Jump to content

Talk:2012 Maine Question 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Referendum or initiative?

[edit]

Is this an initiative or referendum? The terms are being used interchangeably, but in some states they cannot be. It appears here that a referendum puts before the voters the option of repealing legislation while an initiative asks voters if they want to create legislation. To quote the state statute: "a people's veto referendum or the direct initiative of legislation". The always very precise Chris Geidner makes the same distinction here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also question

[edit]

I'm not sure why these links are in this article:

These don't take place in Maine. --Javaweb (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

I agree and removed them. Might add a different one. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summers

[edit]

Why is the fact that referendum supporters believe Summers was not politically motivated with his question wording "dispensable"? Such information would prevent readers of this article from thinking that he was. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my way of handling this works better. The point has some significance, though how it's integrated into the text makes a diff. Summers' position and motivation are something the reader is sure is wonder about. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

This question will be Question 1 on the ballot, as there will be no people's veto questions on the ballot (which would come first), and no other initiative questions. (Bond issues follow initiatives per Maine law.) As such, I'm wondering if this should be renamed to "Maine Question 1, 2012" as the article on the previous question is. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep as is. The number will fade quickly from memory. And no one outside of Maine and those who share radio and TV outlets with Maine will ever hear it referred to as Question 1. The subject and the year identify the issue for the long term. It's rare that the number attached to an initiative or referendum endures for very long -- California's Prop 8 comes to mind. But I think that is very much the exception. WP is very inconsistent in handling this, I'm afraid. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done an extensive review, but it seems that something like what is proposed is more common. If I were King of Wikipedia, we wouldn't name articles after ballot question numbers unless they were very well known that way, which would generally restrict the usage to California ballot measures like Prop. 8 and Prop. 187. But I'm not, so I have to wonder whether the right thing to do is follow what is done else where. If so, 331's proposal and the 2009 article are wrong. Unlike other elections, the year seems to go in parenthesis for these elections. See Proposition 8 (2008) and Washington Referendum 74 (2012). In sum, my instinct is to leave it as is, but that isn't really worth much. If we find that most ballot measures are named by number, we should follow the format used by those articles, which would mean Maine Question 1 (2012). There is another consideration. California has a ton of numbered propositions each general election from 1 to whatever, and Washington seems to keep its numbering from one election to the next, so that if 74 for is the highest numbered referendum at this election, 75 will be the first listed next time. Maine, on the other hand, only seems to have a very small number each election, and always starts at one, meaning that any article about a Maine ballot question will probably be Maine Question 1 (YEAR). It's just hard to see what value it adds to strip informative part of the title away, leaving in its place only the state and the year as useful information. -Rrius (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point. Perhaps the other question should be changed to be more like this one. 331dot (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should use the actual name and not use a general description - we want to be specific after all. Hekerui (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we use the "actual name" rather than the something that would be used outside of election materials? How is it that the mere description of where it appears on the ballot its actual name? And how is "Maine Question 1 (2012)" more specific than "Maine same-sex marriage initiative, 2012"? The phrase "same-sex marriage initiative" would seem to be to be immeasurably more specific than the word "Question", which is the only substantive difference. -Rrius (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because "Maine same-sex marriage initiative" is a description we came up with. I don't believe this is about being specific, but avoiding coming up with names for things that have technical names that suffice in being specific already. Hekerui (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the title is official I moved the article title. This way, the actual initiative name is used and the article follows the styling of Maine Question 1, 2009. Hekerui (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess is was too urgent to allow for consensus. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Titles are there to help a reader find what he is looking for. Question 1 is not a better title than the one we had. --Javaweb (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

I was only floating the idea, not really endorsing it, but I certainly don't see a consensus for it. 331dot (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title move

[edit]

There clearly was no consensus to have this article at this title, so why was it returned to this title after being moved to the original one? 331dot (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1 is a notable term, commonly used by the media. Yes, there is somethink here, what violates Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. It's Maine same-sex marriage initiative, 2012. Ron 1987 (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the criterion. The most people would refer to it a same-sex marriage initiative or referendum, making something in that vein the WP:COMMONNAME. That "Question 1" has been used in the media is irrelevant. As is the "fact" of its being official. It is far more often referred to the other way, and that will only be more the case as we move forward from election day. Maine same-sex marriage initiative, 2012 and Maine same-sex marriage referendum, 2012 far preferable to the current title, which, as noted, is the result of a move that was against consensus and which I tried to revert.
1. Question 1 being used by media and the fact that it's a official title are relevant.

2. From Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title:

Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic.

Question 1 meets that criterion.

3. In all articles about older, similar initiatives/amendments official titles are used. I don't see a sensible reason to treat this case differently. Consistency is important thing.

Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue against keeping these articles generic in title is that the referendums are now on the ballot and have official titles used more than the generic one (particularly in the case of Maryland and Washington). When I created Maryland same-sex marriage referendum, 2012, I titled it according to what was relevant at the time and consistent with other articles. That's not the case anymore. My point is proven by search engine and page view statistics. Title containing "Maine Question 1" is preferable. The argument against the moves is that others outside of the states only know it generically as "same-sex marriage referendum", but if Washington's article wasn't named Referendum 74, I wouldn't have known that's what it was called, just not too long ago. It educates people and the official names stick over time. The official titles come up in the searches for each state's referendum (especially Maryland and Washington) and the statistics support the move. In sum, there's no good point in keeping a generic title where the official one is widely used. Teammm talk
email 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"generic title where the official one is widely used" - you have it upside down. If we were to go arbitrarily with "Maine same-sex marriage initiative, 2012" then why not rename every article on here on every marriage referendum "[State X] same-sex marriage initiative, [year]"? The ballot name is best because it does not require our interpretation and this is consistent on SSM articles. Hekerui (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with you. Teammm talk
email 00:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I misunderstood, sorry. Hekerui (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer that by saying that of course they should be renamed. Despite what has been said, "Question 1" has been used far less often than the generic terms, and it is bizarre to claim it is the WP:COMMONNAME. Also, officialness is irrelevant. It is hard to believe experienced editors are ignorant of that. Read WP:Article titles. Or take a short cut and read WP:Official names. The only part about the phrase "official name" that is relevant is the second: an official name is a candidate for an article title because it is something that people call it. That the name is official gives it absolutely no added weight. The determining factor is WP:COMMONNAME. The number of people even aware that it has been called "Question 1" is relatively small, and the share of people who would actually call it that is vanishingly so. What's more, it is not even clear that "Question 1" is an official title. From what I can tell on the SoS website, it was "Question 1. Citizen's Initiative" on the ballot. The official name of the thing that was actually passed is "An Act To Allow Marriage Licenses for Same-sex Couples and Protect Religious Freedom". If there was a short title, it is currently unavailable as the legislature's bill-related website is down. Hell, the thing has a bill number, which also has a claim on officialness.
But of course, what mattes is what people actually call it, and they use "marriage initiative" or "marriage referendum" far more often. A Google search of maine "same-sex marriage" initiative since July 1, 2012, yielded 36 pages of results before hitting the repetition notice. The terms maine "question 1" yielded 14. Limiting to News, the former had 38 pages, and the "question 1" version had 22. Unfortunately, Google doesn't provide hit totals for time-limited searches, but the results are dramatic nonetheless. This also ignores all the uses of "gay marriage", "referendum", and "ballot measure" to show that generics vastly outweigh usage of "Question 1". It is simply not credible to claim "Question 1" is the most common name, so it should not be the title of the article. It should be bolded as an alternative in the lead, but that is it. -Rrius (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the original question was never answered. There was a discussion, there was no consensus to move to Question 1, yet it was moved anyway. That was bad form to say the least. The proper move in the face of that would have been a move discussion, not a unilateral action. -Rrius (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maine Question 1, 2012. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

untitled

[edit]

There is an error in the map with the colour of Androscoggin County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.43.218.222 (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Maine_Question_1&oldid=1196618073"