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
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
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 California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
@Kurykh:
What is the issue with having additional information on candidates? I do not appreciate removing all my sources and edits without going on the talk page, first. There is no reason to not have additional information on candidates (electoral history, job occupations) when other election articles have those as well, if the information is available. Also although the CASOS certified is a 100% great source, it is always better to have an article with multiple sources, especially ones that cite local news articles about specific candidates. VietPride10 (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The occupations of candidates aren't notable at all, particularly for state legislative races and especially if they have little or no relation to the election. I personally don't think electoral history is important or notable here either, but I won't mind if it gets reinstated. Nothing wrong with more sources per se, but the CA SoS isn't just a great source, it's the definitive source for the list of candidates and is far more important than any other source that mentions candidates. We don't need to go all belt-and-suspenders on this kind of stuff. --Kurykh (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that occupations of candidates are not notable or directly relevant to the results of the election, but it does not hurt to have them in the article, as it can benefit the content of the article as a whole, rather than hurt it. Thus, I do not see the point in removing this information, if it is available and sourced correctly. VietPride10 (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a repository of random facts. Information is included because it is encyclopedic and worth including, not simply because it sounds interesting or "it does not hurt." That's why electoral history makes more sense for inclusion, but not candidate occupations. Kurykh (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate occupations are not "random facts", when candidate ballot designations/occupations are included on the ballot itself, so they are worth including. To argue on the fact to have less information, directly related to candidates on the article is ridiculous and non-sensical, so I will be reformatting the page and adding back the electoral history of candidates which includes if they were elected to school boards, or city councils, but will leave the so-called "random facts" of job occupations, even though they are literally put on the CA SOS source itself, until we reach a consensus.VietPride10 (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
