User talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2017

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)

• OK, will do.—GoldRingChip 14:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

IMac (Intel-based) page

hey man you slightly messed up the imac graphics page so i edited it to normal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antshev (talk • contribs) 14:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you. —GoldRingChip 15:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

1960 vs 2000

Thanks for fixing my mistake in United States presidential election, 1960. (Well, what I wrote was also correct, but not ideal.) I think that I misread the 1960 decimal point. ―Toby Bartels (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Glad to help!—GoldRingChip 14:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

U.S. Senator seniority articles (no.# of terms)

Do I have to put the number of terms on U.S. Senator seniority articles?

• I think number of terms is unnecessary and clutters the page. —GoldRingChip 13:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Screwed up category

I'm not sure what you intended to put on the redirect United States Senate election in South Carolina, 1805 - but you might want to take another look.... Le Deluge (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Looks like someone else fixed it. Thanks.—GoldRingChip 18:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

U.S. House and U.S. Senate members articles (committee assignments)

Should I put committee assignments on each of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate members articles?

[ Please sign your name to posts with "~~~~" ]

• Each article on a member or Senator, for example: Marcy Kaptur or John McCain, should have listed their committee assignments for current and previous congresses. —GoldRingChip 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ron Estes

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.—GoldRingChip 20:22, 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.—GoldRingChip 12:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm starting the research, but will not be able to finish it now. I can't definitely say, one-way-or-the-other, where the rules come down on Oath-vs.-Election/Appointment. You're welcome to add to what I've started and maybe we can build a consensus! See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Official beginning & end of terms for members of Congress.—GoldRingChip 13:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Gianforte

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.—GoldRingChip 16:17, 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

• Alas, no. But that would be a fascinating script for someone smarter than me!—GoldRingChip 19:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

When I made those edits, they had some strange quotes in them by some ip user. SamSennett (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

US Judge Succession Box Template?

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}}

Possible parameters would include "predecessor", "successor," what circuit/district, and "start"/"years". I look forward to working with you on this. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 02:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• You would want a parameter that would default to "Judge" unless it was invoked as, as, "Justice".—GoldRingChip 13:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Many judgeships are not successive, but some are. Some judges replace others and some are appointed/elected as a group.—GoldRingChip 13:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• As with all succession boxes, I believe the dates should include the month & day, not just the year.—GoldRingChip 13:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

United States Senate elections, 1940 and 1941

Please check your last edit, you have duplicated nearly the whole article! --GünniX (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Whoops! Fixing. Thanks. —GoldRingChip 13:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Maine's 2nd congressional district

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 have found this, but there's no bio, so I can't add it to his article.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:56, 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. —GoldRingChip 21:40, 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.—GoldRingChip 21:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Hello, I'm Gilliam. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Chris Cannon have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• That was a mistake. Thanks for fixing it.—GoldRingChip 01:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Change

As done with the article Democratic–Republican Party, changing this also for consistency would be most appropriate:

• {{Democratic-Republican Party/meta/color}} → {{Democratic–Republican Party/meta/color}}

Surprised to see the inconsistency that has now occurred. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Tell me, which should we use: a hyphen or an ndash?—GoldRingChip 22:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

An ndash, as you were correct in moving that article. Thanks for asking! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:17, 17 October 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.—GoldRingChip 22:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to know where that page is too! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Found it: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes —GoldRingChip 22:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Good. Thanks for fixing that up! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:36, 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)

Aargh. I'm sorry I was too bold in making the move. Based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes, it seemed like a straight-forward move. Still, I've set up a discussion here. It's been eight years since the last reversal, and worth at least discussing.—GoldRingChip 11:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

ND Senate elections

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.—GoldRingChip 22:55, 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)

• OK, good point.—GoldRingChip 12:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Diptanshu Das. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, United States House of Representatives elections, 1989, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Diptanshu 💬 17:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: United States Senate elections, 2018.svg

I used Blank US Map (states only).svg and changed the colors with a text editor. My preferred method is Google Drive, but you can also use Notepad on Windows or some other text editor. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 22:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks! I took your advice and created (adapted, really) my first map image: File:US Senate election 2018 (as of 2017-12-15).png. I have a Mac and I used "GraphicConverter 9" to add colors as best I could. I don't know if there's a better way to do it. How would you use Google Drive to color it?—GoldRingChip 12:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

List of senators style/layout

I was curious since I noticed you editing some of the articles to fit a format if you knew of where the current style of articles such List of United States Senators from New York was derived from/discussion was held? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, no I don't. But I do like the format that I've been following, so I'm inclined to keep it.—GoldRingChip 00:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• @David Fuchs:, The discussion was at Talk:List_of_United_States_Senators_from_Massachusetts#Merged_classes_1_&_2_into_single_table. Reywas92^Talk 02:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Senate elections articles expansion

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? Reywas92^Talk 02:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for noticing the edits, and I would like your further input on this and other similar articles. It's part of a bigger project, which I started with the first Senate election, United States Senate elections, 1788 and 1789. You're 100% correct that it should be more summary than details and I will definitely pare it down considerably. Check back with United States Senate elections, 2010 in a little while and tell me what you think!—GoldRingChip 12:49, 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.—GoldRingChip 14:00, 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? Reywas92^Talk 00:55, 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.

So I hope that's useful to you. Thanks for reaching out to me.—GoldRingChip 16:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

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. Reywas92^Talk 05:50, 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! Reywas92^Talk 18:05, 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.) —GoldRingChip 18:28, 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. Reywas92^Talk 04:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)