User talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2009

Add topic
Active discussions


I'm not strong on deletion criteria, so would you have a look at Senator-designate? I've added the central information, that an appointed person is called "senator-designate", to United States Senate, and I just don't see why -designate needs its own article. -Rrius (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  •   Done. I redirected it to United States Senate.—GoldRingChip 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I have no intention to argue but I will make 2 points.... A - if Senator-elect has an article, so should this. B - It was listed as under construction, so, being busy in real life, I was not really done. Perhaps it could be discussed that sen-desg should be merged into the sen-elect article, but def not redirect to the general US Senate article. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 05:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
      • You make a good argument, but Senator-elect does not have its own article. Just like Senator-designate, it redirects to United States Senate. In July 2007 I suggested that it be redirected to United States Senate. A debate ensued and the consensus was to redirect. I believe that's the kind of discussion you are suggesting be done again for Senator-designate. If you want to make a new AFD discussion for that, I would be happy to provide my opinion there. 11:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Moreover, what was there was not worthy of an article. More than half was false information about how the appointment procedure works, for example, your assertion that secretary of state confirms the appointment. What remained after removing the false and misleading text was a two-sentence definition. If you intend to write an article but don't have time to write an actual article based on verified sources, begin writing it in your user space (i.e., in a personal sandbox) and roll it out after you have it written. Finally, as I said when I removed it, a {{underconstruction}} tag should not be used on a short article as is explained at template:underconstruction -Rrius (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You are correct about senator-elect. I did not check that, and there is no reason to engage in a useless AFD. Instead, I propose expanding that particular section in the Senate article.... It's way to short. My info on the Sec. of State "co-signing" or to "certify" the governor's selection is in fact valid, at least in Illinois. Unless I am misunderatanding the events unfolding in my home state of Illinois, which I don't think I am. Either way, I'll play by your rules. I just looked up the term, which I had not heard, amid all this crap going on, and noticed the article did not exist.... I thought that there should be at least some reference to the position as it will likely draw a lot of interest in the coming days. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The rule about a secretary of state countersigning applies everywhere, but you said "confirm", which implies the secretary gets a veto over the appointment. Every legal analyst I've heard has agreed with my legal conclusion that Jesse White has no right to withhold his signature. It will be truly shocking if when the supreme court finally rules it does not tell White he has to sign it. By the way, it is my home state too. Aren't we lucky! -Rrius (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
See Marbury v. Madison.—GoldRingChip 00:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Precisely. I have avoided breaking out the case law since it is easy to run into trouble for a lawyer on Wikipedia to be all lawyerly. -Rrius (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You're a lawyer? That explains a lot.—GoldRingChip 00:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota vacancy

This Coleman issue is going to be fun. I reverted your edits to 111th United States Congress, but I'm open to suggestions. Based on Riddick's Senate Procedure, the Senate would have to declare both contestant to the seat ineligible in order for the seat to be declared vacant (a Pennsylvania and New Hampshire case are precedent). Given the partisan bickering, I doubt that will happen. In either case, the Senate probably wouldn't take up the issue of the contested seat until Minnesota declares a winner, whether that be the Canvassing Board or certification by the Secretary of State. Until then, I would say the seat is neither vacant nor filled. Some sort of nether world. I'm going to work on getting some answers through my Senate contacts. Time may resolve the issue for us, however.DCmacnut<> 19:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • You're in charge of it, then. Please put notes in "<!-- -->" brackets and on the talk page so people don't screw around with it.—GoldRingChip 20:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Do you want notes on the main page as well? Presumably, you'll want them near the unresolved/vacancy section.DCmacnut<> 20:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

List of United States Senators from Illinois

Could you check out edits today at the above article. I think putting "designate" in the notes column masks the uncertainty of the situation. Frankly, I have a suspicion that the person is coming from a "seat Burris" POV (which incidentally I share), and is not seeing that this needs to be treated differently from a normal appointment. Anyway, whether I'm wrong or right, I don't want to cross 3RR and I don't want to fight it anymore without a fresh set of eyes. I'll probably just go with whatever you say. Thanks. -Rrius (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


GoldRingChip, please turn your attention to Talk:United States Senate#Organization of content. This could get out of hand. -Rrius (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)



Fixed. Thanks for the suggestion! —kurykh 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Year by category

Hi, you recently made a change to this template, and transclusion on Category:2007 by day and its friends seem to indicate that something is now broken the cat option of this template. It transcludes [[Category:]]. Can you take a look ? --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notice. I've fixed it now (I think). Let me know if it's still bugged.—GoldRingChip 14:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

House Financial Services subcommittee changes

Question. The House Financial Services has split one of its subcommittees into separate committees. How would we handled the old one? In the past we created redirect from the old to new, moving the page as appropriate so the history remains intact. However, in this case they're being split. Do I move and redirect one and create a new page for the other? What do you think? See: United States House Committee on Financial Services#Subcommittees. Press release from the Ranking Member on the new changes and new subcommittee structure is in the article.DCmacnut<> 21:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Congress infobox pictures

I'm intrigued by your notion of having a picture from each Congress in its infobox. I feel that we should strive to have it pertain to both houses, but I am having trouble thinking of how to get free pictures that fit the bill. Are there free images available for the State of the Union, which would give us the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House in one place? Just an idea. -Rrius (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not crazy about creating a big project out of it. It's just that the standard default picture in the infobox is a 2007 photo of the capitol. Not a bad default, but when there's a better picture I'd prefer to use it. —GoldRingChip 13:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why'd you change all the congressional delegation things

And add the extra scroll bar deal. You know what I mean. It was better before.

  • O, anonymous one: I did it to make them more readable to people with narrower computer screens. If you really don't like it, please revert them and I won't get in your way. Be bold!—GoldRingChip 13:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Colorado & Illinois Senate elections

Thanks for admitting your error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islandersa (talkcontribs) 00:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did you fully protect the House of Representatives page for a month?

Both the protection level and the term seem drastic for a page with only 200 edits total - good and bad - in 6 months. I don't think it needs any protection, but it certainly doesn't need full protection to deal with anon vandals. Please fix it. Thanks,--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 06:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  • You're right! Thank you for alerting me. I had overprotected it. I have just now downgraded protection from full to semi. —GoldRingChip 12:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act

Your wish is my command: Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act. TJRC (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

  •   Thank you. Looks good.—GoldRingChip 21:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


I'm a little confused by this edit and edit summary. My version suggests he was a senator all along and that he took the oath on Jan. 15. Your edit suggests he only became a senator on taking the oath. In other words, the critique in your edit summary should be applied to your edit, not the existing version. -Rrius (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I really don't know. Can you find a third party source one way or the other?—GoldRingChip 20:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Like I said, I'm confused. You routinely suggest you accept the principle that "an oath does not a Senator make", yet you are suggesting that an oath did make Burris a senator. At any rate, I would point to 2 U.S.C. § 36 and this Senate document, which shows that the Senate uses that statute as the rule for when terms of senators appointed and elected to fill vacancies begin and end. Of course that is not necessarily the rule that the Rules Committee or the respective party caucuses use for seniority, but that is a different issue. -Rrius (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • All i know is that by the time he took the oath, he was a Senator. So he's definitely considered seated no later than today. But was it today, Jan. 3, Dec. 31? I just don't know.—GoldRingChip 20:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
        • That's why I provided the link and the statutory cite. -Rrius (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Yes, I know. I made that change just to get rid of the "oath" part because it's irrelevant. What matters there is when he was seated. If, as it turns out, he was seated (or his term began, or whatever) on a different day, then change the day accordingly.—GoldRingChip 21:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible edit war

I'm not sure whether it fits the definition of "edit war", but it looks like one is brewing at Norm Coleman over whether the infobox should say "Undetermined" or "Al Franken". As an uninvolved admin, maybe you should take a look.

  • I'm satisfied with it reading "Al Franken (in contention)" as is does now and as the other editor has phrased it.—GoldRingChip 21:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not. That successor section in the Infobox, is meant for the new Senator, Senator-elect or Senator-designate (of which Franken, is neither). PS: The IPs are currently under suspicion for being socks. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I wasn't worried about who was right, I was more worried at what looked like an edit-war tempest in a teapot. It looks two of the participants were a sock and his master (allegedly). -Rrius (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Since WP doesn't make the decision, I'm comfortable with WP saying that Franken is the successor but putting an explanatory note. It's all in flux and the readers need to know that. As for the alleged puppetry, I don't care if it's Al Franken himself making the edits. If I were to do it, that's what I would have written. I dislike edit warring, but I see no reason to butt in, at least not yet. —GoldRingChip 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I wonder, could we beg Minnesota to straighten things out earlier rather then later. Perhaps persuade Coleman to concede? Wishful thinking, I know. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
        • As an aside, this is so un-Minnesota-like. Seriously, though: We rode out the Burris affair and we'll survive this. Wikipedia is a top resource for people to figure out what's going on so we need to be accurate and inclusive all at the same time. —GoldRingChip 21:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
          • These long drawn out struggles are exhausting. PS: They can't blame the butterfly ballot for this one, ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


Regardless of when he was appointed, he did not become a member of the Senate until January 15 when he was seated. Whenever another vacancy has arisen we list the date the person took the oath of office, not the date of appointment. This would be similar to a special election in the House of Representatives; the winning candidate does not become a member on the day of the election, but rather on the day he or she was seated. – Zntrip 00:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Check the chronological list; the date of appointment is the day they become senators. -Rrius (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


Why did you remove a link to the preloaded debate on Template:AfDM? This makes it very difficult to do AfD nominations now. AnyPerson (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I didn't know that my edits did that. Can you correct the problem? If not, you may revert.—GoldRingChip 03:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It's protected, I'm not an admin. AnyPerson (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I'll take a look.—GoldRingChip 13:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Looks like someone took care if it already. Sorry for the fuss.—GoldRingChip 13:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

NJ 1982

It was a special election. Lautenberg took office on Decemeber 27 1982. Had it been just a regularly scheduled election, he would have assued office on January 3, 1983. —Islandersa —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC).

  • I think Lautenberg was elected in November for the term beginning January. Baker then resigned and Lautenberg was appointed . That's what Lautenberg's article says.—GoldRingChip 16:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

US Senators Infoboxes

Wowsers, that sure saved alot of time & effort. I was gonna do the tough way, one-by-one. Thanks, for the quick solution. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(John was in the 110th; Mark was in the 111th.)

Sorry, I thought I was correcting vandalism on the 111th page. Not sure what I was thinking. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I saw the same thing you were seeing. You saw the anon user change it from John to Mark. Two minutes later, the user changed it back. I'm guessing you saw it happen midway and you acted to revert it. No harm done.—GoldRingChip 18:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

27th US Congress

Can you make sure I properly restored your work at 27th United States Congress? I started an edit before you made your edit, so I edited over yours, then restored it. I put the line break in the lead and copied and pasted the Officers/Employees section from your diff to the current version. I think that is all, but I wanted to give you a heads up. -Rrius (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Looks good. I removed the unnecessary line break in the lede.—GoldRingChip 14:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Overman Committee

Hey, I saw you rated Overman Committee as a Good Article. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I most definitely could be wrong, but I thought for an article to be classified as a Good Article it had to go through the Good Article nomination process. Thanks. Bsimmons666 (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I probably got ahead of myself. But Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles doesn't say a GA must go through a nomination process. It seems to imply that articles are nominated by "editors who happen to discover an article that they believe is good quality, but the vast majority are made by editors who have spent extensive time working on the nominated article. Such editors have an emotional stake in the article and are usually interested in continuing to improve it." I'm an uninvolved editor, so I rated it myself. All that said, I'm very willing to have you either re-rate it or just to nominate it. It's all good to me.—GoldRingChip 20:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Haha the rating's fine with me. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

19th-23rd Congresses

GoldRingChip: Any objections if I convert by hand J-DR to Jacksonians and A-DR to Adams and Anti-Jacksonians (National Republicans) over the next few weeks to better align the Congresses to Martis? I think you suggested it a while back to me. I'm still plodding through the congressional districts,so I thought this would be a short diversion. No way a bot could change them by chance (not sure how to write one)???????.....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm torn. Martis is a good source but the Bioguide differs sometimes, right? What do we take as definitive?—GoldRingChip 00:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • How about the Clerk of the House history page? They don't use A-DR or J-DR or even National Republican for that matter. The options are Adams, Jacksonian, and Anti-Jacksonian. I think the driving reason behind having them as Adams-Democratic Republican or Jackson-DR in Wikipedia (I beliee User:Stilltim was the main editor) was to emphasize that both Adams and Jacksonians were schisms within the Democratic-Republican Party. Personally, I prefer the way the Clerk lists them. Democrats and Whigs didn't show up until the 25th Congress.DCmacnut<> 02:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Since Martis, the Bioguide and the Clerk of the House all refer to the factions as Adams, Anti-Jacksons and Jacksons, I'm inclined to change them to that. If I do, the Adams and Anti-Jacksons are linked to the National Republicans. If no one has a problem there, I'll begin the change....Pvmoutside (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:North Dakota elections, 2012

I didn't empty the category, I blanked it because it was empty and seemed likely to remain so for a long time. If it stayed empty for four days, I would have attempted a speedy deletion per C1. There was no discussion because speedy deletion does not require any discussion. I hope that clears things up. - Stepheng3 (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  • That does clear things up.—GoldRingChip 20:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

re: special elections

Oh, I see. That doesn't make any sense, but hey, that's politics! xD Nevermore | Talk 08:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

111th United States Congress

Hi, First of all, I think that the Omnibus Public Land Management Act should absolutely be included on the list of pending and failed legislation, since it was passed by the Senate, but I regret to say that I have never created a Wikipedia article on a piece of legislation before, although I have edited several. My question is: Does this bill meet the notability guidelines for legislation, given the fact that it has not been passed nor has it been a huge media focus (as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been)? If the answer is yes, then I would be happy to create the article.

Secondly, I feel that the inclusion of bills' statuses on this list is a good idea. For failed legislation (which hasn't happened yet, of course) we could denote which house it passed in and which house it failed in, or whether it was vetoed by the president, and so on.

Just a couple of thoughts. Let me know what you think. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  • We don't really have a good standard for inclusion of bills. That it's not blue-linked has been a passable standard for now. I suggest you try creating the article. Be bold!. Once you've made one, point it out to me and I'll edit it a little. As for bills' status - I'm just trying to be realistic about keeping it up-to-date. THOMAS tracks bills by the smallest change in status - which should we include: referral to committee; reintroduced as a related bill; enacted by one house? I suggest we keep this article limited to a simple list. If a bill is vetoed, that can merit mention. At the end of the 111th Congress, every bill will either be enacted or failed and it won't matter it's legislative history - that can better be handled in the bill's article.—GoldRingChip 15:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Committees by Congress

Not sure if you're watching my [User:Dcmacnut/United_States_Senate_Committees_by_Congress sandbox], so I'm posting here. I agree, a table format is unwieldy. I'm in the process of figuring out the best way to accomplish this. I just got back from a trip to DC, and made a side trip to the Library of Congress reading room where I reviewed David Canon's Committees in the U. S. Congress, 1789-1946. The Senate Historical Office recommended it. It's a very good resource. Unfortunately I don't have access locally and won't be going back to DC until the end of March. I only copied a few basic historical discussions from the 4 volume set to try to get a sense of how early committees formed. I didn't have time or patience (or willingness to violate copyright) by copying more substantial sections. I may be able to get a copy through Interlibrary Loan, but I doubt it since these appear to be limited to non-circulating reference stacks.

One thing I learned from all this is just how complex the committee system was. Until around the 47th Congress, committees were reappointed every session of a Congress, even special sessions, often with different chairs and memberships. That's anywhere from 2 to 4 different committee rosters in one two year period. Moreover, people routinely left committees for various reasons (death, resignation, or simply didn't want to serve) so replacements were appointed in mid-session, and that replacement would need to be recognized in someway. Also, committees were appointed regardless of party affiliation until the late 19th Century, so you could have an Adams chair in a Jackson dominated senate or vice versa. Formal majority/minority splits, along with ranking members came in late in the 1800s. That's why my table idea isn't clean for those early congresses.

Finally, there's the question of what committees to consider. Obviously, standing committees, but select committees also have merit. Many later became standing committees and some, like Select Committees on Women's Suffrage or the various select committees addressing issues of slavery are notable in their own right. Stubb's book on committees ignores many minor standing committees, and Canon's anthology doesn't ignore any. In the 1st Congress alone, Canon listed 220 distinct select committees, ranging in terms from as little as a few days to those lasting the entire Congress. They handled anything from specific bills to ceremonial committees charged with waiting on the President (precursors to the modern Joint Inaugural Committee?) How do you choose which ones to include and which to exclude. Any independent decision by me as an editor would amount to original research, so one would either have to include all of them or none at all. In either case, the List of defunct United States congressional committees is woefully incomplete. Looks like I've got my work cut out for me.DCmacnut<> 02:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I thought this would be overwhelming, but not that much. I believe that so much work should NOT be put into this. 540 Senators/Reps/Delegates in multiple committees will produce lists approaching tens of thousands. That's unwieldy. I wouldn't rush into it just yet. Let's not violate WP:OR, and our time can be better spent doing other editing.—GoldRingChip 11:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The information is there in the two sources I mentioned, so gathering info won't be that much. Displaying it is another matter. It could be enough to include a statement to the effect that "1st Congress included 220 select committees." In either case, we will need to update the defunct committee list to include all such committees. On my to do list, but for later.DCmacnut<> 16:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Senate page protection

I saw on my watchlist that you full-protected United States Senate, meaning that only administrators can edit it for three months. I assume you meant to semiprotect it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes. My mistake. I've corrected it now.—GoldRingChip 17:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Select or special committee (United States Congress)

Take a look at the expansion I made to Select or special committee (United States Congress) and give me your thoughts.DCmacnut<> 18:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  • That's a lot you added. Looks good.—GoldRingChip 22:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

PA 23rd District

I have another one for you GoldRingChip... In PA's 23rd district, according to the Congressional Biographies, Rep. Ebenezer McJunkin resigned January 1, 1875, yet his replacement John M. Thompson took office December 22, 1874. It seems to be out of synch. Do you have any better dates? Pvmoutside (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry — I can't figure it out. I went to the political graveyard, findagrave, and the bioguide. All of them say the same thing. I suspect the first two use the bioguide as a source. There's no evidence that redistricting somehow muddied the waters, but sometimes that explains it. United States congressional delegations from Pennsylvania needs to be cleaned up a little, and maybe that will help. I remember that User:Npeters22 was involved with Pennsylvania congressman — ask him/her. If you do solve it, please let me know. I'll keep searching. Perhaps you could post a simple query on {{Project Congress to do}}?—GoldRingChip 14:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandal page move

I reverted a vandal's movement of Roland Burris to Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire! and marked the latter for speedy deletion, but I don't know the right place to get an admin to deal with this sort of vandalism. Help! -Rrius (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been taken care of, but where do you take such things? WP:ANI? I wish people weren't such jerks because I really hate the enforcement stuff. -Rrius (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlinking dates

It's next on my list. I created those base tables months ago before we decided to unlink them. I need to copy the text to an external editor to make massive changes. I'm a new father, so edit in spurts now.DCmacnut<> 02:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • OK. Congrats on your own private stimulus bill!—GoldRingChip 03:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Illinois and Colorado short terms

When we first started talking about the two-elections-on-one-ballot situation, you said you found some prior instances. Do you remember what those were? I need an example or so for non-Wikipedia purposes, but I don't have the patience right now to go through the lists of senators from each state, so I hope you remember. -Rrius (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't remember. When did I say that?—GoldRingChip 23:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't remember, but it seems like a really long time ago at this point. I'm just going to let it go. -Rrius (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits to USBill Template

You reverted the {{USBill}} template to the older URL, because the new one "did not allow for spaces." Could you expand and clarify that? Wouldn't the switch function work either way?

The main reason I originally moved USBill to the format is that this is a new, permanent URL that will never change. It acts as a redirect to whater URL Thomas uses to generate links to legislation, which can change from time to time and may result in broken links down the road. the handles will never change. Also, when you use the direct Thomas URL, all congresses prior to the 100th Congress require leading zeros. For example, with the edits you made a link to S. 1 from the 99th Congress will no longer work. Otherwise you'd have to type it as {{USBill|099|S1}} to get it to work (S. 1). The original original template had a complex parser function to determine when someone entered in a congress prior to the 100th. The new legislative handle helped simpify the template, since it adds leading zeros automatically.

I guess this is a long drawn out way to see if we could somehow change the template back to what it was before, but still address your concerns about allowing for spaces.DCmacnut<> 22:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Drat. I thought I'd fixed everything, but now it's all mucked up, you're right. I'll revert it. Then, when I get a chance (I'm a little busy with other things right now), I'll explain my original problem. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.—GoldRingChip 22:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

States Rights Party

I added a discussion point regarding the Pre-Civil War States Rights Party to the Template: United States political party shading key discussion board. Let me know what you think. Pvmoutside (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Chronological order

Thanks for the comment. How do I rearrange all my contibutions into chronological order from earliest to latest for you to see?

  • Good question! See this edit which I made to California's 9th district.—GoldRingChip 14:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC) (I made some edits SINCE then, however.—GoldRingChip 14:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

James Jones (Georgia)

GoldRingChip, the Congressional Biography said he died January 11, 1801. You have a better reference?? Pvmoutside (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I have no doubt that you (and the CongBio) are right; I just want to be sure that the article is consistent. Thanks for clearing it up.—GoldRingChip 14:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Print is so passe

Dianne Feinstein's article says she is Vice-Chair of the United States Congress Joint Committee on Printing. To see whether this is still true, I went to the committee website. Check it out; it is a tad out of date. -Rrius (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


What is going on with {{MARepresentatives}}?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I started it, but didn't get around to finishing it. Do you wanna give it a little attention?—GoldRingChip 10:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • It's   Done now.—GoldRingChip 18:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point

Good point. User:Wadester16/Smile ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

March 3 vs. March 4 for end of Congressional terms to 1933

GoldRingChip, I need some clarification, and feel free to share this with whoever you think could help. I was editing the List of United States Senators from Rhode Island, and noticed the termination of a regular term to 1933 was dated March 4, so I made changes to reflect the March 3rd date. Rrius reverted back to March 4th. His reasoning is found on his discussion page and linked here: User talk:Rrius. I know it is only 1 day, but can you or do you know anyone who can clarify? Feel free to respond on my discussion page. Pvmoutside (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I was part of the March 3/4 debate, I think it was a few years ago. User:Rrius is right that it's a jumble and that we (WP) ought to use March 4 as the beginning & end of pre 1935 terms. Another WP expert to ask is User:Dcmacnut.—GoldRingChip 01:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

USPL Template: Link to .pdf rather than plain text?

On the Template talk:USPL page, I suggest that the U.S. Public Law template link to the GPO's cleaner and more authoritative .pdf files, rather than plain text, as it does now. Do you have a comment? If so, would you be so kind as to leave it on that page? Thank you. -Matjamoe (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I've added my idea. Next time, by the way, try {{Please see}}.—GoldRingChip 23:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comment—and the helpful tip. I'm still fairly new to this Wikipedia thing. -Matjamoe (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Troubled Assets Relief Program

Could you rename the article Troubled Assets Relief Program to Troubled Asset Relief Program (without he "S")? The latter seems to be the official name[1], but only an admin can make the move. Thanks! – Zntrip 22:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the article. However, we also need your help moving the talk page Talk:Troubled Assets Relief Program to Talk:Troubled Asset Relief Program because there is already a trivial page there. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cities and towns debate

I thought you would be interested in the discussion at Talk:Braintree,_Massachusetts#City_of_Town_of_Braintree regarding the issue we discussed briefly last summer, and may want to weigh in. I certainly hope the articles can become more consistent, and the participants at the Braintree discussion may be able to help form a consensus for the project in general. Sswonk (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

New list

I've created a new list at Party switching in the United States Senate. Please take a look at it if you get a chance. -Rrius (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Confederate Districts in VA-1 eliminated

Another small issue, but I've reconstructed VA-1 a little and eliminated the confederate district reps previously listed(will do others as I move forward). Since the districts are referenced as United States districts, and the United States did not recognize the confederate districts, I'm eliminating them. Pvmoutside (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Good. I agree with your change.—GoldRingChip 17:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:MARepresentatives

 Template:MARepresentatives, who you created, has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 24#Two_US_representatives_templates. Thank you.

(Note that I have included two templates in one nomination). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you comment at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_24#Two_US_representatives_templates on the proposed solution.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested interim fix to .pdf/plain text problem with template:USPL

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Template talk:USPL#Link to .pdf rather than plain text?. Thank you. Matjamoe (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Historical committee membership

I'm taking a different approach to a comphrehensive listing of early committees and their members. Take a look at William V. Allen and let me know what you think. I was in DC this week and made a return trip to the Library of Congress to get some additional information that will be helpful. I have complete House and Senate Select committee membership listings starting with the 48th Congress (1883). Most Congressional Directories are also on-line from that era as well for the standing committees.DCmacnut<> 19:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/46th United States Congress - summary

I've started a mass-nom of stiltim's unneeded articles here. He wants to keep them until he can extract "extra" information which he stuck there because whoever he was having a dispute with wouldn't allow him to put it in the main articles. Conveniently he can't remember what this information is - would you be able to chip in at the AfD with what you remember? Ironholds (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Max Baucus - Moderate or Right Wing?

Just a heads up. User:Hauskalainen is insisting on referring to Max Baucus as a "center right-wing" politician. I have reverted this edit several times in the past few days, but he is claiming Baucus cannot be considered "moderate" because of the way he votes on Democratic issues, and that no reliable sources refer to him as moderate any way. That smells like original research me, and I've again reverted the edit and responded to his comments on the talk page, with a number of reliable sources which use the term moderate. I'm hoping the matter will resolve itsself, but wanted to give you a heads up in case it does not.DCmacnut<> 17:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Duly noted. There's no reason on Wikipedia to mention a politician's position as a liberal/moderate/conservative. It's either POV or, as you say, OR.—GoldRingChip 18:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Delegate changes in Ordinal Congresses

I ended up listing the delegate change in the Changes of Membership for the 3rd and 4th United States Congresses. Since Puerto Rico's change is listed in the 110th Congress, we should be consistent. I'll make changes as I move forward. Thoughts? Pvmoutside (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  • OK. List the change in non-voting members under the "Members" and "Changes of membership" sections, but not under the "Party summary" section.—GoldRingChip 02:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


There is an RfC open for Stilltim, I noticed that you mentioned that you were involved with this issue on another user page. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Stilltim Gigs (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks GoldRingChip!--gordonrox24 (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


I'm not entirely sure. I came across several articles that already used {{ndash}} nearly exclusively, so it just sort of stuck. {{subst:ndash}} does save any keystrokes, so that's why I'm not using it. The template also looks cleaner to me when editing wikitext, rather than the & and ; that accompany the html code version. So no reason. Just a bad habit I suppose.DCmacnut<> 01:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

111th Congress Major Legislation

A question regarding the 111th Congress Major Legislation section: You have referenced standards regarding what legislation is included and seemingly appointed yourself as editor in chief of this article. However, I wonder what qualified the DTV Delay act as major legislation (when it wasn't controversial enough to receive a Roll Call Vote in the Senate) and yet the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act is not included as major legislation when there was a RCV for that legislation and considering the Fraud act touches upon and is intended to help address the conditions that lead us into the current recession. It has its own Wiki entry after all:

Also, the White House deemed the legislation important enough (for whatever subjective or objective reasons) to list it on the front page of their website in the Signed Legislation section:

Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009 Signed: Friday, May 22, 2009

Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act Signed: Friday, May 22, 2009

Helping Families Save Their Homes Act Signed: Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act Signed: Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act Signed: Wednesday, April 21, 2009

Omnibus Public Lands Management Act Signed: Monday, March 30, 2009

Small Business Act Temporary Extension Signed: Thursday, March 19, 2009

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Signed: Tuesday, February 17, 2009

DTV Delay Act Signed: Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act Signed: Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Signed: Thursday, January 29, 2009

I'd also note that of the first 23 public laws of this session of Congress, only 3 had more Senate co-sponsors than the Fraud bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishWolfhoundJC (talkcontribs) 20:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

New Navboxes!

I am trying to make the United States governmental offices navboxes diffrentiatable from the other navboxes. In order to try and get consensus for these new navboxes, I am comming to the ones that were critical of my previous attemps before. I am doing this on my sandbox, which is located at User:USAAuthority/Sandbox1. I would love it if you give me your imput on their or go to Wikipedia:USA to comment on their talk page. I am trying to do these like the Canadian ones. I would love for you to go to the sandbox and put your edits in, and achieve consensus for a new navbox standard for these. I made them to the colors of the United States Flag Red, White, & Blue. USAAuthorityDC 18:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


Ahh. Surely WP:BRD applies here? Ironholds (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I noticed that he is starting to create article forks again. 41st United States Congress - state detail and 41st United States Congress - membership changes. He is also claiming that he was "forced" to work in the mainspace because of threats about working in his user space. I've asked him to stop at his talk page, but the only response I get is his same "I'm working on it, it's not ready, please wait." It appears that he has not changed his ways, and will continue creating article forks on articles in his own image. The RFC did not work nor does he appear willing to seek consensus (claims he doesn't know "how"). Any advice?DCmacnut<> 13:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You should revert his work "per RFD".—GoldRingChip 15:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Not sure the appropriate approach. I blanked and redirected 41st United States Congress - state detail to 41st United States Congress - state delegations, since this is a recreation of a deleted page under a different name. I don't know if that's appropriate or not. I don't want to revert his edits to the main ordinal articles. While I don't condone his blatant ignoring of pleas for consensus, I don't object to the edits he's made per se. They show some merit. If reverting those edits, though, is the only way to get his attention, then so be it.DCmacnut<> 17:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of Joe Biden

Any helpful suggestions on a Joe Biden clean-up? It's a mess and I'll take a crack, but would appreciate your thoughts on whether one big or several smaller articles are better, along with scope and number of references. I don't want to do anything to create a fight, but would like a cleaner article. stilltim (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • You're the Delaware expert. I suggest you take a crack at it and then I'll go in and have a look. A little back-and-forth between us over time should do the trick.—GoldRingChip 18:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Block request for an IP editor

User talk: has repeatedly vandalized Tom Daschle by deleting relevant material about his cabinet nomination and subsequent withdrawal. He has been warned multiple times. I'm not sure the proper procedure for getting the IP blocked, but thought I'd check with you.DCmacnut<> 02:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I protected the article for one month from new/unregistered users. I haven't any experience blocking users, although I don't mind doing it. Protection is easy and quick. If there's still a problem in the next day or so, let me know and I'll look into blocking.—GoldRingChip 03:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ordinal Congresses

Thank you for your work adding the Infoboxes to the ordinal Congress articles. While you're at it, you can eliminate the "Dates of sessions" section and make sure there's a TOClimit template there too. See Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Ordinal congresses#Lede for more info.—GoldRingChip 15:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do -- Noles1984 (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

House Minority Leader

by the way, now that it's an article and no longer a redirect, I'm guessing you want to "claim" it for your WP:UCS (but I'm not familiar with the Wikiproject templates so I'm not comfortable doing myself) thanks Agradman talk/contribs 18:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: wikisource

thanks for the tip. Actually, I've never met someone actively involved in Wikisource before, so I hope you won't mind answering some naive questions. You know, I've always wondered why Wikisource is "editable" in the fashion that Wikipedia is. It seems to me that sites like Google Books are successful because they minimize the steps that intervene between the paper source and the online source. Is there an advantage I'm missing?

Of course, I would love a world in which everything were hosted by Wikimedia. However, in the course of my efforts to create law articles, I'm finding that the best sources for caselaw are not Wikisource, and at the current trajectory I don't see how they WILL be. For example, over at WP:SCOTUS we have keyed our "pincite" template to; when you type {{ussc|410|113|1973|pin=120}}, it produces 410 U.S. 113, 120 (1973), and (here's the miracle) the embedded hyperlink takes you directly to the pincite. I'm mentioning this because, when I learned this, I was simultaneously happy and sad -- sad, because I started to wonder whether Wikimedia would be able to "keep pace" in the universe of primary-source hosting.

Anyhow, these are the mysteries that have been dogging my mind ever since I first discovered Wikisource. I view these as handicaps of Wikisource, but of course I'm praying that they be overcome. Since you're involved in the project, I'd like to know your thoughts? Agradman talk/contribs 00:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I might have been an early editor on {{ussc}}, I can't remember. I have, however, been very involved in {[tl|USC}} and it's many brethren. Statutes before the 93rd Congress are hard to find anywhere. And the early statutes, pre 1870s, are available in tiff format via the National Archives, but not in text. My point is that on Wikipedia (and to a smaller extent, on Wikisource) we have templates that link externally. Sometimes to, sometimes to GPO, sometimes elsewhere. The point is to get the reader to the most accurate source. Wikisource has a place in this realm, but I'm not looking to duplicate an effort that's already been done nicely elsewhere.—GoldRingChip 02:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Seniority in the United States Senate

Please respond to my question at Talk:Seniority in the United States Senate#Is length of service a universal parameter?. Thanks. Dems on the move (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensive reference: Senate vacancies: States appointing / electing

You would know better than me what articles and lists are in need of this reference, though if you can point me at the right lists, I'll add this. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Neale, Thomas H. (March 10, 2009). "Filling U.S. Senate Vacancies: Perspectives and Contemporary Developments" (PDF). Congressional Research Service.
Many thanks. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I now see why Kerry was removed the first time. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Some of the others in that list should be removed, too. I haven't had a chance to review them all.—GoldRingChip 11:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding contituent letters to seantor/representative articles

User:Hallesister has started adding verbatim the text of what he/she claims are letters to constituents on Sherrod Brown and Steve LaTourette's articles. Myself and another editor have reverted the edits and warned him on his talk page. On one hand, letters from a congressman describing his views could be indicicative of his or her position on an issue, but to me it fails the verifiability standard since we do not have access to the original letter to verify its authenticity. However, this would be a primary source, and we'd need more than one source to back up the statements. Even if the letters could be verified, posting them verbatim is not proper Wikipedia format.

We also have no guarantee that the letters in question were sent to Hallesister or some other individual. If Hallesister is not the recipient, then the letters are being published without permission of the person who received them. While the content may technically be public domain since its from a federal office, contituent correspondence is considered private unless the constituent chooses to publish it. Just looking for a second opinion.DCmacnut<> 15:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I concur with you. I believe that it's not encyclopedic. Please post a comment to this effect at the Project page so we can develop a general rule of broad application. Thanks—GoldRingChip 19:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to see you leave us

Thanks for all the contributions at WS! -- billinghurst (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Illinois's 5th Congressional District

I have reduced the WikiProject U.S. Congress assessment for Illinois's 5th congressional district, which you provided, from B-class to Stub because two other WikiProjects have assessed the article as such. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you.—GoldRingChip 11:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added enough data to upgrade it to C-class.—GoldRingChip 12:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Massachusetts's 3rd congressional district

I like the changes you made. It and allows you to compare district areas to the officeholders simultaneously. The only downside is it makes the roster a it more lengthy and slightly more unwieldy. I originally took the idea of district areas from IL-1. I' not sure how the districts will standardize in the future, but it's good for now! Pvmoutside (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, I like having all simultaneous information together, and I agree it makes it more cumbersome. I welcome further refinement to streamline it.—GoldRingChip 12:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Stilltim still creating duplicate articles

You may want to check out this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Governors from Delaware. User:Stilltim has created a duplicate of List of Governors of Delaware. His improvements are actually quite good, but instead of using the existing article he creating an entirely separate one. I've merged his changes into the original. He was warned a couple of weeks ago for performing mass moves of Delaware list articles to non-standard names.DCmacnut<> 14:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Caught between useful contributions and excessive contributions. Let's see where it goes.—GoldRingChip 19:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Martinez resigned

Sen. Mel Martinez resigned today. George LeMieux is being sworn in tomorrow. Simon12 (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Senate party summary at 111th Congress. Preemptive question. Do we need to update the party summary to include the MartinezLeMieux transition? I am inclined to say no, but wanted to check with you. Martinez resigned at the close of yesterday's session, which technically occurred after the Joint Session of Congress last night. Martinez's resignation was effective Sept 9. LeMieux was just sworn in. The gap in service was a mere 15 hours, and for seniority purposes LeMieux is considered a senator all day today. We don't show one-day gam for Salazar/Bennet on Jan 20/Jan 21. Thoughts?DCmacnut<> 19:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • No change. On Wednesday there were 40 Republicans. On Thursday there were 40. I'd suggest to leave it alone as de minimus.—GoldRingChip 19:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tennessee's At-large congressional district

The at-large district was incorrect according to Martis and is now accurate. 1813- 1823 should be district representation according to the text Pvmoutside (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

At-Large vs District 1

On another note, I've noticed that Martis and CNN lists the single representative districts as 1st district vs. At-large, including present single representative congressional districts (i.e. Vermont, Wyoming, Alaska). What are your thoughts about changing to conform? Pvmoutside (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm of two minds on that. It would be a lot of work to change, but that's OK if it's necessary. It makes a little sense to say that the at-large district is district one. That would eliminate the confusion over at-large districting. But it doesn't seem like a big deal either way. I suggest posting the idea somewhere and opening the discussion up to a larger group to gather some consensus. I guess I could go either way right now.—GoldRingChip 10:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me know where and when it gets posted. -Rrius (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Switching to 1st district would cause problems for states like North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana which once had 2 or more districts, which have since been eliminated due to redistricting. Also, a little clarification on Martis. He used his own defintion of At-large. He reserved "At-large" for only those "extra" statewide districts for states that otherwise were devided into separate numbered districts, to distinguish those seats from those elected on a general ticket. He counted states with single districts differently, hence using District 1. I would say that we should continue using At-large, because Martis definition is one of his own creation, and CNN probably uses it's own nomenclature as well. Moreover, the official National Institute of Standards and Technology policy on numbering at-large congressional districts is to use "00" when identifying at-large districts numerically:

For a State whose representative is designated "at large"-- for the 98th-102nd Congresses, this applies to the States of Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming-- for the 103rd Congress, this applies to the State of Montana -- the Congressional District is designated as "00".[2]

I'm game for a broader discussoins, but I'm for sticking with at-large as the official government standard.DCmacnut<> 14:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on the arguments here, I'll leave everything as is. Sounds like there are bigger fish to kill than changing around the AL districts. Thanks for the input. I'm moving this discussion over to Category:At-large United States congressional districts unless anyone can think of a more appropriate place.Pvmoutside (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Early seniority lists

Do you know User:Dunstvangeet? He is making Senate seniority lists for Congresses starting with the first. Unfortunately, he is disregarding the Chronological list an instead using the modern system for arranging seniority. I pointed this out, but he just posted one for the 29th Congress. He is just creating more work for the rest of us. I am considering an AfD for all of them from the 4th thru 29th Congress because they take so long to fix. -Rrius (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Ordinal congresses

I've apologized for the tone of my contribution here. I'm giving up on the battle, but I do have some other suggestions for changes. Where would it be best to demonstrate them? -Rrius (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment at Wikiproject Massachusetts discussion

I've added a comment to the discussion concerning adding infoboxes to Massachusetts cities and towns and wanted to get your take. Pvmoutside (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  • OK. I'll check it out.—GoldRingChip 12:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Overman Committee/archive2

Hey — seeing as you're one of the most active editors at WP:USC and that you promoted Overman Committee to a Good Article, I figured you might be interested in commenting on the article's current Featured Article candidacy. Also, the first time I nominated the article, the nomination failed because of a lack of input (one support, no opposes), so I would really appreciate any comments you have to make. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


Does it matter what the file name is? The map represents any Democrat winning every county in the state of Massachusetts.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  • No, I guess not. Maybe it ought to be moved to a more generically-named file.—GoldRingChip 00:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed. So how do you change the name of an image?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I have no clue. I was hoping you knew.—GoldRingChip 01:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Legislative branch of the United States federal government

A tag has been placed on Legislative branch of the United States federal government requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  • My typo. Supposed to be a redirect. I've fixed it.—GoldRingChip 13:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

S-par and Northern Ireland

I've proposed a few new parameters to {{s-par}} following a request - as the names here may set precedent for naming defunct parliaments in the {{s-par}} template, please stop by sometime in the next few days if you have any comments. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Date of appointment vs. date of oath

I think it's important to maintain consistency on the article, and as far as I can ascertain, the dates listed in the party summary tables are the dates the oath was taken, not the dates of appointment. I recall we had this same discussion with the appointment of Burris and ultimately the date the oath was taken is listed.

Also, in my opinion, it makes more sense to list the date of the oath because, while the appointee might officially be a senator, he/she hasn't been installed as a voting member, which is what is significant with respect to the party summary tables. – Zntrip 07:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but I am still awaiting a response. – Zntrip 08:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
As GoldRingChip certainly knows, I am one of Wikipedia's loudest voices saying "date of appointment" = "beginning of term". Nonetheless, party table summaries seem like they should reflect sworn members. Maybe it's because I think of those charts as showing how many votes each party had at any given time. I'm not sure. Anyway, I thought I'd add my two cents. -Rrius (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree. Case in point: Burris's nomination. He may have officially been a senator, but he wasn't a voting member of the Senate, and that's what the table is supposed to show. – Zntrip 09:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm very busy this week. Can this discussion please be moved to a central location and then other voices solicited for the discussion? We need a final resolution.—GoldRingChip 12:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:USRep succession box

 Template:USRep succession box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 10:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please comment

...on the deletion page for List of oldest surviving members of the House of Representatives? It would be great if you could.

Thanks, Star Garnet (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC at my talk page

In an effort to create a navbox for urban parkways in the Boston metro area, I have come to the realization that what is really needed is something that ties together the entire system first envisioned by Charles Eliot in the late nineteenth century. I feel that this should be a cooperative effort, probably created as a subproject of WP:MASS. However, initially I am seeking comments and/or assistance from several editors that have contributed in various ways to elements of the scope of such a project. This note is being posted to the user pages of Beland, CaribDigita, Denimadept, EraserGirl, Grk1011, Hertz1888, Jameslwoodward, GoldRingChip, NE2, Polaron and Swampyank. I apologize in advance to anyone who wishes to comment that I have left off of the list of users, as I may have unintentionally forgotten them and others. Please feel free to comment on my talk page under the heading I have created, linked here. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sequence boxes

why bother with the sequence box when the nav box immediately below is just as good (if not better)? Plus, the Infobox (above) covers it, too

Good point - I hadn't noticed that. Some of the other US House elections pages had a sequence box. I was navigating through them, then came to one that didn't have it, so added a few. I will remove the ones I added and the other ones.

-- JPMcGrath 04:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI - In addition to the 2 other I had added, I removed 32 of the boxes, back to 1900. It seems they were added back these pages were first created, then a few of them have been removed scattershot -- I noticed a few that you had deleted. When I get time, I will try removing some more. -- JPMcGrath 05:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I'm not fond of Sequence boxes; Navigation boxes; or Infoboxes. I think we should keep the ones that are: most helpful + least intrusive.—GoldRingChip 11:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I often find they make it easier to quickly find some bit of information in an article. But I do think they are sometimes over-used. BTW, I got rid of the rest of the sequence boxes from the US House elections pages - another 47 removals. JPMcGrath (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)