Talk:Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referenda, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decisionmaking. For more information, visit our project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008 is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
| Event | This article is about one (or many) Event(s). |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Louisiana, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Louisiana. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
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 ran and lost, dropped out, etc. |
[edit] "Potential" candidates
Persons mentioned as possible candidates through journalistic speculation or persons who declined to run may be mentioned in the body of the article, but should never, never be listed with actual candidates on candidates' lists. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then put them in the body of the article... don't remove them. Stop acting like you don't know what I'm talking about.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's very relevant: who actually decides to run can have a huge impact on the result of a race, so it's pretty important context. Rebecca (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you menat "who and who doesn't actually decide to run can have a huge impact on the result of a race" Yeah I agree...and Steelbeard1 and I have had this discussion on two other election pages.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's very relevant: who actually decides to run can have a huge impact on the result of a race, so it's pretty important context. Rebecca (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
As I stated before, potential candidates can be mentioned in the body of an article. Candidates' lists must only list actual candidates. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- And agian... as stated rght above... THEN MOVE THEM TO THE BODY... I did it for you once on Mississisppi's 1st district special election page... but other people shouldn't have to do it for you. Stop avoiding the point.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- How could declined candidates be moved to the body when some of the supporting citations do not exist anymore? Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
While I did move the names and occupations with citations to the body of the article, I should state again that some of the citations do not exist anymore and the names without valid links risk removal for lack of a valid citation. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- which ones? They look fine to me.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're planning to wait until the cited linke (which are good) are dead and then you're going to remove them. This would go against Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead") so please refrain from doing that.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Only footnote #5 works currently. Can you find other valid links to the other material? Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're planning to wait until the cited linke (which are good) are dead and then you're going to remove them. This would go against Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead") so please refrain from doing that.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought I checked... I'll check again and if necessary (or possible) find new links. Please bear in mind the "What to do when a reference link "goes dead"" section of Wikipedia:Citing sources that I mention above. The names should stay even if the links have gone dead.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Yup... they all look fine to me. I'll ask others to confirm--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC).
- I checked again and only footnote#5 links material to support the speculation. The others are either dead links (footnote#4) or do not directly support the speculation in question (footnote #3). Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: Proper citations do not "go dead"; this is because any editor can seek out the relevant publication at a library. I will be working on filling out the citations, which presently aren't detailed enough to save them from "going dead." -Pete (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I don't think speculated candidates should ultimately be in the lead section. Rather, there should be prose in the sections on each party; these people should be mentioned in the appropriate section. I'm not making the change right now, because a little thought should be put into how to phrase it right, and I'm not too familiar with this race yet. -Pete (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea. I'm neutral to it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
