Talk:2010 United States Senate election in South Dakota

South Dakota Low‑importance

	South Dakota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota 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.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) event(s).

Politics 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.

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

United States: Government 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. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

This is a historical article, not a daily tally sheet.
If someone drops out or loses, do not erase them; rather, refer to them as having run and lost, dropped out, etc.

Infobox[edit]

Would anyone object if I were to remove the infobox? I'm not particularly concerned either way, but I think it's redundant and kind of ugly when there's only one candidate. The only conceivable use is to link to the 2004 election article, which is already linked to in the article body. Thanks. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 17:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's ugly but every election article needs an infobox. It's to be fair and consistent.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've disagreed in the past over the value of consistency and I accept that you place a greater premium on it than me. But I really don't see how fairness comes into it. Care to elaborate? Thanks. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 20:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think we should be debating this now. After all, an independent can still run. So let's just keep the infobox for now.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it turns out an independent is running. Which only really serves to complicate things as far as the infobox goes. I guess for now it can stay as it is, though, and we can revisit this when the filing deadline for independents passes. (Anyone know when that is?) – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 01:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime in June. I'll see if I can find the exact date. sdgjake (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deadline is 8 June. From the Press & Dakotan sdgjake (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll put that in the article. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 17:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101028234525/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-senate to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-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: 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) 12:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]