Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Texas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as High-importance).

Martha McSally

It's an odd moment to add Rep. McSally as a 2020 candidate, given that she ran in 2018 and that race has not yet been decided. However, there are citable claims that she is a contender to be the appointee if the 2018 votes don't break her way. Airbornemihir (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Castro

I don't think we should have him in the decline section. People often drop out early and then run for Senate. Marco Rubio did that in 2016, for example. And with how poorly Castro is polling, and how he would probably be the most electable nominee for this seat, I think that's definitely within the realm of possibilities. DaCashman (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New poll

This poll just came out. Can someone put it in? https://static.univision.com/especiales/noticias/infografias/2019/encuesta-septiembre/univision_national_texas_poll.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.194.165.234 (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why the polling for the general election has been removed?

Because it has been removed, after being there for a while. Should that have been done? HelpPls? (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy Up

18:42, 29 October 2020‎ Etsnev (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC) (Tidy up primary election sections,[ add L/G/I to graphical summary], add L/G/I to poll table, sort candidates in results box alphabetically by surname)[reply]
23:09, 29 October 2020‎ User:VietPride10 (Not sure why entire format of article was changed without consensus on the talk page yet... Also third party candidates are not added to poll tables unless they average 5% in polls.)

Why did I make changes without consensus? See WP:BOLD.

The primaries sections are excessively detailed and the many subheadings clutter the contents box. It could even be said that this is WP:UNDUE. Other pages (c.f. Presidential Election in Georgia) deal with them concisely, including by transclusion. I think my edit tidied that area well.

The paragraph under "General Election" sounds like a Democratic Party Election broadcast (WP:NPOV). A table/box for one debate seems excessive.

What is the ordering of candidates in the results box? It's not alphabetical, it's not polling, it's not the results from last time.

Where is the policy that candidates have to be polling at 5% to have headings in polling tables? Why should they be in the graphical summary but not the polling tables? There's plenty of room. I hesitate to mention that in the Nationwide Presidential polling page Jorgensen and Hawkins aren't consistently polling at 5%, yet have headings, because you may see fit to remove those as well. Etsnev (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Etsnev:The rules of the 5% polling average for third party candidate have been precedent on Wikipedia election page articles for a while now, please refer to other U.S. Senate articles where only candidates have reached over 5% in multiple polls have their own polling column. I apologize as I did not realize the scope of your edits to the page. However, every senate election article follows the same format, each with their own respective primary section that is not hidden, and it would be inconsistent to change the formatting of the sections of just one article. VietPride10 (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VietPride10, I think you should be able to point me to a policy/consensus/... about the polling tables because it could just be circular. The 5% clearly isn't consensus on the US Presidential Polling, or on 2019 UK General Election polling, so your statement that it is on "on Wikipedia election page articles" is either imprecise or incorrect.

Thanks.

Why should they all be the same? How does anything change if no one Senate article can be different? No-one (or only a few) would/could edit them all simultaneously. How does this chime with Wikiepdia's philosophy of openness? Regardless of consistency, do you think my version is clearer and/or easier to navigate? Etsnev (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Etsnev:I don't know how foreign election articles work, but when I refer to 5% polling average, I'm referring to the precedent on U.S. Senate election articles (past and present), which all currently follow the same formatting. It doesn't seem right to change the formatting now, when there isn't a problem with the current format. Yes, the page may seem excessive and long, but important aspects of the election cycle, including candidates and primary contests should not be hidden. I have changed the order of the general election results in alphabetical order and removed the Hegar paragraph from the general election section as it does violate NPOV. VietPride10 (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]