Talk:2024 North Carolina gubernatorial election

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2024 North Carolina gubernatorial election article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

United States: North Carolina 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.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

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 articles

All-candidate debate

I put an all-candidate debate hosted by the NC Forward Party in the "Other candidates" section and made it invisible (not sure how to call the thing). There was a Democrat, a Republican, both Libertarian and a Green candidate participating. I want to include it in the article, and would like a consensus before doing so. C. W. Edward (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting for the lead

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: Your argument for your formatting of the lead falls under WP:OTHERCONTENT. Saying an article should be written one way because other articles are written that way is not a valid argument, as this policy demonstrates, because there are too many different articles written by different editors who have their own writing preferences. You claim there is a "clear consensus", but provide no actual evidence of a consensus, making this argument also invalid. "Every other page doing it like this" is not evidence of a consensus; it only demonstrates how some editors prefer to edit these articles, which again, falls under WP:OTHERCONTENT. You cannot edit articles based on how you think other articles are written. Edit them based on what is the most informative and the best-written. Bluerules (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add the three other gubernatorial articles you cited to justify your formatting are not comparable to this article because no candidates have been nominated in those elections. Less information is available about the New Hampshire, Missouri, and Washington gubernational elections this year, so the lead has to be written differently. The major candidates in this election have been nominated and since this election is centered on them, they should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. Bluerules (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 North Dakota gubernatorial election, 2024 Indiana gubernatorial election, 2024 Puerto Rico gubernatorial election, and 2024 Utah gubernatorial election all follow the format that this article did before you changed it @Bluerules.

Additionally, a single person does not make consensus and you are abusing this faux consensus, combined with an objective misinterpretation/understanding of WP policy to push an unwarranted edit to the page and threatening users who undo said edit with reports to administrators. Additionally, per your own cited policy, the edit before your intial change is the one to be reverted to in the event of a dispute. It is on you to find consensus for your edit, and if there is then the change is to be made, if there isn't then you leave it be. Instead you engage in consistent edit warring with other users who are following WP policies. Talthiel (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Talthiel: Once again, that is an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. It is not valid argument for formatting an article. Please explain how omitting major party nominees from the lead, as all but the Puerto Rico article do, is beneficial to those articles. Please explain how mentioning the candidates at the center of the election, the subject of this article, at the beginning of the lead is "unwarranted".

I followed WP policy by creating a talk page section to discuss the dispute. I showed leniency instead of outright filing a report. You and BottleOfChocolateMilk disregarded WP policy by ignoring this discussion and continuing to edit war. The issue had been resolved for a week when you needlessly reignited it because of an objective misinterpretation/understanding of WP policy. Not only did I make my change before BottleOfChocolateMilk made his, my edit was in place for a week without controversy, establishing a new STATUSQUO. You claim I'm abusing a "faux consensus" when BottleOfChocolateMilk's formatting argument was based on a faux consensus he had no evidence for. There is no consensus here and you both chose to edit war instead of working with me towards one. And if your only argument is "other articles do it too!", then you're not making a valid argument for your preferred formatting. I'm sorry that sounds harsh, but it's true. Bluerules (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]