Talk:2008 Oregon legislative election

Nuts and bolts
Esprqii, can you explain your name change? I understand there are some "standards" for election-oriented stuff, but I think WP standards (i.e. WP:MOS) would override. In that regard, this article in its present state is a list, and should be named as such, no? If you have a vision for making it something other than a list, what is it?

Also, I take it you're envisioning a single article, in the long run, for both the primary and the general? I don't see a problem with that, it's just different from what I had in mind, so I'm just double-checking.

Lastly...the link you left on my talk page for the SOS/ORESTAR filing page didn't work -- can you describe how you found them? Thanks! -Pete (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the ORESTAR site was briefly down...I couldn't get it for a while, but try it now. Basically in ORESTAR, select Search Candidate Filings, then select the election, the year, and the office (State Senate).


 * I used the naming that existed from the template. I am not totally hung up on the name, but I did think it would eventually be more than a list; something more like the state legislature section of the Oregon's statewide elections, 2006 article. I see what you mean about the primary and the election; do we need to track the primary in a separate place? I envisioned that we would eventually update the article to show the winners of the primary, and then the candidates in the general here. This is not a perfect example, but maybe something like Massachusetts's 5th congressional district special election, 2007. --Esprqii (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I found the ORESTAR filings button. (The link still doesn't work, which is irritating -- I guess they don't pass all the parameters through the URL.) I'll try to fix this list based on that, and use that for the House list.


 * In hindsight (a talent I have along with "forsyth" ;) I really don't like the setup I used for the '06 elections. Too unweildy, both to maintain and to read. After a little more thought here's what I suggest:


 * One article, Oregon elections (2008)
 * several lists, one for the US Senate (short, so just redirects to article), one for the US Congress, one for statewide offices (short, so just redirects to the article), one for Ore. Senate, one for Ore. House, one for local elections.


 * And yeah, let's not make separate articles/lists for the primaries and the general. I did that in '06 simply because the huge unified article was already way too unweildy. But with a table that doesn't attempt to combine the House and Senate, I don't think it'll be so bad.


 * How's that sound? -Pete (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The ORESTAR link is working for me in Firefox. Anyway, I like the idea of a single umbrella article (Oregon statewide elections, 2008?). However, I don't think we need to have lists of U.S. Senate, Congress, in addition to the main articles that already exist. Why couldn't the umbrella article just link directly to the relevant main articles?


 * For the State House and Senate, yes, those should probably be more or less lists--especially with 60 House races--but there might be some interesting races that could be highlighted as well. For the statewide offices and ballot measures, that again might be list-heavy, but we should leave the possibility of expanding it.


 * I guess I am not sure we need to limit ourselves to calling it a list, or making lists where full articles already exist. --Esprqii (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK -- I'm not too worried about calling them "lists" or an "articles," I'll let that drop. The thing that I'd really like to see is a single "umbrella" article that hits all the high points, with links to more more detailed pages. The thing about the current "Dem" and "Rep" primary articles is, I don't see how they fit into any sensible structure. I think they could easily be rolled into similar articles, perhaps a unified "Partisan primaries in Oregon" or "Oregon presidential race" article. I just think the present titles suggest a higher level of detail in our coverage than I think we'll achieve. -Pete (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Coming back to this issue -- I'd like to combine these into Oregon legislative elections, 2008. For one thing, it meshes better with the legislative session articles I've been working on -- between every two session articles is one election article, and vice-versa. For another, both these articles are pretty short, and combining them would make for a nice sized article. Finally, because of the nice clean structure you made, it would be a very easy merge to accomplish. OK by you? -Pete (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the way you've got the other stuff set up, that makes sense. Goferit! --Esprqii (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, will do -- thx! -Pete (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Primiary candidates
We had lists here, and on Oregon Senate elections, 2008, of all primary candidates. I think that information should be preserved in some form. My edit to this article (earlier today) was an attempt to move in that direction, if not the greatest long-term result. Any thoughts about how to present all the info in a clear way? (One easy solution would be to just include the original chart below the current chart...) -Pete (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you see that I put them in footnotes? We could call that out in the lede. That seemed like the best solution to me. --Esprqii (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah! No, I had missed that entirely. I think I like that approach. I just created a table, from the Senate article, of the contested races, which I thought we could include as a separate table...I'll paste it below for consideration, since I already made it, but I think your footnotes approach may be the better one. -Pete (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Merged article
Looks good. I'm thinking it might look better if the Senate election list were put first, since it's shorter and you wouldn't have to scroll as far to find the other list. Also the district maps should probably go with each subsection. I can make the change later if there are no objections. --Esprqii (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Making district maps for the House is something I've been meaning to do for a while..but dammit, that stuff is time consuming! -Pete (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't look closely enough at them. I thought one was a house map. Yeah, that would be a pain to do, huh? Except that perhaps it's worth noting somewhere that House districts are Senate districts split in half. --Esprqii (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)