| Revision as of 22:06, 30 November 2003 editMcarling (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers3,373 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:34, 30 November 2003 edit undoRobLa (talk | contribs)Administrators5,385 edits Added headersNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Covering future events == | |||
| Why don't we stop talking about the future? Future release album, future election, future etc... -- ] 08:13 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC) | Why don't we stop talking about the future? Future release album, future election, future etc... -- ] 08:13 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC) | ||
| Line 4: | Line 6: | ||
| -Hehe, getting ready are we. :)--] | -Hehe, getting ready are we. :)--] | ||
| == "Self-centered" pages == | |||
| There is no room for a waste of time with '''self-centered''' crap like this in an encyclopedia. Things like this are what make Misplaced Pages an unreliable joke by idiots with nothing more to do than create something of no real value.....DW | There is no room for a waste of time with '''self-centered''' crap like this in an encyclopedia. Things like this are what make Misplaced Pages an unreliable joke by idiots with nothing more to do than create something of no real value.....DW | ||
| Line 21: | Line 25: | ||
| --- | --- | ||
| == Listing potential election issues == | |||
| Although it's not possible to list potential issues in say the 2008 election, it is certainly possible to list potential issues cited by the candidates that motivate them to run in the next election. For instance ] will certainly make an issue of the ] and ]. ] will certainly make an issue of the ]. ] will make an issue of the ] and its ] impact. Issues mentioned by lots of potential candidates ought to be in an 'issues' section or separate article on "likely issues in the 2004 U.S. presidential election" just so people can bone up on them in one place. | Although it's not possible to list potential issues in say the 2008 election, it is certainly possible to list potential issues cited by the candidates that motivate them to run in the next election. For instance ] will certainly make an issue of the ] and ]. ] will certainly make an issue of the ]. ] will make an issue of the ] and its ] impact. Issues mentioned by lots of potential candidates ought to be in an 'issues' section or separate article on "likely issues in the 2004 U.S. presidential election" just so people can bone up on them in one place. | ||
| Line 28: | Line 33: | ||
| ----------- | ----------- | ||
| == "Considering" vs. "Announced" == | |||
| Our distinction between "considering" and "announced" is problematic. What exactly do we mean by "announced"? There are two formal actions taken with the ]: statement of organization of an exploratory committee and statement of candidacy. Perhaps we should have "considering," "formed exporatory committee," and "declared"? ] (03 March 2003 14:18 UTC) | Our distinction between "considering" and "announced" is problematic. What exactly do we mean by "announced"? There are two formal actions taken with the ]: statement of organization of an exploratory committee and statement of candidacy. Perhaps we should have "considering," "formed exporatory committee," and "declared"? ] (03 March 2003 14:18 UTC) | ||
| Line 35: | Line 41: | ||
| ::Yes the formal FEC actions are the ones that count, it's the only neutral/objective basis for any such classification. Go for it. | ::Yes the formal FEC actions are the ones that count, it's the only neutral/objective basis for any such classification. Go for it. | ||
| == Great idea == | |||
| --------- | |||
| The 2004 election timeline is a terrific idea. I am glad to see people working on it already. As a high school history teacher, I intend to use this as a resource. The more well-informed I can stay on the election, the better I can teach my students. keep up the good work! and i'll probably be helping here too! ] 02:30 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC) | The 2004 election timeline is a terrific idea. I am glad to see people working on it already. As a high school history teacher, I intend to use this as a resource. The more well-informed I can stay on the election, the better I can teach my students. keep up the good work! and i'll probably be helping here too! ] 02:30 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC) | ||
| Line 42: | Line 49: | ||
| :Perhaps your students can chip in and help by digging up biographies of the above, and filling them in? | :Perhaps your students can chip in and help by digging up biographies of the above, and filling them in? | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| == Parenthetical notes == | |||
| ⚫ | I guess I don't understand why the Democratic candidates have been moved to their own page. Moreover, I don't know why anyone in the next few months would assume they could find info about candidates at an encyclopedic entry marked "Democratic Primary". I would '''be bold''' and change it, but I haven't been working on this page, and don't want to muck up the works if there's a good reason for how it's being run. My suggestion: couldn't we leave the candidates on this page for the time being...maybe say that more information is available on ]? Then, after the primaries start to thin things out, we move all the candidates to the primary page at that point (say, mid-March) with the assumption that people will know at that point that info on who's in and who's out will be on the primary page? If I'm missing something here, let me know. I just doubt the wisdom of forcing someone looking for the Democratic candidates to follow another link (which may confuse them at this juncture), but leaving independent and Green candidates on this page...I don't know why we're tossing in the roadblock. Please enlighten me: ] 22:12, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC) | ||
| ---- | |||
| Is there a reason for parenthetical italicized notes (<i>this note is unnecessary</i>)? Wouldn't it be better to put them in <!--> form? | Is there a reason for parenthetical italicized notes (<i>this note is unnecessary</i>)? Wouldn't it be better to put them in <!--> form? | ||
| :No, there isn't. I merged the info in one into the article, this is the other: | :No, there isn't. I merged the info in one into the article, this is the other: | ||
| Line 54: | Line 59: | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| == Standard for inclusion == | |||
| The standard we've been using for inclusion of a party has been that they were on the ballot in enough states to elect a president. I think we should stay with that, though this would be the place to discuss it. Clearly we need some standard, else we would have several dozen parties listed nearly all of which are completely irrelevent to the presidential election. The Democrats, Libertarians, and Republicans are expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states. The Greens are expected to be on the ballot in about 45 or so states. Reform and Constitution have little hope of being on the ballot in more than about 10-15 states. Natural Law has a better chance, though still slim. -- ] 08:32, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC) | The standard we've been using for inclusion of a party has been that they were on the ballot in enough states to elect a president. I think we should stay with that, though this would be the place to discuss it. Clearly we need some standard, else we would have several dozen parties listed nearly all of which are completely irrelevent to the presidential election. The Democrats, Libertarians, and Republicans are expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states. The Greens are expected to be on the ballot in about 45 or so states. Reform and Constitution have little hope of being on the ballot in more than about 10-15 states. Natural Law has a better chance, though still slim. -- ] 08:32, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC) | ||
| Line 71: | Line 77: | ||
| As we have seen before, a small party in only one state with a relatively few number of votes can affect the electoral outcome. Such a small party might not be able to elect a President of their own party, but they can certainly spoil the election of a President from another. Don't know if they belong on this page, but they can be important.] 00:47, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) | As we have seen before, a small party in only one state with a relatively few number of votes can affect the electoral outcome. Such a small party might not be able to elect a President of their own party, but they can certainly spoil the election of a President from another. Don't know if they belong on this page, but they can be important.] 00:47, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) | ||
| Line 87: | Line 92: | ||
| ----------- | ----------- | ||
| S O S on Electronic Voting Machines | == S O S on Electronic Voting Machines == | ||
| As with banking, the assurance that computerized electronic voting machines (presently | As with banking, the assurance that computerized electronic voting machines (presently | ||
| Line 126: | Line 131: | ||
| ----- | ----- | ||
| == Moving Democrats to own page == | |||
| ⚫ | I guess I don't understand why the Democratic candidates have been moved to their own page. Moreover, I don't know why anyone in the next few months would assume they could find info about candidates at an encyclopedic entry marked "Democratic Primary". I would '''be bold''' and change it, but I haven't been working on this page, and don't want to muck up the works if there's a good reason for how it's being run. My suggestion: couldn't we leave the candidates on this page for the time being...maybe say that more information is available on ]? Then, after the primaries start to thin things out, we move all the candidates to the primary page at that point (say, mid-March) with the assumption that people will know at that point that info on who's in and who's out will be on the primary page? If I'm missing something here, let me know. I just doubt the wisdom of forcing someone looking for the Democratic candidates to follow another link (which may confuse them at this juncture), but leaving independent and Green candidates on this page...I don't know why we're tossing in the roadblock. Please enlighten me: ] 22:12, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC) | ||
| We need to have one timeline for the Democrats. Either we maintain it as part of ], or we maintain it as part of ]. The problem is that there's significant literary license being taken with what gets included and what gets excluded from the main timeline, versus the Dem party timeline. Worse, there's inaccuracies being introduced in ] | We need to have one timeline for the Democrats. Either we maintain it as part of ], or we maintain it as part of ]. The problem is that there's significant literary license being taken with what gets included and what gets excluded from the main timeline, versus the Dem party timeline. Worse, there's inaccuracies being introduced in ] | ||
Revision as of 22:34, 30 November 2003
Covering future events
Why don't we stop talking about the future? Future release album, future election, future etc... -- Taku 08:13 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
- This is actually the present. The U.S. "election season" for presidential elections is beginning in earnest now, with several announcements about who is (and isn't) running. Election day is the end of a long public process that has already begun. - RobLa 08:33 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
-Hehe, getting ready are we. :)--Sv
"Self-centered" pages
There is no room for a waste of time with self-centered crap like this in an encyclopedia. Things like this are what make Misplaced Pages an unreliable joke by idiots with nothing more to do than create something of no real value.....DW
- Yay, me for President! Hmmm...have to add my announcement to the timeline... :) -- RobLa
What ever happened to the fine art of procrastination? :) --mav
- whaddya mean...working on Misplaced Pages is how I procrastinate. :) Seriously though, I'm hoping that by getting an early start and tracking this election early, we'll have a really complete record of what transpired.
DW: What do you mean by self-centered? And you really think its things like this that are troubling? Read the nonsense under Fifth World and Micronation. -- Zoe
gotta go with Zoe on this. rofl.-Sv
---
Listing potential election issues
Although it's not possible to list potential issues in say the 2008 election, it is certainly possible to list potential issues cited by the candidates that motivate them to run in the next election. For instance Cynthia McKinney will certainly make an issue of the Iraq crisis, 2003 and oil imperialism. Gary Johnson will certainly make an issue of the War on Drugs. Ralph Nader will make an issue of the War on Terrorism and its civil rights impact. Issues mentioned by lots of potential candidates ought to be in an 'issues' section or separate article on "likely issues in the 2004 U.S. presidential election" just so people can bone up on them in one place.
This could get a *lot* of people reading Misplaced Pages, if the articles established a high reputation for quality and impartiality. It's worth doing for that reason if no other.
"Considering" vs. "Announced"
Our distinction between "considering" and "announced" is problematic. What exactly do we mean by "announced"? There are two formal actions taken with the FEC: statement of organization of an exploratory committee and statement of candidacy. Perhaps we should have "considering," "formed exporatory committee," and "declared"? M Carling (03 March 2003 14:18 UTC)
- No objection, though I'm not volunteering to fix this up :-) -- RobLa 07:53 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
- Yes the formal FEC actions are the ones that count, it's the only neutral/objective basis for any such classification. Go for it.
Great idea
The 2004 election timeline is a terrific idea. I am glad to see people working on it already. As a high school history teacher, I intend to use this as a resource. The more well-informed I can stay on the election, the better I can teach my students. keep up the good work! and i'll probably be helping here too! Kingturtle 02:30 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
- Glad you like it. However, it's six months later, and there are still gaping holes, like no biography of Michael Badnarik, former State House candidate from Texas, a stub for Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, none for Carol Miller, New Mexico Green, David Cobb, Green legal advisor to the party and former candidate for Texas attorney, nor even Cynthia McKinney, former Congresswoman from Georgia or Paul Glover, creator of Ithaca Hours. It took some time before even all Democrats were covered, which is kind of surprising.
- Perhaps your students can chip in and help by digging up biographies of the above, and filling them in?
Parenthetical notes
Is there a reason for parenthetical italicized notes (this note is unnecessary)? Wouldn't it be better to put them in