Talk:2008 Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election

"Potential" candidates

Persons mentioned as possible candidates through journalistic speculation or persons who declined to run may be mentioned in the body of the article, but should never, never be listed with actual candidates on candidates' lists. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Then put them in the body of the article... don't remove them. Stop acting like you don't know what I'm talking about.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's very relevant: who actually decides to run can have a huge impact on the result of a race, so it's pretty important context. Rebecca (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you menat "who and who doesn't actually decide to run can have a huge impact on the result of a race" Yeah I agree...and Steelbeard1 and I have had this discussion on two other election pages.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As I stated before, potential candidates can be mentioned in the body of an article. Candidates' lists must only list actual candidates. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And agian... as stated rght above... THEN MOVE THEM TO THE BODY... I did it for you once on Mississisppi's 1st district special election page... but other people shouldn't have to do it for you. Stop avoiding the point.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How could declined candidates be moved to the body when some of the supporting citations do not exist anymore? Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

While I did move the names and occupations with citations to the body of the article, I should state again that some of the citations do not exist anymore and the names without valid links risk removal for lack of a valid citation. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

which ones? They look fine to me.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're planning to wait until the cited linke (which are good) are dead and then you're going to remove them. This would go against Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead") so please refrain from doing that.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Only footnote #5 works currently. Can you find other valid links to the other material? Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I checked... I'll check again and if necessary (or possible) find new links. Please bear in mind the "What to do when a reference link "goes dead"" section of Wikipedia:Citing sources that I mention above. The names should stay even if the links have gone dead.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Yup... they all look fine to me. I'll ask others to confirm--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC).

I checked again and only footnote#5 links material to support the speculation. The others are either dead links (footnote#4) or do not directly support the speculation in question (footnote #3). Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Proper citations do not "go dead"; this is because any editor can seek out the relevant publication at a library. I will be working on filling out the citations, which presently aren't detailed enough to save them from "going dead." -Pete (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't think speculated candidates should ultimately be in the lead section. Rather, there should be prose in the sections on each party; these people should be mentioned in the appropriate section. I'm not making the change right now, because a little thought should be put into how to phrase it right, and I'm not too familiar with this race yet. -Pete (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I'm neutral to it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110828002313/http://staticresults.sos.louisiana.gov/03082008/03082008_Congressional.html to http://staticresults.sos.louisiana.gov/03082008/03082008_Congressional.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110828002429/http://staticresults.sos.louisiana.gov/04052008/04052008_Congressional.html to http://staticresults.sos.louisiana.gov/04052008/04052008_Congressional.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218061244/http://www.decuirforcongress.com/ to http://www.decuirforcongress.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421051252/http://www.regularjoeforcongress.org/ to http://www.regularjoeforcongress.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212044923/http://andykopplin.com/ to http://www.andykopplin.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820105456/http://www.cloonan08.com/ to http://www.cloonan08.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)