Talk:2018 United States Senate election in Vermont

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: State Legislatures / Government / Vermont 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.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.
	Vermont portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont (assessed as Low-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).

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

Years

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Twitter reference?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

This article has a new entry, using a Twitter statement from the person discussed, as a reference. Assuming that the connection to the Twitter account is real, can this be regarded as a WP:Reliable source? Otherwise, what do we do with the contribution that is supported by the tweet? This issue would pertain to quotations from Donald Trump's tweets, as well. User:HopsonRoad 11:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the verification policy, tweets by an individual about themselves can be considered suitable sources. In this case, the account is verified and the tweet is directly about Giordano, so it appears to be appropriate for use in the article. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When to post an image of an independent candidate?

In a recent edit, I posited that it was premature to post images of candidates in the infobox, prior to the primaries, and therefore I deleted an image of incumbent Bernie Sanders, who is an independent. Liberaltarian12345 correctly pointed out that there is no "independent" primary and restored the image, further pointing out that Sanders is the incumbent.

I have reverted this, pending discussion, because if there were an image available for each independent then they logically all should be posted immediately—since there is no need to wait for a primary as would be appropriate for the established parties. Placing an image of Sanders now in the independent column may give him undue emphasis among independents before the primaries.

My difficulty is that Sanders has typically run in the Democratic primary and, upon winning, shed the mantle of Democrat to be an independent with no Democratic opposition—a shrewd and legitimate electoral strategy. I would like to hear some discussion from others before placing one or more images of independents in that slot in the infobox. Please answer what to do if there are multiple independents with images and whether waiting for the Vermont primary in August is the appropriate timing for populating those boxes. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slo-mo edit war

@Kart2401real and Nevermore27: Instead of reverting each other's contributions, could you discuss the approach that each of you advocates, here, and arrive at consensus with the rest of us? Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kart2401real and HopsonRoad: The party shading "Independent (United States)" was developed months ago by consensus. Nevermore27 (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kart2401real and Nevermore27: Thank you for this reply, Nevermore. It would help here for you to provide a link to where that discussion took place and for you to have provided that link in an edit comment, so that other editors would understand its basis. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kart2401real and HopsonRoad: Template talk:Independent/meta/color Nevermore27 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about "No party preference" candidates in California like California Insurance Commissioner election, 2018? Should yellow be used for that too? Kart2401real (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kart2401real and Nevermore27: I don't see a clear consensus at Template talk:Independent/meta/color. Template:Independent/meta/color shows shades of gray. Perhaps you could finish that discussion there and bring it to a clearer conclusion. HopsonRoad (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HopsonRoad: Yes that template would show gray, because the meta color Template:Independent (United States)/meta/color was created as a result of that discussion. Nevermore27 (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kart2401real: Sorry I didn't see this until now, I would say yes, since NPP is just the California equivalent of Independent. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should gray still be used for the candidates running under the "Other" (not NPP) label in California? Kart2401real (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kart2401real and Nevermore27: I'm glad that you are having this conversation. Can I recommend that you continue it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, for the benefit of all interested parties? HopsonRoad (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions table

@Richelieu94: Thank you for working on the "Predictions" table. I notice that the first three rows calls the election "safe" for "I", as if "I" was a party. It's important to note that it's safe for Sanders, who will run as a Democrat in the primary to eliminate rivals and then declare his independence from both parties, but still be listed on the ballot as a Democrat and as an independent (which is not the name of a party). No other independent has a prayer in this election. I suggest at least adding Sanders' name to the yellow portions of the table. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secretary of State results

The Vermont Secretary of State results show...

Candidate Party Votes Percent

BERNIE SANDERS INDEPENDENT 183,649 66.01% (67.44%)
LAWRENCE ZUPAN REPUBLICAN 74,815 26.89% (27.47%)

...which is different from the results shown in this article (in parentheses). Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]