Jump to content

Talk:2006 Oregon elections

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notes Area

[edit]

Some recent edits in the Multnomah County judicial races are unacceptable. Wikipedia is not a place for original reporting. The "notes" area on this page is suitable for basic factual reporting with citations, links to stories in the media, and endorsements that are verifiable. Anything conveying a point of view or attempting to sway voter opinions is off-limits.

Party Colors

[edit]

This is a LOT of information on one page, and it's a commendable effort to consolidate all the data in one place. However, using dark colors (especially red) in the candidate cells makes the name links difficult if not impossible to read. I'm in favor of using Template:Party shading/Republican, Template:Party shading/Democratic, etc., to standardize this content with partisan usage throughout wikipedia, but I don't have time to implement that at this moment, so I cleared the dark colors for legibility now. Since challengers are sorted into partisan columns already (which may or may not be necessary...see how some similar states have handled that) it's already clear who is running in each party. I'd prefer a simpler output, perhaps with (R), (D), (L), (G) etc. next to each candidate's name, especially for the incumbents, and all candidates for any given office in the same column together. I will come back & work some more on it, as the results of many races are still unclear by this page.--Duff 19:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duff, thanks for your comments. I am reverting your edit for the simple reason that they remove information - though I quite agree with your concerns about readability. I appreciate your links to the "standard colors," which I wasn't aware of. For the time being, I will replace the reds and blues with the preferred shades, but am happy to explore better ways to present who won which race. -Pete 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, I almost reverted it myself, realizing as I finished that, as you noted, they were indeed informative for the fix. Regrettably, I did not save separately the other work I did on the page...adding internal links, etc., and so the work there is now gone instead. Live and learn. --Duff 17:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duff- I thought we could pull those specific edits out of the page history...actually meant to do that myself after reverting the colors. Sorry to undo your work like that. Thanks very much for working on this page. -Pete 18:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pete- Aha! Here is the coloretta stone Template:United States political party shading key. --Duff 08:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, how can we color the state senate incumbent column? So far, I've had no luck, due to the colspan ...it won't also take a color. Maybe there's some other way? -Duff 03:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed candidate deletion

[edit]

Schutz in the 4th District State House notes section. I don't see him in the primary and he seems to have run for a City Council seat instead, in Josephine County. [1]. I'm leaving this for you to adjust, if appropriate, in case you have some other details I'm missing. --Duff 09:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, thanks! The official list of candidates is available here. I'm sure there are other errors, there's a lot of info to keep up with. I'll fix this one, but feel free to fix any other errors you find. Thanks! -216.99.213.241 06:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merging

[edit]

I redirected a page on the State House elections to this page. There's a little stuff worth salvaging and incorporating here, like the intro and the results (percentages.) So I made a temporary sub-page here: Oregon's statewide elections, 2006/from Oregon House Elections, 2006 -Pete 03:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, now I see what you mean. Well, looks like a fairly tedious merge of information, but likely doable. When I started the other page Oregon House Elections, 2006, it was intended to simplify access to the specific House elction details, and eventually also the specific Senate election details. I'm flex though. Any consensus here? Duff 11:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going ahead with the merge, salvaging and incorporating from the temporary sub-page, which I'll propose for deletion when completed. In order to get the information fitted to the page, I had to consolidate the separate columns for Democratic and Republican candidates into a single column for all candidates, but I've retained the D/R designations, and am broadening the scope of the blue/pink shading so as to show readily which seats changed parties. I'm also regularizing by column the use of wikilinks/statehouse links/candidate site links to the extent possible, and where such links exist, favoring wikilinks but keeping all links. I'm also linking the district number to the appropriate map at the Secretary of State's website. Eventually, each district probably ought to have its own page, but that is a task for later and for some dedicated wikipedians in those districts. I may whack out my own districts when I find time. Anyhow, I hope the integration and the related changes to the chart are acceptable. It looks a little funny right now below where I've finished, but I will get these done. OK, back to it. Duff 05:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's about 1/3 finished with the merge of the results page (through 10th Senate and 20th House). I've got to plant some trees while the sun shines, and will get back with it tonight if possible. Duff 00:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, that's that. BTW I have now seen the light about the issue of double redirects/redlinks, specifically for also-ran candidates who may not otherwise be notable enough to merit a separate page, however not soon enough to stop myself from creating all of them in the state legislators' section. I am game to leave make those (and only those) unlinked, but they are all currently wikilinked, and I have seen enough of this page for a minute or twenty, so if someone else wants to run with that ball, de-wikilinking the also-rans, (and footnoting (instead of externally linking) all the campaign websites too, if that's the consensus), feel free to beat me to it. One further note on that...I think footnoted campaign websites for the also-rans (where available, already included, and still live), whether or not they are otherwise notable and/or have wikilinked pages are appropriate. Especially since several races were VERY close, and those close losers possibly making another run at it. Just a thought. On the other hand, if they were elected, or were an incumbent, and they don't have a page yet, those should be/stay red wikilinks, with pages created soon for each and every one of them, and any existing in-line campaign website links for them that are still live, footnoted. No more of this elected anonymity, please!  ;>) -Duff 03:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose deleting the temporary subpage now, but am not clear on the process for that, so Pete or whomever, do feel free. -Duff 03:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Since Wikipedia is not a directory, and the elections are over, can we remove all the external links to the candidate's webpages? A lot of them are probably defunct by now anyway. We need to wikilink to those people notable enough to have articles. Katr67 19:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, though I feel it was important before and shortly after the election to have them there. That said, I started and constructed this page before I had much experience with Wikipedia, and if I were to do it over, I would not embed the external links, but would use footnotes. -Pete 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're probably all notable enough to have (at the very least, brief) articles and wikilinks. However, yep, many candidates' campaign webpages might be defunct. Footnoting them all sounds tedious, though I'm working on that results page merge right now, so this may be the time to do it (if at all), if someone can point me at the concise methodology for wiki footnotes of that sort. As it stands, I'm currently leaving those links, albeit adding wikilinks where campaign site links aren't already present...just so as not to lose the information already gathered, should it come in handy for those footnotes, should we agree that's a good plan. Duff 01:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]

To conform with Wiki naming conventions, I propose to move page to "2006 Oregon state elections". AgentFade2Black 00:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Not against that, IF that's the proper convention, but could we wait on it just a bit until I finish the major merge underway, noted above under Merging? Duff 00:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who created this page and maintained it pretty much by myself for a while, let me point this out: it's been renamed at least twice, I think 3 times. Each time, double-redirects were created, but not dealt with by the editor who moved the page. I don't really care what the name of the page is, but I'd like to request that anybody who moves it deals with the double-redirects, which can be a bit time-consuming. -Pete 04:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ack. Good point there. I like this current title even more now than before.Duff 07:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If moved, I personally will take care of the double-redirects. AgentFade2Black 14:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Before we get too far down this road, I note the following wiki convention examples, as forwarded to me today by suggest-bot:
   [Arizona gubernatorial election, 2006]
   [Nebraska United States Senate election, 2006]
   [Vermont gubernatorial election, 2006]
   [Nevada gubernatorial election, 2006]
   [South Dakota gubernatorial election, 2006]
   [Oklahoma gubernatorial election, 2006]
   Duff 21:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oregon state elections, 2006. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Oregon_elections&oldid=1196486559"