This is an archive of past discussions with User:GoldRingChip. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
United States Senate special election in Michigan, 1907
The categories I removed don't exist. If you wish to create such categories, that's fine. But please don't just leave red links.Rathfelder (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm wondering if you have a source for your assertion that Ron Estes took office on April 11? I'm wondering where exactly your source in. For example, Joe Manchin and Chris Coons were sworn in almost 2 weeks after their special election, and this contradicts your claim that the date of taking office is the date of the election. Do you have a citation from some law that supports your statement? Thank you.
JocularJellyfish (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
This issue has been debated before on another article. I will try to find support for it in the meantime. The difference is that both Manchin and Coons succeeded interim Senate appointees, whereas Estes succeeded a vacancy caused by a resignation. Thanks for challenging this as WP edits should have citations which mine did not.—GoldRingChip20:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Here: "The salaries of Representatives in Congress, Delegates from Territories, and Resident Commissioners, elected for unexpired terms, shall commence on the date of their election and not before." 2 U.S.C.§ 5304, (July 16, 1914, ch. 141, § 1, 38 Stat.458)
I disagree and I think it needs further discussion. All articles for US Senators and Representatives show the date they were sworn in, not when they were elected. This isn't a one article issue, but something that needs to be brought up for consistency among American political articles. Also, if you want to revert another user's edits, make sure everything is WRONG before fully reverting. Removing the official photo as you did in the Ron Estes article was uncalled for. Please be more careful. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Removing the photo was a mistake, I'm sorry. I'll look into the other issue and cite it. Thanks for bringing to my attention.—GoldRingChip12:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I want to discuss your several edits to Seniority in the House of Representatives, in which you claim that seniority starts on election day. This is not true - as you can see, seniority for representatives elected in November 2016 begins on January 3rd, 2017, the day they were seated. Gianforte, therefore, can have no seniority in the House because he is not a member of the House. He is a representative-elect, and not entitled to a place in the seniority ranking. I wanted to clarify this in the hopes that we can revert to my prior edit.
Your statements are true for Reps-elect whose terms have not yet started. HOWEVER, for representatives (and Senators) who are elected in a special election, their service begins when elected.—GoldRingChip16:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Current Seniority in the U.S. House of Representatives for individual reps
Do you know a way to create a template where each US rep page can update through a template where someone can change the sequence number in one place and centrally rather than update 435 individual pages? It seems real tedious to do every time someone leaves or dies, not to mention trying to sift through all the watchlist pages. I've been doing 50 at a time, but there has got to be a better way if we want to keep it.... — 11:51, 5 July 2017 Pvmoutside
I saw that you have been a major contributor to Template:USRepSuccessionBox and Template:U.S. Senator box. Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges I'm interested in a template for us judges succession. This would cover all levels (district, courts of appeals, and supreme court) and would simply the succession boxes, which are in a very poor state across the project. But I have no experience with this sort of thing. Would you be willing to help @Safiel:, @Snickers2686:, the rest of the project's members, and me out with making a template for this sort of thing? It would ideally cover something like this:
{{s-bef|before=[[Joel Fredrick Dubina]]}}
{{s-ttl|title={{nowrap|Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit]]}}|years=2017–present}}
{{s-inc}}
Many judgeships are not successive, but some are. Some judges replace others and some are appointed/elected as a group.—GoldRingChip13:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Not sure if you're the right person to ask, but I'd like to figure out if the Aldric Saucier mentioned as an independent candidate at Maine's 2nd congressional district is the same person as the whistleblower. I don't see in-line references. Are you able to find an RS please? I looked for him on Newspapers.com but the newest matches are all from 1992.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I suspect the two are the same person, as you do. I would continue on that assumption, until you discover otherwise. I found no other reliable sources. —GoldRingChip21:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Senate diagram
I understand yellow is the color used, but the light blue (not dark blue) shows they caucus with Democrats. If there was an independent in the Republican caucus light red would be used and if an independent elected not to join a caucus that's when we would use yellow. MB298 (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I see what you mean. And it is important to indicate that they are part of the caucus, especially as that's sort of the point of the image. Go ahead and revert it back.—GoldRingChip21:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'll make the changes. But before I do, can you point me to the WP format page explaining when to use one over the other? Thanks.—GoldRingChip22:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
What is the rationale for this move? Given the past move history, this should be considered potentially controversial, and a discussion initiated, per WP:RM#CM.
Note that this move has already been previously done, and reversed in January 2009. The en-dash misleadingly implies that two parties, Democratic and Republican, merged to form a single party, which is not the case. Actually, "Democratic" is simply a modifier of "Republican", which implies a Republican who believes in democracy. We use a hyphen for the modifier. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I have no objection for it to be changed back again, just keep everything consistent with all that's involved in these moves. Best, --Discographer (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe instead of making those images of Senator Burdick smaller i'll make a crop image? But I don't know whether I could do it. How about that? And why you removed seals of the United States Senate from some infobox and got rid of bold font text of the legend and the text under counties result?
P.S. Sorry my English might not be perfect but I'm trying and I thought my infoboxes were consistent at least that's what I thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Go6thGA (talk • contribs) 21:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the good questions! If you can make a cropped image of Burdick, that would be fine. But I created a standard image size for these Senate infoboxes of 125x136px, just for consistency sake. I removed the bold because it seemed (at least to me) unnecessary and looks like shouting. But, yes, many other infoboxes DO use the bolding; I just thought that it was time to stop using it and so we could stop using it consistently as we go along.—GoldRingChip22:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
UT-3
Just a heads up......Jocular Jellyfish has been pretty aggressive in already awarding the seat before the election is over today. Not that another outcome may be possible, but you would think he would wait until the election was over. I'd revert until the House swearing in, but I don't think he will wait, I've already reverted twice today.......Pvmoutside (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, GoldRingChip. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I am curious what the purpose of your expanding United States Senate elections, 2010 and the other articles is. These articles are meant to be an overview/summary of the state articles, not to have all the details. The results are already in the table at the top so it's redundant to include the election box template tables, and the infobox is another duplicate of that. While these tables are attractive and I'd understand including them with a brief race summary in the national list, I don't believe the prose should be copied-and-pasted from the main state articles to the overall list, as as at United States Senate elections, 2010#Alaska. These should be summarized rather than duplicated. I mean, if you're going to copy and paste nearly everything from United States Senate election in Arizona, 2006 to United_States_Senate_elections,_2006#Arizona, should we just redirect the state article to the national one? Reywas92Talk02:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. I've reduced the prose in the sections that needed it; I left the infoboxes because they give candidates pictures, but I removed the maps. I left the general election tables because they include other candidates who aren't always in the infoboxes. I also left the primary election tables because sometimes they are relevant to the story; where they aren't (such as third party primaries) I've removed them.—GoldRingChip14:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
That looks a lot better, thanks for your work on all these articles. Good idea to remove the maps, sometimes the infobox extends into the next section. The gaffe at United_States_Senate_elections,_2010#California seems rather extraneous. I would think though that perhaps results tables could be condensed when there are numerous minor candidates listed; those are details for the main article, and some primary elections are largely uncontested even if there are multiple candidates. United_States_Senate_elections,_2004#Illinois is especially long though. Do you have an eventual goal for what you want these or related articles to look like? Reywas92Talk00:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I've further reduced the California section. I've gone through all these Senate articles, starting at 1788/89, working now on 2012, and plan to finish with 2022. Including List of United States Senate elections. It's taken me a long time to get this far, and I've developed some new formatting standards mid-way, so I guess I'll go back to 1788/89 once I'm done and make sure they're all consistent.
A sample of what I've been doing:
Updating the Race summaries
Change in composition tables
State-sectioning of summaries.
Noting that some elections took place in the months AFTER the election year but before the beginning of the term (e.g., January 1 through March 3). Those election articles then became named by TWO-years. (e.g., 1870/71.)
Many instances of Senators being elected late (i.e. after March 4 / Jan. 3) and I've indicated the temporary vacancies during the interims.
Fixed earlier articles (pre-17th Amendment) that hadn't distinguished between a state legislature electing a senator and a governor appointing an interim senator.
My eventual goal? I don't know.
Maybe I'll start over in 1788/89 with House races, but that's much more difficult:
First of all, obviously, there are many more of them.
Secondly, the records are even worse than the Senate races, especially for the earlier ones. (Notice, for example, in some early Senate races (e.g., 1808/09), I had to say things like "unknown if incumbent lost re-election or retired.")
Thirdly, I have a major stumbling block on the House races that I can't figure out how to resolve, and I welcome your input on this: In many races in 17th & 18th century, Reps were elected in time for the first session of Congress, not necessarily in time for the March 3 beginning of the term. See, e.g., Alabama in 1848#Election summaries. So, if I edit the House articles like I've done the Senate articles, do I note a vacancy between March 3 and their eventual election? I can't find any reliable sources that calls it a vacancy and it's not up to me, as a WP editor, to make such a bold declaration (see WP:OR). It gets even murkier if a long-standing Rep was re-elected instead of a new person coming it. For comparison, I believe that in the case of the Speaker of the House, his/her terms as Speaker were only listed by the dates of their actual election as Speaker and the position went empty at the end of the Congress (See List of Speakers). Now if we decide YES, thats a vacancy, then we need to change all the articles of: the Members, the districts, and the elections. It would seem excessive, but I can't figure out what to do. I'll probably seek lots of people's input to develop the usual-WP-consensus.
I do like the current format of the recent House elections. With so many races the state tables work well, with details like local campaigns and other candidates in the state subarticles and the competitive/flipped and open seats highlighted at the top. There does need to be consistency though. Just in recent year articles there are headers called 'Retiring incumbents', 'Open seats', 'Incumbents not seeking re-election', and 'Incumbents not seeking reelection' without a hyphen. There's also 'Open seats that changed parties' vs. 'Open seat gains'; 'Election predictions' vs. 'Competitive districts' and 'Pre-election analysis and selected results'; and 'Complete list of elections' vs. 'Complete list of races', 'November elections', and 'Elections to the next Congress'. I prefer that last one (used in 2014) since it's distinct from 'Special elections', which should be used instead of 'Separate elections' since no one ever uses that term. If you have other thoughts toward consensus I'm happy to help implement some of them. Reywas92Talk05:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
House "vacancies"
It appears to me that the session of the 31st Congress held in March was a special session conducted only by the Senate, while the House didn't meet until December when the Speaker was elected. Therefore there wasn't a vacancy there in any practical sense in terms of missed votes. The PDF under Member Information here would be the definitive source. The March 4 start of Congress was more arbitrary then because the houses didn't meet year-round - salaries were still paid per diem until six years later! Reywas92Talk18:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I see what you mean and you're right and that's what I was getting at. The House didn't meet until December, which was typical until the 20th Amendment changed it. So for "all practical purposes" they didn't miss anything if they were elected two months into a term if the first meeting wasn't for another four months. And all the references that I (albeit briefly) reviewed say the same thing: that their service continued from March 4 even if they were elected in August. But these references are all just circumstantial: That there's no reference to vacancies due to late elections; that their per diems and paychecks continued regardless; that the governors did not call for special elections; etc. etc. etc. But still… there is no direct verbose statement that I can find anywhere that answers this question directly. It's not up to me (or any of us WP editors) to make this decision sua sponte (again, see WP:OR). Yes, I know I'm being pedantic in a big way, with little benefit to show for it if I'm right. And that's why I want some clear direct statement in the research to repudiate me. Can you find a direct statement anywhere one way or the other? (PS, I you have any thoughts on the Senate election articles, please put them in the discussion above.) —GoldRingChip18:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what kind of direct statement you could possibly find. The Biographical Directory entry for the newly elected imply he served the whole Congress, compared to that of a member elected to fill a vacancy in the same Congress. I don't see any decision you need to make as the current articles accurately match what the sources say. Reywas92Talk04:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}