Talk:2010 United States Senate election in Indiana

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: Indiana High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Indiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as High-importance).

U.S. Congress

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) event(s).

General election polling[edit]

I don't agree that the general election polling with Bayh (or Pence for that matter) should be included. We know that neither of those people will be the nominee, so what is the point? It would be far more sensible to note elsewhere the general thrust of the polling than to continue to include all of these extra tables. -Rrius (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typically I would agree with you. But here, Evan Bayh retired for a reason: he was in trouble. The polling is needed for this election page.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Evan Bayh retired due to political disagreement with party leaders and cynicism with Washington. The polling shows that Bayh was leading by comfortable margins (except against Pence). I think if we could summarize the info and integrate into the article, then we can get rid of the charts for now. Boromir123 (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should summarize it but it can't be simply one sentence, more like a paragraph. And on a side note, Bayh's approval ratings were in the low 40% range (according to Rasmussen) and his lead wasn't safe against Hostettler.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it could be more complicated than a single sentence as his lead was anywhere from a few to 20 points in polling taken during a relatively brief span, but the tables just don't seem necessary. -Rrius (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tables should stay. Period. There is no necessary reason to remove them at this point in time. Though Bayh dropped out, this article should reflect all information from the past and present, not be removed when something like this happens. Gage (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind. Gage (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you care to explain why polling for non-candidates is important to keep in table form instead of just making bald assertions? -Rrius (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in United States Senate election in Indiana, 2010[edit]

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 election in Indiana, 2010'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 "resultsref":

From United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010: "Chicago Tribune - Election Results". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2010-02-04.
From Texas gubernatorial election, 2010: "Politico - Election Results". The Politico. Retrieved 2010-03-02. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

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 ⚡ 03:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debates[edit]

I believe that debates for the Senate election are absolutely relevant to the Senate election. They are not listed for other 2010 election articles because no one has bothered to add them yet. Election debates are also listed at Indiana gubernatorial election, 2008 and United States presidential election, 2008, with a whole article at United States presidential election debates, 2008. Reywas92^Talk 18:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ellsworth[edit]

Absolutely nothing has taken place in nominating Ellsworth for the Democratic primary. Adding him to the infobox noting otherwise violates WP:CRYSTAL. For all we know, he could pull a Mark Sanford, he could face a challenger, or he could decide to stay in Congress. Until he is nominated, he should not be placed in the infobox. Gage (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama was the unofficial nominee 4 months before the convention, and no one had a problem putting him in the infobox. All references say that Ellsworth is the nominee. He doesn't have a challenger and he can't choose to say in congress because the primary for re-election already passed. He can pull a Mark Sanford after the convention and he can still drop out. Your argument is ridiculus considering no one had a problem with Obama being the unofficial nominee.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again...WP:CRYSTAL. Quit using Obama as an example, is not similar in any way. Gage (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Perhaps we should add the senate class to the election title for these election series article. It is a little misleading to say there is not another Senate election for six years, and one has not occurred for six years. Senate elections occur every two to four years. Refering the seat by class, or at least in the article somewhere, would remove the ambiguity. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the infobox could be added to include a class parameter, or you could sneak that into the infobox deatails somewhere. Reywas92^Talk 18:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would work. I just added it to the lead for now. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States Senate election in Indiana, 2010. 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}}).

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) 11:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]