User talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2016

Add topic
Active discussions

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Spencer Jarnagin into United States Senate special election in Tennessee, 1843. 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. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Good to know! Thanks. —GoldRingChip 00:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Overflow at your sandbox3

Dear User:GoldRingChip. I am trying to empty Category:Pages_where_template_include_size_is_exceeded. Today, your User:GoldRingChip/sandbox3 page turned on overflow. Since you haven't modified this page from several months, this is probably due to a recent modification of one of the templates you are including in this page. Maybe this template will be modified again, and your page will come back from overflow. Maybe you could split this page ? Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

CD2 map

Your map is wrong. Picture on the right is correct but the one on the left is an enlarged view that is transposed over Wyoming. (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Broken section redirects

Hi, just a heads up that at least 103 of your recently created links like "United States Senate special election in New Jersey, 1867" link to non-existent sections of existent articles. These broken section links are and are listed on WP:DBR/Broken section anchors in the top section and can be found by sorting the "newest" section by redirect name. Banak (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks, and you're right. The sections will be created someday, but aren't yet. It's ok, then, if the redirect just goes to the article. Thanks for keeping an eye on it.—GoldRingChip 17:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Utah's At-large congressional district

I was working on Utah a little today, and need some help moving an article. To follow proper format, Utah's At-large congressional district has all the history, but should be moved to Utah's at-large congressional district. As an FYI, I tried to find the discussion why UT-AL should not be a stand alone article at WP Utah, but couldn't find it. All the other states have a stand alone AL district. It should not affect the move. If anyone at WP Utah objects, we can have a discussion, and at the very least, the history would be moved to the proper place. I am not an admin, so if you can help, that would be great....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

We do... it reads Utah's At-large congressional district with the A in At-large capitalized as it stands now. My request is to have it read at-large rather than At-large. On another note, Bgwhite is insisting the article become a redirect to United States congressional delegations from Utah. Looks like he has some vested interest in the delegations article and wants to redirect whatever district articles he can to his effort. He requested a talk page, so one is now set up at the Utah's At-large congressional district talk page. Any comment would be appreciated there, as well as anyone you know......Pvmoutside (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I will reply at Talk:Utah's At-large congressional district.—GoldRingChip 11:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thanks GoldRingChip.....I think lower casing at is not in dispute, but I'm not an admin, and don't have the ability to move the are....can you do the honors?....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  Done.—GoldRingChip 12:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Congressional districts and individual congresses/elections

GoldRingChip, I wanted to get some advice moving forward from you regarding the above. So it looks like some districts have either/both election year links and congress links. I think your longer range plan is to have both on each district page. So today, some have both, some either, and some neither. With only a few of us today maintaining pages, I noticed particularly the congressional pages dropping off for the 114th congress if there is an incumbent serving more than the current term. 435 districts are a lot to do every 2 years. What are your thoughts of deleting both so all that would need to be updated would be the freshmen? (approx. 50 districts vs 435).....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I actually think that we should maintain all the districts, congresses, and elections. I know it's a lot to keep, but we have two years to update all of them.—GoldRingChip 19:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
but nobody really is now....and i'm not sure I really want to be part of that effort. I'll be happy to leave them as is, but they may go without an update and look out of date for quite a while if you are ok with that. Also, it will really extend out some of the district articles if the format is used for every one...Pvmoutside (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I would rather try than not. Wikipedia is always incomplete, and there's no shame in it.—GoldRingChip 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
No shame, just prioritizing effort. If the info isn't there, then I, you, or someone is apt to do something else.....I'll leave them then, and update whenever easy to do....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I have repeatedly been surprised (pleasantly so) when a new editor comes on board and starts updating articles. It's quite a treat. —GoldRingChip 00:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Changes in membership

All the congresses now have a roster of the changes in membership for both the House and Senate. You may want to review to see if the info is accurate .........thought I'd let you know at the very least....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Great! Good job. Can we make the text all regular font size (get rid of the 80%)?—GoldRingChip 15:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy to standardize the font, but it looks like it's all over the place......but it looks like 80% is the size used for the 113th and 114th congresses.......maybe we should get consensus if anyone out there cares?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I doubt there's much interest on this point. Since the rest of each article is at 100%, I think it's OK for us to get rid of the 80%s.—GoldRingChip 11:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
        • I'll throw it out there and see what reaction I get. If no one comments, I'll start it next week.....feel free to comment on the US Congress talk page......Pvmoutside (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


Please note that scrollboxes have not been allowed, especially in references, for ages: Template:Scroll box – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Oh! Thanks for letting me know. }—GoldRingChip 11:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)