Talk:Arizona ballot propositions (2006)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / Arizona (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This redirect is supported by WikiProject Arizona (marked as Low-importance).
 

importance[edit]

I'm surprised by the recent rating of this article as "low" importance. To pick just one of the many issues, Proposition 207 is essentially the same legislation as that enacted by Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004), an issue that has commanded a great deal of public attention since its passage. The way land use planning is conducted is undergoing a fundamental change here in Oregon, and Arizona may follow a similar path.

Ballot initiatives can have an enormous impact on public policy, and I believe that thorough coverage of them should be a high priority for Wikipedia, and for the WikiProject of any state that uses the system.

-Pete 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

p.s. For a couple of examples of directions this page could take, see List of California ballot propositions 2000-present and List of Oregon ballot measures. -Pete 19:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I recently created a more comprehensive List of Arizona Ballot Propositions and had planned to merge the content here into that one, but had forgotten. Since there is still some interest in this page I'll put the merge up for discussion before actually doing it, though.
As for the importance of the subject, well. I agree that it's a relatively important one, myself. Arkyan 21:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks like an excellent page you made. I agree that format is probably better, and I think individual articles for the more prominent propositions is the way to go. That's what we've done in Oregon, and I think it works very well. I originally created a page for Prop. 207, which User:EntChickie redirected to this page at one point. If you merge this page with the larger list, I think it would make sense to reinstate the individual article, rather than set a precedent for large chunks of text in long lists. -Pete 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I don't imagine that anyone will have a problem with the merge, although I will leave the merge tag up all the same for the sake of potential discussion. As for the article you created, I would support reverting it to a standalone article with a little bit of cleanup. Perhaps a couple of independent sources beyond just the text and results? I don't doubt that most ballot propositions are sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles, although I'm hesitant about creating them en masse without a little homework to dig up good sources and salient information so we don't end up with a whole slew of articles that say "Proposition XXX was a ballot proposition in Arizona." :) Arkyan 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It already has citations, I think from the Tucson Citizen and the AZ Review. More would be good, and since newspapers often move stories to paid archives after a couple months, the sooner the better. But somebody local might be better equipped to take care of it than me! In Oregon, I think it's worked pretty well to set up individual pages in a pretty organic manner: people seem to create them as they are interested. Personally, I don't think that a failed tax initiative from 1982 has a lot of historical importance, so I don't think that every measure needs its own page - but that's not to say I'd oppose someone writing it up if they wanted to! -Pete 23:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)