Talk:Lawn sign

Missing template

I noticed that the template was missing, shouldnt that be added? Ringhloth —Preceding comment was added at 16:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

SimonP, I don't understand why you reverted me. This is an international encyclopedia and as I don't live in the USA I have never seen one of these "most visible features of an election campaign", therefore they are not international and some geographical context is needed. If I wrote an article that said "Inca Kola is one of the most popular soft drinks" you would be entirely justified in adding the qualifier "in Peru", since without it the statement would not hold true for readers from other countries and would look bizarre and parochial, as this article does to me. If lawn signs exist elsewhere then say so, but don't just leave the opening sentence as a universal statement, because it's simply untrue. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm Canadian and they certainly exist here and they are also used in Australia. Saying they are only used in the United States is false. - SimonP 02:41, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Suburban phenomenon

Aren't these very much a suburban phenomenon? In cities, the vast majority of political advertizing is on streetlamps, with a few in shop windows or on outside walls. Do we need a more general article at political campaign poster?--Pharos 05:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheap and effective or not?

As it is, the article calls lawn signs "important" and "cheap and effective" immediately before talking about how much campaign coordinators hate them and how expensive they are. Since no cites are provided for either claim, somebody should probably try to make this a little more internally consistent, or at least make it clear that two different points of view are being presented. -Cheapestcostavoider 04:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lawn sign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100905214540/http://www.campaigntrailyardsigns.com:80/about-campaign-yard-signs/campaign-yard-signs-needed/ to http://www.campaigntrailyardsigns.com/about-campaign-yard-signs/campaign-yard-signs-needed/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting placement of a sign

Look Closely for the Sign!

Charles Juvon (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging Sign war into Lawn sign. I think the content in SW can easily be explained in the context of LS, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in LS. Thenightaway (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I tentatively vote no. You would not be able to include the information on business sign wars in the Lawn sign article. From a preliminary google search, business sign wars seem to be the main type of "sign war." Nonetheless, I recognize that section of the Sign War article is rather weak as it is. Muttnik talk 13:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)