This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland 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.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
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
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.
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]