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.
I think what you propose causes a duplication of the information in the electoral history column: first in the vacancy row and then again in the successor's row. Furthermore, in some cases (not this one, however) there are other circumstances to explain what happened during the vacancy that are not related to the predecessor or the successor, and I think that's what should go in the vacancy row's electoral history box. For example, there might be a vacancy at the beginning of the term in some confederate states before their members were re-seated. Or also: there might be a rep-elect who died or declined the election. —GoldRingChip00:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Dammit GoldRingChip stop coming up with such sensible responses. :) Will edit it out of CA-42.
Your use of templates is continuing to populate category redirects - see Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories for some of them (note that it takes a while for some to show up there). The underlying problem is that these templates are often very poor at handling situations when the naming changes between levels. I note that Template:Category U.S. State elections by year offers override options - please can you try to use these. Otherwise I'll have to keep removing the templates to avoid the redirect mess they keep causing. Timrollpickering (Talk) 16:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It's certainly not populating redirects. The problem is basically the template looks at the category name and puts it in other categories based on it - but that requires everything to be consistent. That's fine for a long established state in the 21st century, more of a problem for a category of elections during its territory stage. (I see someone has proposed renaming the Oklahoma categories to try to fix the mismatch that way.) Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Elected in....
I'm almost done with adding the ordinals to each congressional district. I was going to then start adding the elections to each district. Before i start that, i was wondering if there was a way to write something similar to what you did with the ordinals, so you can shortcut writing each election....(i.e. 62|63 and 1892|1894….Pvmoutside (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe? {{Dts}} provides both the date and the sorting together, which is better. But using a template can, if used extensively for every single member on a very long list, break the post-expand include size… which I found here. We fixed it in that example, PLUS I would rather not use "data-sort-value" because it's usually more work to code than necessary and more confusing to future editors than necessary. So maybe I should go back to using {{dts}}? —GoldRingChip13:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. I've found dts pretty easy since you don't have to write it twice. It also appears that if you change what a cell displays in visual editor, it won't update the data sort value, so back-end formatting is a little less accessible, but good to know about the include size. Reywas92Talk19:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.
So I actually have records from 1788 to 1920, but unfortunately the way I had initially printed the data I had neglected to include any of the pages I wasn't interested in. What that means is that I'm actually missing the basic citation data which is …. problematic to say the least, and I have no way to get my hands on the source again now with the current pandemic, least for the time being. Those prints I have since scanned again into a PDF which I should have done from the start, but the even-numbered pages have an issue where a "shadow" eats into one of the columns making some bits of data indecipherable; in those cases have had to go to Our Campaigns as they cite Michael J. Dubin's book, and I believe that that is what I've been using. I've been meaning to make the scans available, but I'm not sure how best to do so. --Ariostos (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you want to leave it for someone else, but I've been doing some Kweisi Mfume edits. i'm not sure where he fits in seniority based on his previous tenure.....i'll leave it for you, or someone else....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
i saw that you reverted back the edits done by user 2601:241:301:4360:AC5F:1097:21EA:B82A after i undid them because i thought it was vandalism done by that user because apparently, they were reported to intervention against vandalism. sorry if i make mistake because i am new to wikipedia MP40 Flame 200 (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)MP40 Flame 200
They're ok. The user hadn't used edit summaries, so it just looked like vandalism. They should have set up an account (not done it as anonymous) and used edit summaries. Still, it was ok that they'd blanked that info. No apology necessary on your part, furthermore, as it's good for you to WP:BB! —GoldRingChip(he/she/it/they))23:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Massachusetts legislature article names
Hi GoldRingChip. In case you are interested, there is discussion just now at WikiProject Massachusetts about (1) Massachusetts legislative session article names and (2) legislative district article names. Your input would be welcome. Cheers. -- M2545 (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Help needed on House Ratings page
Hello Gold!
I am currently locked into a big disagreement with a User known as Playlet over the Niskanen ratings on the house of reps page. He is willing to edit war me to add them rather than reach a consensus with me. Can you help me because I don't want to engage in an edit war and get blocked for it. Thank you. Wollers14 (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
For some odd reason they don't show up but, it could be pretty easily interpreted that the categories could constitute as links. This is a bit off topic but I definitely think that the templates I was talking about earlier could be expanded by adding the elections for some state officials. --Skim00:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Hattie Wyatt Caraway into 1932 United States Senate elections. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that earlier today, you changed the capitalization of "Senator" in the officeholder IB. I believe that per MOS:JOBTITLES, this is not a necessary change (i.e. the reference in the IB is a reference to the title, not a genericized reference to the office). Regardless of my opinion though, there is a discussion about this ongoing at the talk page for the IB template.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I saw your edit here. These additions redirect right back to this page in violation of WP:SELFRED and I reverted. Again SELFRED reads- 'Avoid linking to titles that redirect straight back to the page on which the link is found.'...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?00:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2020 United States Senate elections; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Hello. I saw you reverted my reverts of your reordering of candidates, but you left the exact same edit summary as before. The candidates in races without an incumbent are properly ordered alphabetically by last name. They can't be ordered by both party and name at the same time; that doesn't make any sense, unless you can provide a link to a discussion clearing up what is meant by that. Also, the 3x4.svg file is the preferred blank image for election infoboxes, not 2x3; candidate images are most often cropped to 3x4. Also, the link=|alt=]] syntax is standard MediaWiki syntax to prevent the Media Viewer from coming up for blank images. ― Tartan357(Talk)22:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Most importantly, this article is under enforced WP:BRD, which prohibits you from reverting reverts of your WP:BOLD edits without first establishing a consensus through discussion on the talk page:
All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)
To be clear, I only care about enforcing the consensus re candidate ordering. If you provide me with a link to the relevant discussion, I'll happily self-revert. Thanks. ― Tartan357(Talk)01:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@Tartan357: When an edit to an U.S. elections page is begun, there is an edit notice at the top of the page in black, red, and blue text. That notice starts: Attention editors, then: Candidate lists: then later: Infoboxes: and under that: Before primary: All candidates should be listed alphabetically by last name regardless of incumbency or party. After primary: Only nominees should be included, and still listed alphabetically by name (not party). That is what I'm citing. —GoldRingChip02:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
The following is the relevant part for infoboxes:
Infoboxes:
Before primary:No candidates should be listed regardless of incumbency or party. After primary: Only nominees should be included — sorted first by incumbent — then alphabetically by party and name. After general: Nominees should be listed by order of results with the winner first through the lowest-place last.
As I said before, I don't see how candidates can be arranged alphabetically both by party and last name at the same time. That's what I'm asking you to clarify. I restored the page to its long-standing state (sorted by name, not party) before your edit, and would just like to know how your edit is in line with the consensus. Thanks. ― Tartan357(Talk)02:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@Tartan357: Whoops, thanks for noting the correct section which I'd misquoted above. But it's not "both by party and last name at the same time"… instead it should be understood as "first by party, then by candidate" (should multiple candidates be running from the same party). I can correct the language in the edit notice, if you think that would help. So, if a Democratic incumbent is running against a Republican and a Libertarian, then the Democrat would be first because of incumbency, then the Libertarian second because "Libertarian" is alphabetical before "Republican." As for the Georgia special election, there are no nominees yet because the primary hasn't happened, so no candidates should be listed. —GoldRingChip02:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
GoldRingChip, thank you; that makes sense to me. I do think it would help to change the language in the edit notice. Feel free to change the infoboxes back, or I'll do it in about an hour. I agreed with you on the GA special election and did not revert your edit to that infobox. As for the blank images, 3x4 is more appropriate than 2x3 because 3x4 is the standard aspect ratio for election infobox portraits now—I don't know if there's been a large-scale discussion on that, but it was a standard adopted for 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. As for the link syntax, link=|alt=]] should be used to disable the Media Viewer and links for blank images and to prevent them from showing up in search engine results. See MOS:PDI. ― Tartan357(Talk)02:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Tartan357, per your suggestion I've changed the language of the edit notice. 3x4 is the correct aspect ratio, but I thought maybe it was too big for a blank, so I liked 2x3 as a compromise between nothing-at-all (too small) and 3x4 (too big); but I'm not enamored with any solution there. Using "link=|alt=" is fine. —GoldRingChip14:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Adding newly elected reps to ordinals
I'm having trouble adding some of the newly elected reps to the ordinal rosters...,see Alabama's 2nd district...can you help? Pvmoutside....
California's 3rd congressional district: The election dates do not match up with the reps taking seats for 1867, 1871, and 1879. Can you help?....pvmoutside...
@Pvmoutside: Looks fine to me. I made some formatting tweaks, but I don't know what issue you had. In those three years, elections were held after the term formally started, but it was common in the 19th century for members to be elected "late" but before the December meeting of the first session. Does that answer it for you? —GoldRingChip15:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi GoldRingChip! I'm messaging you because I saw that you have an interest in font sizes at the 117th United States Congress page and would like to notify you that an RfC has been started on that very subject. Your input would be very much appreciated and the RfC can be accessed in the title of this section.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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.
Sorry, there's no rule or consensus. I think it's less-than-helpful and more trouble than it's worth so I would recommend not having them. You, however, may follow your conscience. :) WP:BB. —GoldRingChip20:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Senate certification deadline in Georgia
Regarding the footnote at 117th United States Congress, I thought that was an example of WP:CALC rather than outright original research. Calculating the second Friday after an election seems pretty straightforward.
