Talk:Virginia Senate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Senate of Virginia)

Out of date graph[edit]

The graph is out of date, since it doesn't include the results of the 2007 election. Should we remove it, or should we add an explanatory note that mentions this? (Ideally we'd make an updated version, but I'm far too lazy to do that.) Zzedar (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made a new line chart, updated, and it now has labels. OldDominionVA89 (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2018 (EST)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Senate of Virginia → Virginia State Senate – This article is the only one in Category:State upper houses in the United States which uses the style "Senate of Foo" whereas the others use either "Foo Senate" or "Foo State Senate". Searching suggests:

8,200 pageviews (in last 90 days) and 49,000 Ghits for Senate of Virginia;
1,167 pageviews (in last 90 days) and 418,000 for Virginia Senate;
418 pageviews (in last 90 days) and 1.9 million for Virginia State Senate.

Page views would suggest Virginia Senate but Ghits would suggest Virginia State Senate. Green Giant (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Strongly oppose The official name of the body is "Senate of Virginia". Pageview stats show that people are not having trouble finding that. Rklear (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per WP:COMMONAME, Wikipedia article titles are based on the most common name, not the official name. The fact that the official name is "Senate of Virginia" is irrelevant. Those pageview stats are skewed because the article is already at "Senate of Virginia", and thus that direct link primarily appears in search engine results. But those ghits clearly show that significantly more people and reliable sources generally use, "Virginia State Senate". Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Oppose Possible: It doesn't matter what the page stats say or what WP:COMMONAME says. It doesn't change the fact the official name is the "Senate of Virginia". In all the years Virginia has had a state senate, it has always been called the "Senate of Virginia". If we change things to a "common name" or what the internet says things should be called, then we will be changing all kinds of article names to their "common name". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia it does matter what page stats say or what WP:COMMONAME says, and please read WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Also using Strongest Possible doesn't add any weight to your comments. Zarcadia (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, by your logic, the "common name" of Barack Obama is simply "Obama" and per WP:COMMONAME the Barack Obama article should be renamed to simply "Obama". The "common name" of Washington, DC is "DC" or "The District", so that could be renamed. Same goes with New York City..."common name" there would be "NYC", simply "New York", or even "The Big Apple". The State of Washington could be renamed "Washington State" as that is the "common name".
Just because these are the "common names" of these people, places or institutions, doesn't mean it's a good idea to rename them cause we think we should or because of some rule that only exists here on Wikipedia. The official and correct names of these people, places or institutions will remain and our changes will make us (ie: Wikipedia) look like idiots. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the links provided? Now, most reliable sources call Barack Obama by that name for the first time they mention him in an article, and so do we, and as it happens that doesn't match the name on his birth certificate, which is Barack Hussein Obama as it of course includes his middle name. And twenty years ago a guy whose official name was William Jefferson Clinton was president, and you'll never guess where his article is at. Red Slash 02:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mention his birth certificate. We will have the "birthers" in here in no time. :) Anywho, I understand it is his correct name and Bill Clinton (I'm old enough to know him) is Clinton's "common name", but there are times, like this one, where we shouldn't use it. I also was using Obama as an example. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I certainly understand the WP:COMMONNAME argument, I'm more worried about the practical follow-on effects of this. There are more than a few editors out there with a bias against redirects and, regardless of WP:CHEAP, we will be dealing with persistent attempts to change [[Senate of Virginia]] links to [[Virginia State Senate]], even though using the proper name of the body in article text is the appropriate thing to do. Rklear (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, actually not. Piped links are for when a redirect doesn't exist. It's bad enough that people make wasteful edits changing perfectly good redirects to piped links, out of some misguided sense of efficiency, I guess. I'm more worried about editors who will insist on changing the actual text because "that's the name of the article." Rklear (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Zarcadia (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is no possibility of confusion on the part of readers or editors. Either title will be equally recognizable to all parties, and there is no other organization that could be described by them. Given that there is no serious difference between them, we should defer to the official name. RossPatterson (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:UCN. Red Slash 02:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I am unconvinced that there is truly a common name for this body. I looked through many pages of Ghits, and I saw lots of clutter - references to federal senators from Virginia, the West Virginia state senate, and West Virginia federal senators etc. RossPatterson also makes excellent points; these names are equally recognizable, so why not give our readers the benefit of the official name. WP:Ifitaintbrokedontfixit.--Kubigula (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • While WP:COMMONNAME is a policy, it is frequently not honored. The policy says "The following are examples of common names that Wikipedia uses as article titles instead of more elaborate, formal, or scientific alternatives: ... Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton) ... Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus)", but plenty of counter examples exist (e.g., William Howard Taft, not William Taft, Achatina fulica, not Giant East African Snail).
    • The correct place to challenge that is either on the talk pages of the article in question (to bring them in line with policy) or on the talk page of the policy (the policy isn't written in stone and can definitely change if consensus changes.) Until the policy changes, please do expect us to base our decisions on it. Red Slash 03:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Upper house[edit]

If the Senate of Virginia is less powerful than the House, then how is it an "upper house"? Did it used to be more powerful? St. claires fire (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In most systems, the "upper house" actually has less power - for examples, see the article Upper house.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like there could be three bases for considering a house an upper house. (1) It has more power now (e.g. the U.S. Senate has power to ratify treaties and confirm nominees). (2) It used to have more power (e.g. The House of Lords used to be the more powerful body). (3) It's more elite in some way, or less accountable to the voters. (E.g. The Virginia Senate has fewer members and is up for election less frequently; the House of Lords is unelected). St. claires fire (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Chase political party[edit]

Is Chase a Republican or Independent? It looks like there's some confusion, including on this article, because she's running for governor in 2021 as a Republican but will run as an Independent if she doesn't get party support. [1] In addition she left the Senate Republican Caucus in November, but the article [2] cited also says she still considers herself a Republican. The Senate website does as well. [3] Is there a clear answer to this? Baane247 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 January 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Senate of Virginia → Virginia Senate – Or, Virginia State Senate. I struggle to see why this page should be the only one for a state legislative chamber in the country that has a "[y] of [x]" construction instead of the standard "[x] [y]". In a previous statement of opposition (2013), it was argued that the official name is the Senate of Virginia, and that's fine and dandy, but there's no reason we couldn't have "officially known as the Senate of Virginia" in the first line of the article. Numerous news articles refer to it as the Virginia Senate or the Virginia State Senate but not "Senate of Virginia". Nevermore27 (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I see no evidence presented that "Virginia Senate" or "Virginia State Senate" is a more common name for this topic than the current title. Without such evidence, using the topic's official name is preferable to moving it just to match the formatting of other state senate article titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Searching for "Senate of Virginia" with quotes brings up only official government pages and this wiki article. Searching "Virginia Senate" or "Virginia State Senate" brings up news articles, campaign websites, other verifiable sources, as well as official government websites and this wiki page. This is easily googleable. Nevermore27 (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. After researching this further on my own, I am satisfied that "Virginia Senate" is the most common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Oregon State Senate, not Senate of Oregon, et al. Consistency is important. Red Slash 19:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virginia_Senate&oldid=1209244998"