not change the names of earlier articles, because many regular elections were held in odd years rather than even. Orser67 (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although it should be the singular United States Senate election, 2016 per WP:NC-GAL (see e.g. these articles on Upper House elections); plural election names should only be used for articles on elections to multiple bodies (e.g. United Kingdom local elections, 2017, Uruguayan municipal elections, 2000 etc – the US House elections seem to be similarly misnamed). We should have articles on the normal elections and then separate articles on the subsequent special elections – this is how election articles are organised for every other country. This should be applied across the US Senate election article series. Number 57 12:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinging @Orser67, Dayshade, and Dcmacnut: to see if you want to amend your supports to the singular version (I edited my original !vote to include this). Cheers, Number 57 15:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point, thank you for bringing this up. It appears that you are correct so I will cast a vote in favor of your proposal. Orser67 (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disagree with this comment, it's not a single election, it's 33-34 separate elections happening in 33-34 (or more) states. Nevermore27 (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nevermore27: It's an election to a single body. Any form of election using single-member constituencies could be argued to be separate elections, but we always keep to the singular – e.g. United Kingdom general election, 2017 or French legislative election, 2017. Number 57 00:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would also add that "United States Senate election, 2016" more intuitively excludes any special elections that take place in 2016 than does "United States Senate elections, 2016", and the consensus on this page seems to be against including special elections. Orser67 (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • The United States is not the UK or France though. The U.S. has a federal system. These are 34 (in the case of 2016) elections held under different elections laws for each state. It is not a single monolithic election. Furthermore, in the UK and France, the standard title for pages is "general election"; if it was "House of Commons election" or "National Assembly election", I think I could be convinced of pluralizing that as well. Regardless, I think it's better to focus on the task at hand (reversing this ridiculous move) and saving this for another discussion. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC) @Number 57: @Orser67:[reply]
          • The U.S. election article titles seem to be an outlier, even among countries with a federalist system of government. E.g. Indian general election, 2014, Canadian federal election, 2015, and European Parliament election, 2014. Unless there's a compelling reason, I think we might as well observe the Wikipedia guidelines provided by WP:NC-GAL, especially if the page is being moved anyway. Orser67 (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • NC-GAL doesn't prescribe anything specific about singular being preferred. Each country has its own particularities when it comes to elections, and I strongly believe that the plural is correct when it comes to United States congressional elections. Nevermore27 (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guess it depends on how you interpret this sentence from NC-GAL: "For elections and referendums, use the format "Demonym type election/referendum, date" (e.g. Canadian federal election, 1867, Faroese independence referendum, 1946 etc)." I take this to mean that "election" is preferred, but it's true that it doesn't explicitly say not to use "elections." Orser67 (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Nevermore27: I cited two examples in my original comment of bodies that have a specific name (i.e. Czech Senate and Japanese House of Councillors – neither use the plural). As peculiar as US politics is, I don't see any reason why it should have different article titles to every other country. Number 57 10:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Number 57: I saw those, and while they are elections to a single body as in the U.S. Senate, Japan and the Czech Republic don't have federal systems, so it's not entirely analogous. "It's what we do everywhere else" isn't a good enough reason to change the page title on its own, because all countries are different, the United States arguably more so. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support See other comments and my comments above. Special elections early in 2016 and later in 2016/2017 have no place being on this article other than in mentions, and should instead get their own articles. The "collection" you talk about should be limited to elections that actually happened on this day. I'm neutral on whether special elections that occurred on this day should be included, but definitely oppose inclusion of ones that did not. As for the jungle primary, we can include elections that are heavily linked to Election Day - by having either their general or their primary on the day. Also, all the other moves (e.g. 1914 -> 1914/1915) should also be reverted. Dayshade (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is already a separate page for each special election and they are discussed on the relevant "Xth Congress" pages. These articles are about the general elections only, unless a special election happens to occur on election day, as it will for Minnesota and John Coyners' district in Michigan in 2018.DCmacnut<> 14:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2016 election is 2016, 2017 is election is 2017, whether it is a special election or not........Pvmoutside (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support changing name to United States Senate election, 2016. Also, I would be fine if the article(s) focus on regularly-held elections (and hopefully concurrently held special elections), but I would still want some kind of table covering special elections, mostly to explain discrepancies between the regular elections. E.g. it should be clear why Democrats won 46 seats in the 2016 election, but have 47 seats entering the 2018 election. Orser67 (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Support The original move is insane, we've never done this on here before. Special elections are not and should not be lumped into regularly scheduled elections. That's what "changes in membership" sections in ordinal Congress pages are for. Why not change every House elections page to include the following year? Or every Senate page when there was a special election? Because it would be dumb, that's why. Nevermore27 (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The December 2017 special election was held a full 13 months after the 2016 elections. There is no way a Democrat would have won a Senate race in Alabama in November 2016. It is clearly a separate event from the regularly scheduled 2016 U.S. Senate elections. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as an IP editor pointed out, if this page is moved than other Senate election articles should also be moved. Given the number of users in support of moving this page, it would be useful to also note opinions about moving other pages. I propose that all post-17th Amendment elections (so those held after 1913) be moved if this page is moved. Orser67 (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that should happen. They were all moved rather recently (January 2-3), so it's not like those titles are longstanding; it should be an automatic revert if this request goes through. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Muboshgu. This title for the page is clumsy and unnatural, and it forces the inclusion of something outside it's scope. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Can't claim that an election 13 months after the main event should be grouped with said main event. We have articles like United States elections, 2017 for a reason, after all. SOXROX (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per above - page move made no sense. Neutralitytalk 16:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Lumping in the 2017 U.S. Senate special election in Alabama with the 2016 U.S. Senate elections is not a synthesis I have seen in any other scholarly or journalistic source, and I have no idea why it was originally seen fit to do that here. Sabot Cat (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Special elections don't effect the article titles, usually. CookieMonster755✉ 15:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Close races

Should "Close Races" be limited to 10% margin? Should there be subheading distinctions between 1%, 5%, 10%, etc? Should they be listed at all, or are they repetitive here? Let's discuss! —GoldRingChip 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes it should. Most major news outlets and other american election wikipedia articals classify over 10% as "safe" 5-10% as "likley" 1-5% as "lean" and 1% or less as tilt. At the least they should by color coded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackForWiki06 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added color coding, per your suggestion. —GoldRingChip 14:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If other American election wikipedia articles make these classifications, then perhaps they are wrong, too… and we could change them; Wikipedia is not static. —GoldRingChip 14:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added "States where the margin of victory was under 10%" to show the standard we're using. —GoldRingChip 14:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why are those classifications wrong? You removed them, but failed to explain why. If they are wrong let me know and I'll help change them, but so far you have presented zero evidence as to why. -JackForWiki06 —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also mentioned in the change log that color coding some how violated color-blind wikipedia rules. 1. I could not find these rules anywhere. 2. I used the web browser extention Colorblinding and you colud tell the difference between red and blue with all types of colorblindness. 3. If color coding close races isn't okay, then we should remove all color coding in all american election artical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackForWiki06 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's Red, that doesn't mean "Republican" it just means "Red." I'm sorry I didn't say it that way. I think we can make this work. —GoldRingChip 20:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thats just not true. In the infobox, the rest of the artical, and all other american election articals the Democratic party is Blue and the Republican party is Red JackForWiki06 (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Explanations are needed, and can't be assumed, so we add party names with the colors. Arbitrary cut-offs don't help the readers. Internal links are preferred. —GoldRingChip 23:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • It says at the bottom "Red denotes states won by Republicans. Blue denotes states won by Democrats." These cutoffs aren't arbitrary, as we have already discussed. I also added internal links, so if you clicked on "Colorado, 5.66%" for example, it would bring you to the artical "2016 United States Senate election in Colorado" JackForWiki06 (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016_United_States_Senate_elections