Talk:2006 United States Senate election in Washington/Archive 1

message: What purpose is the "News Articles" section (created by User:Chadlupkes) supposed to serve?  I haven't noticed this in an election article before and it looks like something that could easily get out of hand.  By its title, it sounds like any article that mentions any candidate should be included, but that wouldn't be encyclopedic and could easily dwarf the real content.  No doubt endorsements will be listed on each candidate website. --Ajdz 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember this correctly, it was in the Maria Cantwell article, and I moved it to the article on the race.  A reason to keep the section would be to list sources for the information on the page, but I agree that it could get out of control.  Should we change the title of the section to 'Article Sources'?  Chadlupkes 19:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be good.  Or "References" unless there's some other relevant standard for such articles.  Should endorsements end up listed in this article?  Right now it doesn't look like the one link is a source for anything and I would expect the candidates to keep pretty comprehensive endorsement lists on their websites. --Ajdz 20:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't think we need to track endorsements here.  Too much work, and not our responsibility.  Chadlupkes 14:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "News Articles" 

message: I've added back the second source for the February Elway poll.  Unfortunately, Elway polls aren't available to the public.  The first source I cite (newspaper) is authoritative but just a summary; the second is a blog but has a lot more detail.  (If people really, really think that it compromises the integrity of the table by having two sources, then go ahead and delete the second.)  John Broughton 14:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the detail is that important, it's probably fine.  It removed it originally because it seemed strange to have two sources--especially when one is a blog with a questionable name. --Ajdz 23:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll get some people defending David Goldstein's blog.  It's one of the most popular blogs from the left in Washington State, and he's a real professional with a funny domain name.  Chadlupkes 02:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elway poll 

message: I've removed the material (pro and con) about the objectivity of Strategic Vision.  As pointed out, their polling results don't differ for others in the article, so any lack of objectivity appears to be irrelevant to this article.
IF and WHEN the company reports a poll pertaining to this race that is considered biased, AND, if someone actually posts the poll to this article, THEN comments about its objectivity would be relevant and appropriate for the article.  John Broughton 00:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I probably should have simply removed the material myself when it showed up.  There is a similar discussion with 8bitJake here. --Ajdz 02:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If these polling agencies have articles, would a link to those articles be appropriate?  Chadlupkes 03:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I think so.  John Broughton 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategic Vision 

message: From the edit log: (Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think third parties are included in these kind of election polls. Until you have a poll including them, I don't see the point in having blank columns.)  Ajdz (Talk | contribs) 
:Agreed.  Chadlupkes 19:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polls

message: Just to respond to Emcee's edit summary:
*The anti-war Liberals article mentions both McKinney's and Schwarz's loss, just not by name. I added the names since refering to them as a Georgian Dem and Michigan Rep isn't overly informative.
*I missed the last paragraph in the same article. My bad.
*As for using Lieberman's opponent instead of Lamont. It's called the Lieberman effect, not the Lamont effect and switching from referring to Lieberman to Lamont broke the continuity IMHO, but I'm cool either way.
--Bobblehead 17:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lieberman effect

message: In general, I think it's distracting to make every single date a link (e.g., August 12, August 14 instead of August 12, August 14).  Clicking on that date provides no info that is relevant to the article, just all the random things that have to do with that date throughout history.  Except for astrologers and numerologists, I think this practice is distracting to reading an article.  Unless there is opposition, I'm going to remove most of this from this article.  Emcee 05:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:DATE#Dates containing a month and a day. Wikipedia has a manual of style and whenever month and day are used in articles they should normally be linked.  Not sure why Wikipedia went with using the links to allow date preferences to work, but they did, so we're stuck with it. Sorry.--Bobblehead 06:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: dates