User talk:Davidhunt2

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Davidhunt2, welcome to Ballotpedia!

We're glad you're here. Here's how to get started:

1. Watch Ballotpedia's 5-minute overview.
2. Learn more about how you can contribute to our monthly projects.

Primaries are well under way and November elections are just around the corner. Do you know your state's absentee voting and early voting policies? Does your state allow online voter registration? What are your state's voter ID laws?

Just click on the links above or find your state by clicking here.

3. Find an article you'd like to improve.
4. Start editing!

You can also view tutorials on how to edit, or contact us.

Welcome to our community! --Bailey Ludlam, Ballotpedia's managing editor

Hi David. Thank you for working on the California Proposition 8 (2008) article. I just put this note on that page's Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008) (talk page) and I'm putting it here too in case you don't know how to get to an article's talk page.

November 3: Discussion of introduction

I would like to do/see a significant re-write of the introduction.

  • It is getting clunky.
  • The revision made overnight by User:Davidhunt2 to the intro looks to me like it was taken from the article about Wikipedia:California Proposition 8 (2008) on Wikipedia, although I don't see the attribution statement (I might have missed it) that should accompany that.
  • The main problem with the introduction as it stands is that it looks like it is trying to get into the core arguments about 8, without first giving the readers a "just the facts" smooth intro.
  • I think this is happening because of understandable issues about what to call the proposition in the introduction. Ballotpedia's naming conventions don't seem to address the naming situation with respect to 8.
  • So one can see getting into a discussion about whether to bold what it would be called in the constitution, or not, or whether just to bold the ballot title in the intro, etc. I think the case can be made to bold both; others might argue differently.
  • However, it is Monday morning, the election is tomorrow, and I'm not sure we have time to seriously adjudicate this question.
  • So, my recommendation, since the main purpose of what we call the article (at least according to convention here) is so readers are sure they're on the right page, is to use the first 5-7 sentences of the intro to talk about the Prop., and not get into, at this point in the article, what the ballot title is and what it would be called if it passed.
  • There is certainly a neutral way to describe what this Prop would do if it passed, which we can, I am sure, accomplish in the introd. Calgal 15:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This discussion page has been protected from further postings.