User talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2019

House Education Committee

For the 116th Congress the Education and Workforce Committee has (again) been renamed the Education and Labor Committee. Instead of using WP:RM I was wondering if you could just move the page over redirect, since this isn't the first time we've had to do this (likely won't be the last either)? Thanks in advance, Nevermore27 (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• If the name change is not substantive, then I would agree just to move over redirect. But is there are substantial difference in the committee? That is, did the House merge or split a committee to make this one? —GoldRingChip 12:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not a substantive change, just a cosmetic one that happens whenever the Congress changes hands. Looking at the move log it looks like you did the last one as well. Nevermore27 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Then I suggest making the change. Can you do it or do you need me to do it? —GoldRingChip 15:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't have the access to move the page over redirect so if you would be so kind :) Nevermore27 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
        •  Done —GoldRingChip 12:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

An invitation to discussion

I kindly invited you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi GoldRingChip! 1858 House Election

Further information: 1858 and 1859 United States House of Representatives elections

Hi! I want to address several points.— 67.61.34.163 (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)BJE

• Thanks for letting me know! I moved the discussion to the Article namespace so it will be read by a wider audience of editors and I will answer your points there individually. I also recommend that you register an account because it's hard to keep track of comments by anonymous/IP users. —GoldRingChip 13:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:1858 and 1859 United States House of Representatives elections § Late elections

Moved to Talk:1858 and 1859 United States House of Representatives elections § "Election Day" and invention of Telegraph

Source

Why did you use Twitter as a source on FarFarOut? (Please use {{ping}} if you respond.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Koavf: Good question, but I wasn't the editor adding that source; I came in later. Rather, see this edit in the edit history. Thanks. —GoldRingChip 16:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Facts can be such pesky things. Thanks/sorry. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:US Congress party summary

I don't get this. Maybe it's just my browser, but this parses incorrectly on my browser. The column headers do not line up with the appropriate number of seats. What's the problem here? StevenJ81 (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was wondering what you were seeing. Which article are you on? —GoldRingChip 21:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I ran through the first ten or so Congresses a couple of nights ago. They were all funny. Take 1st United States Congress, for example. The tables, as I am seeing them, have the little shading bars and the "party" labels (in this case, Anti-admin and Pro-admin) above the row labels and the first column of numbers, not above the two columns of numbers. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is what that Senate looks like to me:
  File:1st Congress Senate.png

• And here it is in code:

	Faction (shading shows control)		Total	Vacant
	Anti- Administration (A)	Pro- Administration (P)
End of previous congress	0	0	0	0
Begin	7	13	20	2
End	8	18	26	0
Final voting share	30.8%	69.2%
Beginning of next congress	9	16	25	1

• And here's the code:

{{US Congress party summary
| congress=1
| party1=Anti-Administration
| party2=Pro-Administration
| abb1=A
| abb2=P
| seats1_last=0
| seats2_last=0
| seats_vacant_last =0
| seats1_begin=7
| seats2_begin=13
| seats_vacant_begin=2<!--New York elected late-->
| seats1_end=8
| seats2_end=18
| seats_vacant_end=0
| seats1_next=9
| seats2_next=16
| seats_vacant_next=1
}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldRingChip (talk • contribs)

That's really funny. On Chrome, which is the browser I usually use, the big, blank upper left cell, as well as the two cells at the upper right ("Total" and "Vacant") are the only same height (or depth) as the cell that says "Faction ..." This leaves the colored party bars and party names flush to the left hand side of the table in the next row, with nothing else to their right. Then I checked on both IE and MS Edge, and they came out the same as your .png file did. So I guess it's a Chrome problem. (Any idea what to do about that?)

My apologies, then, for "fouling things up". (I'm a template editor here, and a sysop on several other projects, so I know what I'm doing, for what it's worth.) I'll go back and self revert on the couple of pages that I manually edited along the same lines. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting! I'm concerned about this because Chrome is a very popular browser. I don't know how to solve this. Do you? —GoldRingChip 21:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  Not off hand. Maybe we should ask at WP:TECHPUMP and m:Tech and see if anyone else knows. Why don't I take that on (probably tomorrow, US EST), and I'll get back to you. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me on this. I imagine you saw that I put a warning on the doc page. As long as the gadget is available that should probably stay. Otherwise, I think we're good. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Election template move

Because you moved the Maryland election template, and created a new one in the previous one's location, the new template now shows on all of the Republic of Maryland election/referendum articles. Could you repair those links? Cheers, Number 57 11:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Number 57: I believe I already had done that but — as best I can tell — the system just needed to purge. I think it's all set now. Will you please check, just to be sure? —GoldRingChip 13:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No, you need to actually go to articles like 1853 Maryland independence referendum and change the link from {{Maryland elections}} to {{Republic of Maryland elections}}. Number 57 14:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I didn't see those when I first looked at the list of linked articles. I'll fix them. —GoldRingChip 14:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Colors on US Senate elections graphics

Hi, I just looked at 2014_United_States_elections, 2016_United_States_elections and 2018_United_States_elections. The colors in the captions of the infobox Senate results maps of the 2014 and 2018 articles appear to be off, in weirdly different ways, while the 2016 article seems OK. I don't know how best to fix this and what the ramifications are. Since you made those maps and are involved in the election articles, I thought to ask you if you have an idea what to do about this. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• They are inconsistent, but I'm not sure I'd call them "off." Different articles have been using different palates and standards. Each map was probably generated with is own article series in mind: that is, the Senate map was designed in consideration of each Senate election. Put them all together in something like 2018 United States Senate elections and they clash. Maybe they should be made consistent, but I fear that would do more harm than good. —GoldRingChip 23:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it's my monitor, but on 2014_United_States_elections, underneath the "Map of the 2014 Senate races", the caption gives a very dark blue for "Democratic hold", but the map only has a very light blue. Also the two shades of red in the caption look quite different from the shades of red in the map. On 2018_United_States_elections, it's the opposite: underneath the "2018 Senate results" map, the shades of red and blue in the caption are light, but the shades in the map are dark. In 2012_United_States_elections, the Senate election results map caption shows a green color for Independents, but the map uses dark grey. The problem with 2010_United_States_elections is similar to the one with 2014_United_States_elections. In 2008_United_States_elections, the colors in the infobox's legend do not seem to match the colors of the maps. AxelBoldt (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to start a discussion of the problem at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#Color_schemes_of_U.S._election_result_maps. AxelBoldt (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Refs

Are need for medical content. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Georgia's 12th congressional district

I'm having the bottom of the rep list to line up properly after I switched to the ordinal template....wondering if you can help....Pvmoutside (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Georgia's 12th congressional district, having a look now. —GoldRingChip 15:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pvmoutside:— I don't know exactly what your issue is, BUT that format is terrible. I see from the version history that it was there before you got to it. I will convert it to a standard format now. —GoldRingChip 15:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed it. Is that better? —GoldRingChip 15:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
      • yep....looks great!.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocks

do you do self requested blocks? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• What does that mean? —GoldRingChip 01:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Replied to you on my talk page FYI

Benawu2 (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

And did so again :) Benawu2 (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

And again Benawu2 (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Benawu2: Ok I'll check it out. —GoldRingChip 13:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Georgia's 6th congressional district

Having trouble with line up after moving the ordinals....Pvmoutside (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Fixed. Caused by all the Civil War stuff. How does that look? —GoldRingChip 13:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

1950 United States Senate elections

Thanks for the revisions. They do make reading and navigating the page easier. HappyElectionsNerd83 (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1828 Arkansas Territory elections

A tag has been placed on Category:1828 Arkansas Territory elections requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Massachusetts's 3rd congressional district

Having a little trouble lining up the district. I tried to consolidate the congresses.....Pvmoutside (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Found it: There was an excessive "rowspan=2" in Calvin Paige's line. I've fixed it and will make additional edits. —GoldRingChip 14:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Tuthill note

I technically did not use an outside source to make the note on Tuthill's credentials, but rather took a look at both the List of United States Representatives from New York page and Tuthill's own biographical page. Did not mean to make the reference, the page just kind of made it itself. If you know how to resolve the contradictions, I'd appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GillettDaniel (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

48th United States Congress

Hello GoldRingChip,

I've just made an edit to the party summary section of the above page by converting the information to a table. The page shows seven of eight parties in the columns, with the eigth (Independent Republican) not appearing despite the fact that I included it in the edit page. I believe this has something to do with the size of the info box not allowing for eight columns, so I'm wondering how to edit it to change this. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GillettDaniel (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this to my attention. But I see all eight parties… it looks fine. Independent Republican is the sixth, between Greenback and Republican. Thank you, also, for fixing my numbers. —GoldRingChip 20:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

USCongressOrdinal

Thank you for telling me that the Ordinal doesn't need a third parameter, I haven't been told that before!

• You're welcome. —GoldRingChip 00:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Justin Amash

Is Amash still getting committee assignments from the Republican Conference? If so, he’s arguably a member of the “minority” the same way Sanders is in the Senate. JTRH (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• That's a good question, but I don't know the answer. —GoldRingChip 16:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • He apparently now has no committee assignments. So I guess I agree that he’s “other” rather than “minority.” JTRH (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • OK. Have you got a citation we can put there? —GoldRingChip 18:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1881 New Hampshire elections

A tag has been placed on Category:1881 New Hampshire elections requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Why why why?

You have been informed[1] of WP:SELFRED. So WHY do you continue to violate it? I am talking about these two edits here[2] and here[3]. Is it necessary to get an administrator involved?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I think I need to bring an administrator in on this. 1889 United States House of Representatives elections which you just created is full of SELFRED violations. This is WP:DISRUPT....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• You brought it my attention, and I'll fix it. I do a lot of editing, and some of it needs to be fixed. So I'll fix it. Simple. —GoldRingChip 23:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I brought it to your attention almost a year ago. You have violated SELFRED again 100 times or more. I did go to an administrator's page. WP:DISRUPT seems pretty clear to me. Remember Neelix?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    • You asked me to fix them. I'm fixing them. Feel free to list other problems and I'll get to them. That way you don't have to make the edits and I can pinpoint the specific problem without having to revert. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. —GoldRingChip 23:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC).
      • I'm sorry I changed the section heading. I will, however, fix the spacing so it's easier to read. —GoldRingChip 23:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
        • The Congressional election pages 1881, 1895, and 1913 also contain the same problems....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
          • Thanks, I'll get to it now. —GoldRingChip 13:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, I can't find where WP:SEEALSO actually prohibits links that are also in Navboxes. Can you show me where that is, please? —GoldRingChip 13:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

"John Wells (20-century British politician)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect John Wells (20-century British politician). Since you had some involvement with the John Wells (20-century British politician) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Moving categories

When you move categories, you really need to edit all the articles referring to the old category, since category redirects don't really do the job correctly. There's a tool called cat-a-lot that can help with that. Preferabley, instead of moving a category yourself, you can list the category at WP:CFD and someone who knows how will handle it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, OK. I'll go to CFD. Thanks! —GoldRingChip 17:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Woohooo

Wishing GoldRingChip a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Mjs1991 (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Mjs1991: Uh… thanks‽ So what # anniversary is this? —GoldRingChip 14:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

1925 United States Senate elections

I noticed that you created this unreferenced stub. Were you able to find a reference for it? -- Dolotta (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I've now added it. —GoldRingChip 19:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hawaii Second congressional district.

Your edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawaii%27s_2nd_congressional_district&diff=next&oldid=913092275 broke the table for 2014 in a way that I don't quite understand. Could you take a look.Naraht (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I had deleted a bar at the beginning. I've fixed it. Thanks for letting me know! —GoldRingChip 15:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"Category:United States Senators from Louisiana" omitted

Why did you forget to include this category in the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 16 discussion? Santiago Claudio (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Good question, and I don't know. That was my mistake. Thanks for catching it! —GoldRingChip 11:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

One-term congresspeople

Hey, thanks for your edits on the one-term congresspeople page! I was thinking of splitting it into multiple pages, with 10 congresses per page, and we use the List of members of the United States House of Representatives who served a single term page as kind of a hub? Similar to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, where the "list" page is a hub with links to the actual list, divided alphabetically. Doing this would solve our size issues, and allow us to keep the portraits. Let me know what you think. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for reaching out to me. I've moved the discussion for a larger audience and for future reference. I've also replied there. —GoldRingChip 17:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:List of members of the United States House of Representatives who served a single term § Split?

Katie Hill resignation

Many of the articles referencing her resignation reference the following Politico article:[4]….in it, although she announced her resignation today, there is some question when it actually takes effect. The article states some sources stating Nov 1 as the effective date......i know its only 6 days, but I thought I'd mention it as to all the changes assuming her actual resignation is effective today.....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you. Some folks just love to jump on these things and be the "first editor" on breaking news. Sigh. It will all shake up in the end. —GoldRingChip 01:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of 2022 United States Senate election in New York for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2022 United States Senate election in New York is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 United States Senate election in New York until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

New York's 21st congressional district special election, 1929

Hello, I was looking at the edit filter, and noticed an article you created, "New York's 21st congressional district special election, 1929" had the following error message:

REDIRECT Expression error: Unrecognized word "new". Expression error: Unrecognized word "new".

I just thought you might want to know. Thanks, KnowledgeablePersona (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Eek! I've now deleted it since it's unused. Good catch, thanks for letting me know. —GoldRingChip 04:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it standard practice to remove the talk-page section once the issue is resolved? I am still a relatively inexperienced editor, so I'm just curious. KnowledgeablePersona (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Good question! I typically delete the talk page of a deleted article, but only if it's effectively blank anyway. If there's substantive content on the talk page then it ought to get moved to a relevant new location. I don't think, in this case, that I deleted Talk:New York's 21st congressional district special election, 1929, did I? —GoldRingChip 02:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that's good to know. I meant would the user talk page section (this one) be deleted? KnowledgeablePersona (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

No, leave it as is. First of all, only the user typically deletes their own take page. Secondly, it’s good to keep it here to archive it. I have an archiving bot that will eventually move this discussion To User talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2019 —GoldRingChip 14:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest I would delete another user's talk page, I was just wondering for my own talk page (in the future). KnowledgeablePersona (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, no, that's fine. No problem. The point is you can do whatever you like with your own user pages, including talk pages, sandboxes, etc. —GoldRingChip 00:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on House of Representatives elections

Hello, since you have recently edited 2020 United States House of Representatives elections, 2018 United States House of Representatives elections, or 2016 United States House of Representatives elections, I am inviting you to an ongoing discussion taking place at Talk:2020 United States House of Representatives elections#RFC on inclusion of House elections. Orser67 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1866 Alabama elections

A tag has been placed on Category:1866 Alabama elections requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Category red links

Hello. WP:REDNOT states that A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category. Either the category should be created, or else the non-existent category link should be removed or changed to one that exists. You routinely leave a trail of red-linked categories behind you - the latest ones can be seen at Wikipedia:Database reports/Red-linked categories with incoming links. Please can you obey WP:REDNOT when creating election-related articles/redirects - they don't get created automatically and the volunteers working on the category backlogs are overworked as it is.
There's another issue of whether this kind of WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION is appropriate in the first place given that it creates so many WP:SMALLCATs - you might want to think about categorising by eg decades with year categories just for the "big" election years, or only having year categories after a certain date. Le Deluge (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry!! I try to handle the red-linked cateogories, and I'm sorry if I've left articles in them. —GoldRingChip 12:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Van Drew

Rep. Van Drew has not changed parties yet, he's only announced that he's going to do so, some time this week. Can that be commented out until it actually happens? Thanks. JTRH (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Sure. I'll get on it. —GoldRingChip 13:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

100,000th edit!

	100,000th edit award
	Let me be the first to congratulate you on your 100,000th edit! You are now entitled to place the 100,000 Edit Star on your bling page! or you could choose to display the {{User 100,000 edits}} user box. Or both! Thanks for all your work at the 'pedia! Cheers, — MarnetteD|Talk 05:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

South Dakota's at-large congressional district

I'm having trouble lining up SD's at large district with the addition of congresses. Not sure if you can help....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Working on it… —GoldRingChip 22:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• How's that? —GoldRingChip 22:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks great!....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)