Talk:2016 United States Senate election in California

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums 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 U.S. Congress Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) event(s).

Fellow editors, Per my comments at WP:RSN, I suggest removal of the Potential and Declined subsections. That persons may be considering running, or may have officially announced that they will not be running, is not noteworthy, and gives the impression that the article is attempting to be News. NB: I will also not be running. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ryk72. The sections do seem to be a case of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Someone can essentially say that are "considering" or have "declined" or whatever and cite themselves per WP:BLPSELFPUB just to get their name added to Wikipedia. Only those who have officially announced their candidacy and have been received coverage in independent reliable sources should be added to the article. Otherwise, it's sort of WP:CRYSTAL, isn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly, Agreed. Ergo... - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow editors, Unless there is objection here, including reasoning, I will be removing the Potential sections in the next day or so. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryk72, I came here to ask why such a long list is necessary in this article, and found that it has already been discussed. But looking at the article's revision history, it seems you never removed them. Is the a reason that you didn't? I think all of the "declined" lists should be removed. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Athomeinkobe: No particular reason other than not getting around to it. And yes, I agree that the "declined" lists should be removed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed material restored by Tiller54 here. Looking through the lists, there's quite a few inclusions which are not verified by the source (source notes their endorsement of a candidate, not their declination); or for which the source is self-published (Twitter). In the absence of comment by other editors, I will remove these. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been unable to find what the deadline is for a candidate to be listed on the June 2016 ballot. Anyone know? It would be a worthy addition to the article. TJRC (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that the Election infobox is designed with the assumption that there are party nominations, which means it's not going to be a perfect fit for this race, since California has blanket primaries. But is there any reason that despite both "nominees" being TBD, it lists Democratic as the party affiliation for one of them? While it does seem very likely that one or two Democrats will win the top two spots in the primary, it's not a guarantee and to me it seems like both affiliations should be TBD as well. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, it shouldn't list any party. Both general election candidates (not nominees) could be Republicans, or both Independents etc Tiller54 (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The primary is over and the top two candidates have been added, but I changed "Nominee" to "Candidate." Under California election law they are technically "voter nominated," but Nominee in the American context typically refers to party nominations so I thought it could be confusing. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While discussing the infobox, do we want to change the colours for the candidates? Both candidates are Democrats, yet Harris' colour in the infobox is blue, whereas Sanchez's is green. Under current standard practice, the colour blue, which is used by the Democratic party, and colours that aren't blue, red or yellow are typically given to prominent independent candidates. Whilst Harris does have more establishment Democratic Party support, she isn't the official Democratic candidate against an unnoficial Democratic candidate. Therefore, might it be fairer to use two non-blue colours to denote each candidate (Green and Purple for example)? MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both should be blue. Let's not overthink this. They're both Democrats, so both should have the same Democratic colors.—GoldRingChip 17:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested two non-blue colours in preparation for when the map gets coloured in, but I guess making them both blue is actually more sensible... MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the map is something we'll have to figure out when we get closer to the general election. Having two candidates of the same party contest an election is relatively uncommon in American politics, but it's likely to happen more and more in California. United States presidential election, 1836 features four Whig candidates in the infobox and map, all with different colors. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not make Sanchez a slightly different shade of blue, similar to what was done in the infobox for the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom McClintock? ALPolitico (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate election in California, 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101105214455/http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/us-senate/ to http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/us-senate/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated reference to the one I actually used to create the current version, as such your edit no longer affects the current page. Sorry for the inconvenience. Markamisix (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverted by an IP user who cited precedent for having different colors on infoboxes for two candidates of the same party (in a Senate article, where there are only 2 candidates). This seems very confusing, especially since as it stood Kamala Harris was given the regular Democratic blue color present in most all infoboxes, and her opponent was given green. This could easily be misconstrued as being related to the Green Party, and using any color other than blue would imply something similar. There's nothing wrong with having two of the same color on the main infobox, as both candidates are members of the same party, which could easily be made recognizable by keeping both of them the default Democratic blue. Calibrador (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the statement saying that the winner will be the first minority female senator from California. According to Wikipedia articles about what constitutes minorities, the two current Senators are both religious and ethnic minorities. It's not clear what that statement was trying to say. All Senators prior to the ones currently in office were male, California has never had a Senator of Hispanic or Indian origin that I can find, but I haven't gone through every biography to check for partial ethnic heritage. In combination with gender, either would be the first woman of her respective minority, but that would be true of any non-Jewish woman. If somebody wants to make a clear statement, feel free to add one. Hagrinas (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]