Talk:2014 Texas gubernatorial election

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.

Politics

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating 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

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.

We don't need clutter in the infobox

Parties that haven't won even 3% in over 20 years are not important in the election. Putting them in the infobox is clutter and gives readers a false idea of these parties' importance. They are in the article in the correct place.

One of the many IP's (likely all sock puppets of one person) trying to put them here requested I discuss this on the talk page. They should have started it, since they're the one trying to add a change to the article. Ratemonth (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ratemonth are you this articles master? I hope you don't have any bias against Ann Richards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.222.209 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against Ann Richards. Why are you trying to add her to an article she has nothing to do with? Ratemonth (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that is your opinion she has nothing to do with it. But you didn't answer the question ... lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.222.209 (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She won an open election 24 years ago, there's another open election now. The outcome of that election is not important to any discussion of the current election. Ratemonth (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it important to have all the withdrawn and declined candidates on here? I feel we should remove this. Apparently it's okay for users to remove info where ever they feel necessary ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.222.209 (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is an article about the entire election, not just the X vs Y general election. Tiller54 (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I left those there, you could have at least tried to make some edits and not just revert to your last revision. idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.222.209 (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user ratemonth cut it out

what? let you delete 11,405 characters without even offering an explanation? i have no reason to think you're anything but a vandal. Ratemonth (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes cut it out. is there something there you wanted to keep? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasgov14 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you could offer a logical and coherent argument for all the changes you want. otherwise you could also "cut it out." Ratemonth (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i could — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasgov14 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sounds great! give it a try and i'll not revert unless it's a really silly argument. otherwise we can keep going till one of us falls asleep. Ratemonth (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]