User talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2006

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   User Page        Talk Pages        Toolset        To do        Bibliography        sandbox        sb2        sb3        sb4        sb5        sb6      

Congress[edit]

Stub tags[edit]

Thanks for letting me know that I shouldn't have removed those stub tags. I assumed that because the articles were long they didn't need them, but as someone from the UK I don't know much about US Congress and didn't realise there was info missing. I've put the stub tags back. Thanks for being so nice about it. Jilly 09:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, you're welcome. Thanks for following-up. Maybe a "<!--this is a stub-->" note needs to be inserted in all these articles. I don't know. —GoldRingChip 14:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Articles for Improvement Drive[edit]

Hi, I was interested in nominating an article, but I was unsure if anyone else was still interested in the overall project so I thought I would target a few specific people and see. Are you still interested in improving articles if I can drum up some more support? TonyJoe 20:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well right now there are four of us who seem enthusiastic (you, me, Academic Challenger, and Ross (ElCharismo) [who I think you know]), I think it might be best to get to work right away, wait for some others that I've tried to respond, and hope that our efforts attract some attention. What do you think? TonyJoe 23:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florida 16th District[edit]

I didn't think that noting the gerrymander between the 16th and 23rd districts was a violation of NPOV. There was a lawsuit on the subject, and I really think the boundaries themselves are pretty blatant prima facie evidence. I don't want to get into a revert war, but would ask you to reconsider your edit. --Orange Mike 18:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, fair enough. I'll look it over! —GoldRingChip 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a new edit with a cite to a federal case ruling and quoted the language of the judges who (while ruling against the specific complaint) declared it a pretty blatant case of use of "raw majority power" or some such. Hope the modified version meets with everyone's approval as NPOV-compliant.--Orange Mike 21:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good job with the research & court cite, Orange Mike! I also made an edit which should take care of any POV questions.—GoldRingChip 22:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congress Template[edit]

GoldRingChip, I noticed your new template and wanted to direct you to the one that I also had made earlier today: (Template:CapitolComplex). I have a great interest in architecture, especially government buildings, and I was going to just go ahead and add the one I made to the applicable articles, but decided not to till I got feedback from everyone else on the project talk page (here). Do you think we could take the buildings off the template you made, and use the one I made strictly for the Capitol Complex articles? I plan on adding a lot more minor buildings to the complex template, so if we keep them on the USCongress template it may start to get cluttered....any thoughts? --ScottyBoy900Q 00:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Congressional Districts[edit]

I noticed the changes that you have been making to the New Jersey congressional templates I created as part of WikiProject New Jersey (and which I would invite you to join). I think that linking to pages for the 13 individual districts, as you are doing, makes sense. My only observations are that 1) I think that the name of the district should be in caps, 2) that there is no need to link to the district within a page for a municipality (e.g. Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey) as the link is already included on the next line as part of the template, and 3) I think you ought to put the map on the right of the municiplaitiy list, whcih will make it far more likely to be seen. Let me know what your thoughts are on these issues and if I can help with anything. Alansohn 16:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Template:NJ Congress 07, etc., right? 1) Caps- Meaning, "New Jersey's Seventh Congressional District"? I don't know- it seems a little too much, but I don't have a strong opinion really. 2) Linking- Sure. The link only needs to be provided once if the next time is close by. 3) Map placement- What map, where? —GoldRingChip 18:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Your latest update to United States House of Representatives, New Jersey District 7 looks good. Though I was a bit surprised by the move of the page United States 2000 Census to U.S. Census, 2000 (see discussion page there). My #3 above referred to the map placement in this page, as I shifted it. Per #1, I think that the title of the district name should be in Title Case. We're in agreement on #2. Alansohn 20:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texas 22[edit]

Thanks for the cleanup work!! Chadlupkes 23:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States House of Representatives, Delaware At Large[edit]

reference your putting election results back in the "see also" section. Do you think it is not clear enough that this link is in the U.S Rep nav box? stilltim 02:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nav box is very good. I didn't see the election link there, so you can take it out of the see also section. —GoldRingChip 11:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I like your link to the House election article, didn't even know that was there. Thank-you. I sure wish someone would become inspired to beef them up though. They're kind of lacking now. I have two questions for you.

  • 1) My eye has a hard time following across the table when the cells are combined in some of the columns but not others, particularly the big ones. Am I just too used to reading Excel or would it be easier to read with the rowspace always at 1?
  • 2) I'm thinking about breaking out the second district for the five elections it was in effect. Problem is it was really one election, so its an artificial break, but I think its pretty confusing the way it is. What do you think? stilltim 22:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) eye-thing / rowspan dilemma— On my monitor it looks really swell, but I know Wikipedia's mantra is for widespread visual cohesiveness (see, e.g., WP:MOS#Formatting issues). So I suppose it's okay I suppose to "un-merge" the rows.
  • 2) I'd keep the 2nd district in-line chronologically (that is, don't break it out). Yes, it's confusing, so maybe there's some other way to make it stand out? —GoldRingChip 03:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

109th Congress[edit]

You have a point from the historical perspective of the article, but I think the casual user of this article is much more likely to come here because of their interest in what the current make-up in Congress is (eg. Who is my congressman?). When you see a seat # followed by a name, one would assume that is the current congressman. Once the 109th becomes history, then the order is unimportant, because the user knows that this is not the current congress. Thats how I perceive it, but if others object, it is no big deal to me. Cheers, NoSeptember talk 10:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States House of Representatives, Maryland District 7 & others[edit]

These "articles" have nothing, not a single word. They are perfect candidates for speedy under {{db-empty}}, but I don't want to ruin your work if you plan to add content to them. Renata 10:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing? Sheesh, I'm slacking off. afd-speedy is what they deserve, then. Unless you want to fill them up. Thanks for the warning. —GoldRingChip 14:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I tagged them for speedy. Nothing personal :) Renata 06:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense taken, Renata! 15:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:AUM[edit]

I understand that you may not have been aware of that policy, but now you are. Do not use templates within templates. This reversion needs some explanation. -- Netoholic @ 05:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should read your policy very carefully. It does not prohibit meta-templates. It strongly discourages them. However, I was aware of the policy. I even figured that the templates would eventually fall to this policy. Your policy is not the law. That's all. Keep up the good work, though.
And can you tell me more about class="hiddenStructure"?
—GoldRingChip 05:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Wait, even if your inaccurate paraphase of the policy was right, what about "strongly discourages them" is hard to grasp. Let me translate... Do not use templates within templates unless there is no other option available. NO other option. If you think any of your templates qualifies for an exception, please post on WT:AUM. -- Netoholic @ 07:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedies on U.S. to United States[edit]

I moved the first two to regular CfD since they had specific suggestions. Not sure what to do with the others that you support and compare to one other suggestion. I guess it's your choice to simply support and let the debate happen on your suggestion that I moved to CfD for a standard. Or you can move these down as a part of that debate. The cost is maybe an extra rename. Vegaswikian 20:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of stubs from Ordinal Congresses[edit]

The articles on Ordinal Congresses (for example, Sixty-second United States Congress and Seventieth United States Congress) are in fact stubs. Or at least I think so. Wikipedia:Stubs says, "Another way to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial internet search or a few minutes in a reference library. " I think that describes most of those articles even though they have a lot of information.

If you agree with me, is there a way to put back all the stubs? (If you don't agree, then nevermind and… uh… keep up the good work.) —GoldRingChip 21:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I was removing stub notices from articles listed at User:Bluemoose/Unstubby stubs. I thought the Congress articles were really lists, and that's why I removed the stub notices. Is there supposed to be more information there besides the names of congressmen? If that is the case, sorry, I didn't notice it. You can revert me in all articles if you think they really are stubs. JoaoRicardotalk 15:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"UMass"[edit]

Actually, what I was looking for is a citable source that the abbreviation or nickname "UMass" is an official nickname. It obviously is, as witness the website www.umass.edu and a plethora of references to UMass on that site, but all I could find in the way of branding, etc. referred to the use of the logo.

That is, if UMass has trademarked a UMass logo, that clearly gives the UMass nickname official status, even though the nickname is not trademarked.

Got a better source? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I agree with your comments at User talk:Rjensen about his use of the word "Scholarly" to describe references and his use of Questia links. Where do you think is the appropriate forum for the broader Wikipedia community to discuss these issues? (maybe at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources or Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout)? --JW1805 (Talk) 21:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the support. I think a discussion could start at Wikipedia:Village Pump, if nowhere else. Otherwise, perhaps on the Questia talk page. Other than that, I'm not sure. Maybe somewhere via the Manual of Style? —GoldRingChip 22:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • While you're at it why don't you explain why NOT call a book scholarly? Rjensen 22:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category renames for Members of the United States House of Representatives[edit]

I was just starting with the top level categories. If you want to propose the others as an umbrella speedy, go ahead. My feeling is that if multiple editors propose similar renames it is built in support. While some proposed renames had no consensus in the past, I still think they are OK to speedy since we are now just changing from U.S. to United States. Most of the other differences have been resolved over time. Vegaswikian 22:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your CFD of Category:U.S. Lieutenant Governors[edit]

Please be aware that this category was created by a new user who was not aware that there was already a category, Category:State lieutenant governors of the United States, which serves the same purpose. This category should be deleted and the information moved into the already existing category. --tomf688{talk} 02:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Congressional tables[edit]

Hi there. I've seen you do a lot of work on the US Congressional tables that mostly I started sometime last year... or was it the year before that... anyway. I've been meaning to get back to them, and I'll be getting a new reference guide to completely crosscheck and verify them. I just wanted to talk about one thing, though - the splitting them up, as I've seen you (I think) do on Massachusetts and Maryland.

Personally, I enjoy having one huge table for the entire history, it lets you see the continuity of power more, people with long terms, etc. But maybe that's just me. You've been splitting them up into one table for each change in districts. Now, it could just be because you're doing it on ones that I hadn't gotten to yet - like Maryland and Massachusetts - mostly the northeast (You have no idea how wonderful the Civil War gap is to clean up the table post-war and pre-war; New York and Pennsylvania in particular have huge early congresses and lack that, and since info is scarce from that period, it made it hellish to create a table, which is why those were left for last. Thanks to the gap in Virginia, it's easier to make a table there).

But back to my point. Is this only because the info in those has been added bit by bit since I made the initial tables, or is this an aesthetic decision? I agree that it's useful to have information on the different censuses, redistricting, etc., but that could be contained separately. I know it sounds like I'm criticizing in this, but I'm really not, I just really love the unified table and wanted to know if your reasoning was ease of adding information or you simply prefer multiple tables. Thanks. :) --Golbez 22:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(If you think this should be moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress, can you move it for me?)
Nah, it's okay here for now, there aren't too many people working on these. Sorry it took so long to respond, I thought I'd put your talk page on my watchlist. --Golbez 06:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll be pleased to learn that I agree with you across the board. I really like the look of the long block for U.S. Congressional Delegations from foo.
One of the advantages of the broken-up versions is that there are many more section headings so the TOC gives the reader more control over where the reader wants to go. But that's not a big advantage frankly, and the big one-piece chart is kinda nice and complete.
But the reason I broke up Massachusetts was because it solved several logistical problems. Such as:
  • What happens when a Representative's district changes? Such as Tip O'Neill or Nancy Pelosi?
    I just shifted them over to the new district. --Golbez 06:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many problems still haven't been solved, and I'm not sure how to solve them:
  • What if there's a change in the middle of a term. Such as in 1991 when Silvio Conte (R MA-1) died and his successor, John Olver (D), was sworn in in June? They were different parties so we couldn't even have them in the same box because the color would't work.
    Set that particular congress to have a rowspan of two, and have all the other districts for that congress with rowspan=2, and that one district, have two cells in that space. My California box has examples of all of these. --Golbez 06:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you show me where in U.S. Congressional Delegations from California you've done this? —GoldRingChip 11:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Gosh, um... lemme see if I can find one... aha, there we go, 45th congress, district 4. In some cases the tables don't make it too legible, but combined with footnotes stating that the first guy resigned/died/etc., it makes sense. This is after all a guideline, we can't control the tables to that fine a degree. Also, look at the U.S._Congressional_Delegations_from_Utah senate table, at the 93rd congress. The class 3 senator changed during that congress. --Golbez 15:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then there's what to do about at-large Reps? I don't know what to do there.
As for sources, one of the best I've found is: Martis, Kenneth C. (1989). The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989, Macmillan Publishing. ISBN 0-02-920170-5.
Yeah, that's the one I'm going to get as soon as I find it in a local library. --Golbez 06:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this was some help to you because I'd really like to see these charts (yup, all of them) completed.
Me too. :) --Golbez 06:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm… I see. Good job, there. One more thing- can you modify the California table to reflect the change in District 48 during the latest congress? (That is, John Campbell (R): installed 7 December 2005; Vacant: 3 August 2005 - 6 December 2005; Chris Cox (R), resigned 2 August 2005). Just so I can see how it's done?? —GoldRingChip 19:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, let me see here... I only say "vacant" if the guy wasn't replaced, since there's almost always a gap, so it would be redundant. I'll slide it in... wow, someone tried hacking it in by changing rowspan to "1.5". I'm amazed the entire table didn't break. Okay, I did it. With a huge table like that it can take a few minutes, but fortunately, it usually only has to be updated every 24 months. Here's the diff link: [1] Basically, you have to 1) make the proper congress wider by a row; 2) add a new row by |- and add the new guy after that, with a rowspan of one; 3) Extend every other congressman who is in that congress (except the person being replaced) by one. Which is why you see me changing George Miller all the way up at 94th. --Golbez 04:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my screen, I see Chris Cox in the 108th only and John Campbell in the 109th only. I see the change in code, but there's no change in the result other than Cox going from 108th+109th to 108th only.—GoldRingChip 11:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • As I said, the change can be subtle - only a couple of pixels sometimes - especially when it's that far from the edge. Having a footnote will set Cox out further. --Golbez 18:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. I've added a lot of junk text (via Preview mode only!) to Mr. Cox's and Mr. Campbell's boxes. Then I could see the difference. Whew. My browser/OS (Safari2.0.3/MacOS10.4.5) must not be able to distinguish the difference otherwise.—GoldRingChip 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not that the browser can't; it's just that the difference is just a few pixels, so without a nearby line for your eye to compare it to, you can't perceive the difference. If the district right next to that one had a new congressman in this congress, the line would be a few pixels higher than the line between Cox and Campbell. --Golbez 20:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I've used such a (computer-generated) straight edge. It's exactly flush: zero pixel difference. I think this is a problem. I don't know how to resolve it. I don't think that it's just an issue of visual acuity. Rather, I think it's a software problem caused either by browsers, OS, wiki, or something. Regardless, I think we need to come up with a solution or at least a sufficient work-around.—GoldRingChip 21:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Huh. That is odd. In that case, it may well be Safari's problem. And again, I think having a footnote (with a visible 5 or whatever by the mame) should be sufficient. I have some other ideas I've tried in the past that could work too. --Golbez 21:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a screen-shot I created which lines up the left & right sides of the table as they appear on my screen. (I deleted the middle columns so it could all fit here.) —GoldRingChip 21:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

.

By the way, I just stripped a lot of unnecessary code (or at least what I thought was unnecessary code) from that page. This reduced it from 47kb to 45kb. (California, naturally, has a large page. Perhaps stripping unnecessary middle names & initials may reduce its size too?) Does it still look the same or at least OK to you?—GoldRingChip 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine, that was a good idea. As for trimming the names, most of them I put them in as is from my source, they could indeed be stripped of a lot of extraneous naming info. --Golbez 20:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- US Senate, House, Gov elections[edit]

Just wanted to, first, ask you why you thought the elections for US Senate, House, Gov, etc should be merged into a single article, and second I'm just letting you know that I created a U.S. midterm elections, 2006 article independent of the other three, and would like to get your input and such on it. Thanks. --JMurphy 17:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think the elections for US Senate, US House, Governors, etc should be merged into a single article. On the contrary, I thought the info should be broken up into its corresponding components: US Senate, US House, Governors.
"Midterm election" can mean many things, that's why I renamed it United States Congress elections, 2006. But I think what you were really trying to do is create an article that summarized elections at the federal, state, and local level. Is that right?
Most of the information in this article was duplicative of the other three.
Therefore, I believe that it's OK to have a summary article, but it should be like a disambiguation page. See, e.g., United States Congress elections, 2004. —GoldRingChip 18:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Basically, yes, that's what I wanted to do. Many major media always refer to these kinds of elections as "midterm elections," and I think I remember in one other place someone wikifying a link to "midterm elections" with the 06 Senate elections page. Anyway, thanks for making the article in question look better and fall into line with guidelines, I'm new to creating articles, so as you know it's really hit and miss.
One more thing, I started the article Arizona statewide elections, 2006 as kind of a pilot for non-federal elections decided by voters statewide, but haven't really had the time to expand it into a chronological or 50-state series. Any suggestions? Thanks again. --JMurphy 23:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Arizona article looks good. I've added a little to it. See my article, Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2006, which I'm treating like a state-wide election (but not including federal election-- after all, "state-wide" might include U.S. Senate elections).—GoldRingChip

Congressional Districts[edit]

  • Just wanted to thankyou for editing the pages I've been creating on the Alabama congressional districts - as you can see I'm slowly working through them all to create substantive information based from the National Almanac, the CRS and Congressional Quarterly. Unfortunately I'm not very proficient with attention to detail or editing Wikipedia, so I really appreciate the editing you've done to make the article more user friendly. If you ever feel like doing Congresspeople I'm doing them as well...Orchid Righteous 15:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help! WikiProject U.S. Congress has some pointers on style. Frankly, the project itself could use a little reformatting.—GoldRingChip 16:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • On that note, I don't suppose you have an opinion about which sort of timeline for congressional districts is better? The vertical one seems more aesthetically pleasing but the horizontal one seems easier to read.... Orchid Righteous 15:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which timeline do you mean?—GoldRingChip 16:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary[edit]

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 27% for major edits and 94% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 22:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right. I have been sloppy with my edit summaries.—GoldRingChip 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice edits ...[edit]

... on "Reconstruction." Sfahey 23:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. It's always nice to here nice things.—GoldRingChip 00:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Wait[edit]

The damage has been undone. I saw the category on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress and decided to implement it; I have since deleted the category from there. You might want to go there and check that it's correct, so that other people like me don't go and make that category again ;p Disavian 15:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm probably the person who put that category on the project, and then forgot about it. Thanks for catching it!—GoldRingChip 16:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio[edit]

I've noticed that you are making a number a new articles about US congressmen. These seem to be directly copied and pasted from [2], and as such look like copyvios to me. I have already marked a couple for speedy deletion. If this was in error, please excuse me. Is there a reason these are not copyright violations? Let me know, Makemi 01:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are in the public domain since they come from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Mushroom (Talk) 01:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw your explanation on the talk page, alright, I just wasn't sure that what you were copying from was public domain. Thanks, Makemi 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Congressional Delegations from Massachusetts#1913-1923: 16 seats[edit]

Hey, I found all the info here: http://clerk.house.gov/members/electionInfo/elections.html, however its index does not include anything from before 1920, so i put as much on there as I could. Massrepublican 21:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double Redirect Revert[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you reverted my redirect of List of current members of the U.S. House of Representatives. I am a new editor so I'm still learning the ropes. My concern about leaving the redirect to 109th United States Congress is that, since nothing links to the article and the article name is obsolete (as per the naming convention), it may be likely that the redirect won't be updated each congress. Your thoughts and advice will be most appreciated. --G1076 21:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, WELCOME!!!!
  • Secondly, don't worry about anything.

Thanks for the encouragement. I hope to add some value to the WP:USC. Just thinking quickly on the subject, maybe a tag or a category of some sort could be attached to all the "current congress" articles that need to be updated at the start of each new congress. Maybe that can be put on the "to-do" list. --G1076 00:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Members of Congress[edit]

I noticed you flip-flopped the members by house vs. members by state listings. I am actually pleased at this arrangement, because this is the way I believe the membership is best displayed. I did it the other way after reading the project's guidelines and seeing that the vast majority of the other congresses do otherwise. An important goal of mine is to have one of the lists with all the congressmen from a state, both houses, together. This is what you put on the main page. To my knowledge it is not done this way on any other Congress. They are mostly sorted first by house, then alpha, or by house, then by state, then by district. Neither are the same- this is by state and then by house, and alpha to boot. Another of my goals is to avoid long discussions and revert wars over silly stuff. I have worked out a methodology that will let me build a bunch of these membership lists, and will happily build them however the consensus says is best, as long as one is as stated. To the extent that anything can be assured in this wikiworld, are you comfortable that this format will avoid wikiwars? If so, I will build others in this way. stilltim 12:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that we ought to use 109th United States Congress as a guide. It organizes by chamber. Senators are ranked by seniority and Representatives are organized by district. I like this ordering because it focuses on the importance of the houses. Alphabetical order is only important for finding a name in a large list, but any web browser with a "find" function can do that easily. Listing by district makes mid-term succession evident (see three examples at 109th United States Congress#California). Of course all 109+ articles ought to be consistent. I did not use this method for the 51st because I was just too lazy to cut and paste that much. It would be wonderful for you to use your methodology to build a bunch of membership lists.—GoldRingChip 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, that's what I thought the standard was, and that's what I will try to build on the main article. Chamber, then State, then Seniority/District. If at-large, or the seniority or district are unknown, I will leave it alpha until I get a good source or someone else enhances it. I actually don't especially care for this approach, believing the states should be the focus, but will go along as it makes little difference if there can be another listing by state. So, I will also build two corresponding lists, on separate articles, one sorted by state, then chamber, then alpha, and another sorted by chamber then party, then alpha. I am loading all these names into a DB and letting it do the sorting. Pretty easy, actually, the disambig editing and verification takes the time. I've got about 10 Congresses nearly ready to go. If you can't live with this approach please let me know. stilltim 22:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the 109th is the standard- do you mean you prefer everything in tables, like it has? I'm finding the membership changes do very much better in the table, see Fifty-fourth United States Congress#Changes in Membership, but am ambiguous about the Senate/House. Either way they should be the same. What do you think? Tables are a lot more work. stilltim 21:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I do like the Changes in Membership sections in tables. It's most important to have tables when you have important column headings. For the Senate and House members, however, there's no compelling reason to make such columns.—GoldRingChip 00:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to provide a convenient forward backward link from one Congress to another. Readers will want to scan from one to another without scrolling all the way to the bottom, which will be a really long way especially when they get all built. Can you suggest a way other than the "see notes" I placed?

  • Unfortunately, no. I see what you mean, about the thing being way down at the bottom. But for the sake of avoiding extra clutter, I think additional links to "previous" and "next" ought to get left off. —GoldRingChip 23:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll give some more thought to a less cluttering way to do it, and would appreciate you doing likewise, but know we will need something like this to be near the top. I may experiment with a few ideas, just to get your thoughts, but be gentle.stilltim 01:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's no "compelling reason" to make the actual members lists into columns. Does that mean its OK with you to remove the tables that exist and replace them with the lists in the style we have discussed- including on the 109th?

  • Hmm… maybe I'm not sure what you mean by tables. There are tables throughout the 109th, but not in the Members section. I prefer it that way. Explain to me (again, alas) which section you mean and what it would change about it…—GoldRingChip 23:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The senators are in a table in the 109th as well as in 5/6 others. Along with officers. I think all members, officers, senators, reps, and changes are best handled one way or the other. Lists are MUCH easier, and are as understandable as tables, except for membership changes (see next comment). If lists are to be the direction we will need to replace the few senate tables that are out there as well as the couple of officer tables, and even the party table. If it's to be tables, we should get to work on designing good ones and I will start building them rather than wasting my time on lists. I recommend lists, but can live with tables, and most of all want consistency.

Also what would you think about placing only a summary (see 54th) of membership changes on the main page, and the big tables on a page of their own? It seems a little cosmetically jolting going from lists to big tables and then back again. Or is it just me? stilltim 21:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm sorry, I steered you wrong, I did the summary on the 55th. I think the summary is needed- it's what the reader really wants to know, but wondering if the article wouldn't be less cluttered or visually jarring, if the membership change table, which is absolutely needed somewhere, can be moved to its own article.

PS. Good stuff you're doing on the Fed legislation. stilltim 21:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your mods to the wording in the membership intro, and your indentation of successor reprs to the same district make sense and I will try and incorporate them into the template I am using.stilltim 11:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking district number[edit]

I also like linking the district number to the district article, but that is a huge amount of work, that I think will wait for another phase for me. stilltim 11:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right that the district-linking is a lot of work and probably a good idea not to bother now.—GoldRingChip 13:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading district number links[edit]

The only problem with it is that the districts really weren't the same in the past, and linking them to the current configuration may be misleading. I think it puts a burden on the district author to provide a history, at least in summary. stilltim 11:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, the change in districts over time is a problem which burdens district-article-writers: you're right. Still, I think that it's a good idea, and it should be implemented even if it means more work would be done in the future (like all of Wikipedia). I've been working on them slowly for Massachusetts; see here: Massachusetts's 3rd congressional district.—GoldRingChip 13:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vice President of the US vs. President of the Senate[edit]

The practice of using the "Vice President" vs. "President of the Senate" label follows the usage of the official U.S. Congress listing, see: [3], and I really think we should follow that. stilltim 11:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As for VEEP vs. President of Senate: you're right again. I've even checked a couple more "official" websites which also use the VEEP title. However, there ought to be some way (which is simple, clear, and short!) to state that so-and-so is the Prez of Senate. After all, a reader of the article's gonna ask, "why are they telling me about the VEEP in the list of Senate Officers?" I don't want, however, a whole silly sentences like: "Vice President: So-and-so. The Vice President of the United States is the President of the Senate." Maybe something like this: "President of the Senate: So-and-so, Vice President of the United States." Maybe. —GoldRingChip 13:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State sections[edit]

  • You know, I think you might be right after all, that the states should not have separate sections in the membership lists. It's made the TOC too long for no good reason. I might just start removing them in the 109th Congress and earlier. —GoldRingChip 13:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of current United States Senators#Leadership[edit]

I feel that Robert Byrd should be listed at the PPTE for it is a leadership position and would symbolize that he would become the PPT if the Democrats gained control. Behun 00:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Hot diggity dog, that's a good bit of research you did! —GoldRingChip 01:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States federal legislation[edit]

Historic legislation[edit]

Excellent call on the CFD for "historic" federal legislation. I generally have a problem with any category that refers to "history" in any sense (i.e. Category:History of anti-communism in the United States; as opposed to modern-day anti communism in the United States?) Anyway, good work on government/law articles, and I hope you approve of the subcategorization scheme that I put in place for fed. legislation (i.e. labor, communications, transportation etc.) Paul 17:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banking legislation[edit]

Hey - I saw that you proposed to rename the "banking legislation" category to "financial legislation". While I see the logic in what you're doing, I have to disagree with the renaming, as the two types of legislation are not the same. "Banking legislation" deals directly with banks and "financial legislation" covers a wider variety of subjects. In addition, one of the titles of the United States Code is called "banking," and therefore keeping the category with that name is a good way to (loosely) mirror the way U.S. federal laws are organized. Let me know if you'd like to discuss it further. Thanks, Paul 04:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States federal securities litigation[edit]

I think this should be recreated; securities laws constitute a distinct area of regulation that should be kept separate. Postdlf 02:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Category:United States territorial organization and state admission legislation[edit]

Sorry there was no cfd discussion yet, I've been cleaning up the uncategorized categories list (Special:Uncategorizedpages), and I come across lots of unused categories. I often nominate them in groups of four or five at once and I hadn't gotten around to it yet ... -- ProveIt (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your work on List of United States federal legislation[edit]

I am constantly impressed with your improvements to this article and related topics. Cheers! BD2412 22:39, June 13, 2006


Category:US rail stubs[edit]

Hi- thought i should tell you that ive removed your renaming nomination from Wikipedia: Categories for deletion and taken it to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion where it should have been (all stub templates and categories are handled at SFD, as it says at the top of CFD). BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#if[edit]

Can you point me to where I can learn about how to use " #if "? Thanks!!! —GoldRingChip 11:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoldRingChip. The #if: function is so new (and still in 'trial' mode) that there isn't an official help page yet. However, the 'project page' where it was first suggested and issues have been discussed can be found at m:ParserFunctions. That page will give you basic information on the syntax of #if: and several other new features (#switch:, #expr:, et cetera). The talk page there also has extensive discussion on these. You can also take a look at Wikipedia:Qif conditionals... which was originally written for the 'qif' template, but #if: works almost identically and thus the page has been updated to describe #if: and there are some helpful pointers for using it there. Hope this helps. --CBDunkerson 12:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Collar[edit]

Its a service worker. The Alabama Congressional District pages used the designation, and I couldnt think where to put service workers either, so, I went along with it. --Massrepublican 14:11, 23 April 2006 (EST)

United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota[edit]

Sorry for the unnecessary edit - I had been working on the text of the page in Microsoft Word and therefore didn't get the normal message that someone else had already made changes to the page. Your political party color box and the corresponding changes in code that accompany it have been added to all the state Congressional Delegation pages with the exceptions of Delaware, Nebraska and Ohio. I plan to clean up/expand Ohio relatively soon. Nebraska's use of coloring for the Populist Party conflicts with the general color code system so I wasn't sure what the ideal solution would be to that problem. Delaware looks nothing like the other 49 states so I left it alone for now. I noticed you re-inserted a link to the Free Soil Party into a representative's box on the Indiana page. I wasn't sure whether to leave in links to party pages for smaller parties once they were covered by the color coding system and therefore eliminated many of them. Anyhow, all I really wanted to say is I'm a big fan of your work. Keep it up. --Bjoel5785 00:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! I'm very happy with all the editing you've been doing— keep it up! I've now taken care of Nebraska. I like to have the parties' abbreviation in there too, because some people with vision problems or but browsers can't see the colors. —GoldRingChip 02:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congress style guide[edit]

I created a proposed style guide for members of Congress - User:PaulHanson/Style guide - please take a look and share your thoughts. Paul 02:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

109th congress map[edit]

thanks for telling me about the mistake, Ive fixed it now --Astrokey44 11:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{USC}}[edit]

May I ask why you added categories to such templates as {{usc}}, {{usc3}}, etc.? In general, I don't think redirects should be categorized (except for redirect templates, obviously), since otherwise the template shows up multiple times on category pages. I've added {{shortcut}} to the templates instead—is that okay with you? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. You're absolutely right. That's fine. Thanks. —GoldRingChip 10:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD vote: Category:United States federal boards, commissions, and committees[edit]

Could you please take a look at, and provide an opinion regarding, this CFD? Thank you very much, and keep up the fine work. Paul 04:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for drawing my attention there. Unfortunately, you did not make the nomination sufficiently. I see, however, your point on the nomination, so I left a comment there. Cheers!! —GoldRingChip 12:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Congressional delegation[edit]

I only added the year link for 1895 & 1897 to be consistent with the entire remainder of the article. Look at the text of my change. Naraht 03:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your creation of empty redirects[edit]

Please stop making redirects to articles that do not exist, such as Committee on Revolutionary Claims and Committee on Privileges and Elections. These are liable to be speedy deleted. Create the article before redirecting to it. Thanks! Kimchi.sg 23:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in Templates[edit]

I thought the purpose of templates was to save work. Having the templates refer to categories creates a structure that we can easily follow, allowing us to bounce around the articles within a subject through various means. If we have to go to each page and create the categories manually, it makes for more work and potential inconsistency. Is that a rule that I missed? Chadlupkes 20:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The way it's been told to me is this: you don't know when templates will be included. Every time a template is used, its using article gets put in the category. Therefore, templates should rarely if ever employ categories except inside of "<noinclude></noinclude>" tags. It certainly does save work, but more often than not, it causes headaches because it over-includes. Did that make sense? I just know that somewhere in the wiki world there must be a guideline/standard/rule/help which outlines this better than I just did.

Reverse merge[edit]

Regarding: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 11#Category:Congressional districts of the District of Columbia…

  • I had proposed the deletion of the category because it was empty & redundant of another category.
  • You closed this proposed CFR with Reverse Merge. What is reverse merge?
  • There was no consensus. In fact fewer people (two out of five) wanted reverse merge.
  • If a reverse merge affects the other non-empty category, it would be a problem, because no {{cfr}} was posted on that category's page. —GoldRingChip 18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverse merge" is merging two categories in the direction opposite of originally proposed. It is generally acceptable to perform it without placing a CFD notice on the "target" category.

My reasoning for the closure is: 1 merge, 3 reverse merge, 1 delete both show consensus to have exactly one category and preference for it to be Category:Congressional districts of the District of Columbia. Conscious 18:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "delete" and Mareino's "delete" were different. Mareino suggested to delete both categories. You suggested to delete one (empty) category in favour of another - that's called "merge". Even leaving aside interpretation of your vote, it's a unanimous decision not to have two categories. Conscious 03:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special election musical chairs[edit]

Please check the article, and let me know if you believe the language is still POV, and if so, give particular examples; I'll be happy to do some more work on the article. Argyriou 20:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:U.S. federal courthouses[edit]

Don't know what happened, I could have lost it in a cut and paste when adding or it could have been deleted by accident while removing completed listings. In any case I have put this back in the work queue. Vegaswikian 20:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Airport codes}}[edit]

I see you removed the bold from the template. I'm not sure that it's a good idea but rather than get into reverting back and fourth I've brought it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/infobox Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Infobox Airport so we could get more input. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's fine. I don't have a strong opinion either way. Thanks for calling it to my attention! —GoldRingChip 23:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Congress articles[edit]

With the exception of the 65th United States Congress and the 88th United States Congress which were originally cut and past moves which I have reversed, with the others I have just removed the short old history, leaving a redirect, so you can move them. Please remember to check for double redirects also please check the two I have merged as well for double redirects. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additions done --Philip Baird Shearer 19:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add copyrighted text to Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your creation of the article, Massachusetts Attorney General, but we cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems for more information on this topic, or generally, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Please do not remove the copyright violation notice placed in the article or repost the suspected infringing text. However, if you would like to rewrite the article in your own words, follow the link in the posted notice to create a temporary subpage. If your new article is appropriate, and not a further copyright violation, the reviewing administrator will move that new article into place once the copyright status of the original has been resolved. Happy editing! Assawyer 23:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste[edit]

Please do not copy and paste information from the internet into an article, as you have done with many articles on representatives from Massachusetts. It is usually copyright violation. Thanks. Wikibout-Talk to me! 16:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location of US capital[edit]

Hi GoldRingChip, thanks for working to improve the template I created. I thought, however, the heading should say "Capital" instead of "Capitals" since there is only one capital at any given time. Indeed, the "Capital of the United States" moves with Congress. (Which is why I originally included an image of the Congressional Seal.) Do you have a problem with us changing it back? Thanks for your help. Regards, Accurizer 12:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Singular is fine. My mistake.
  • But the Congressional logo should remain omitted because: (1) it only represents the current régime; and (2) it only represents one of three branches of the current régime.
  • —GoldRingChip 12:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Haas[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you added to the article on Karen Haas that she was planning on running for Congress. However the external link you provided for that, does not seem to confirm that, simply indicating that she runs the office, until someone is elected (in her official capacity as Clerk of the House). Am I missing something?--eric 20:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nope, you're missing nothing. I read it wrong. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I've now corrected the article.—GoldRingChip 20:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congress COTW nomination[edit]

Hi GoldRingChip: Thanks for all the great contributions and improvements to the ProjectCongress universe--especially the templates. I'm playing with some ideas on how to improve our COTW performance. I added a To Do list to your nominated article, Talk:Richard A. Baker (Senate Historian)/to do as a way to help future collaborators have a place to start collaborating. If you are inclined, I invite you to populate the To Do list; and let me know what you think about the idea. As this experiment continues I plan to add 'To Do' functionality on the project page as well. Take care, --G1076 06:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion sought at WP:LIST talk[edit]

I've made a proposal here, and am seeking feedback. Best,--Anthony Krupp 13:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

double redirects[edit]

Some of the name changes made to congressional delegations articles (ie. DC & PR) have created double redirects. I started chasing them down but there are quite a few, and I won't be able to get to them all.--G1076 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your diligence. As always, I am impressed with your work. —GoldRingChip 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Session dates for Congress[edit]

You say "Dates are better formatted the way they had been before you recently edited a few recent Congresses."

  • I disagree with "better;" I think "roughly paralleling 1995 to 1996" is far less clear than "1995-1996," especially since the exact dates appear on the next lines. When a congress extended into January, then the date range I used indicated that (imaginary example: 1985-1987 rather than the more typical 1985-1986).
  • Yes, I used this format on "a few recent Congresses" –– and on every congress since the 5th; I noted on the project page a year ago that I was doing this. (By the way, on Sept. 13, 2005, you said on my talk page, "Great work you're doing." At that point I'd done these dates for roughly seventy congresses. Ouch.
  • The more recent congresses (say, 85th on) had little consistency even on so minor a thing as session dates. If I was undoing someone's work, it was either not the same person's work, or an inconsistent person's work.
  • You are correct that Congress has met in Washington DC for over a century; I noted the location because not every reader would necessarily know that, and for consistency with the early congresses that did not meet in Washington.

— OtherDave 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5th MA Congressional District[edit]

Unfortunatly I was acting a little impulsive and copied over your edit work. Sorry!--24.61.29.237 01:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 3rd vs. March 4th[edit]

Thanks for inquiring about my sources for the March 3rd vs. March 4th issue. Having taken a look at your talk page and contribs while posting this answer, you obviously have a substantial investment in the congressional and presidential articles, so I'm glad to discuss in as much detail as you like.

There is pretty clear documentary evidence that until the Twentieth Amendment was passed in the 1930's, presidential and congressional terms expired at noon on March 4th. Nor was this just a theoretical issue; the outgoing Congress and President routinely exercised their powers on the morning of March 4th in odd-numbered years.

The lame-duck congressional session that began in December of each even-numbered year frequently went down to the wire and saw Congress meeting on the morning of March 4. I have here in my office the Congressional Record that includes March 4, 1917 (I am doing an article on some legislation that passed in the 64th Congress, 2d session and found an ex-library set of the Record for that session cheap on Amazon). The Senate was in session on the morning of March 4, 1917 -- even though it was a Sunday -- continuing in session from the previous day (there was a filibuster in progress concerning arming of U.S. merchant ships traveling to Europe). The Senate continued in session right until 12:00 noon, when the proceedings read:

"The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will please suspend. The hour of 12 o'clock noon having arrived, under the Constitution of the United States I now declare the Senate of the United States adjourned sine die." (54 Cong. Rec. 5020)

The House was also in session on March 4, 1917, until 12 noon, when the proceedings read:

"The SPEAKER. The hour of 12 o'clock having arrived, under the Constitution I declare the House in the Sixty-fourth Congress adjourned sine die. God bless you all. [Applause.]" (54 Cong. Rec. 5033)

Meanwhile, the President was signing bills into law, also on the morning of March 4 (see 54 Cong. Rec. 5032). This is not unique to 1917; a Google search for "Act of March 4" (use the quotes) will turn up numerous statutes that became law on March 4 of a given odd-numbered year (e.g., Act of March 4, 1923), and certainly were signed on the last day of the outgoing congress rather than the first day of the incoming one.

I was in a library the other day and verified that the same thing happened in many other Congresses. See also the additional example with a 19th-century link that another user I've been discussing this posted at User_talk:DLJessup.

In fact, there is a room in the Capitol building off the Senate chamber called the President's Room, which was formerly used for presidential bill signings, particularly in the last days of the session through the morning of March 4. See for example here. This custom continued right through the 1930's as is reflected in this interesting article from Time from 1933.

I hope this is responsive and would be glad to have the benefit of your thoughts or any counter-evidence. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You just knocked me out. That's a ton of convincing evidence. OK, I'm in! —GoldRingChip 01:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick feedback. I'm glad I was able to help settle a perennial, if hardly critical, debate here. I've already tried to conform the dates for Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Speakers of the House. I don't have the time right now to go through all the dates for Members of Congress (some but not all of which seem to have exact dates rather than just years of service) on their individual article pages, nor do I think it's a high priority to do so given everything else that Project:Congress is working on, although it might be desirable to mention that people can fix these dates if they come across any while in the course of doing something else. On the other hand, if there are any other lists out there that have a long string of "March 3"s, those should be conformed to March 4 -- I'll be glad to do that. See you again on the Congress pages! Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. State Attorneys General[edit]

Hey. You're being bothered because you designed this thing way back. I am tryng to add a few lines at the bottom for the rest of the members of the NAAG - and I have no idea how to do it. The names are in my sandbox, User:Crzrussian/Sandbox. Your help would be appreciated. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral vote changes between presidential elections[edit]

I started this article on a whim, but it seems to be missing something. I invite any suggestions you may have. NoSeptember 11:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I pipe-linked Red to sksk because I knew that links to non-existent articles would be red, and I wanted the word itself to be red. That's why. Thank you for the advice about the Congressional elections. Do you think it would be alright to say, "making New York's delegation solidly Democratic, or 'Blue?'"

SwedishConqueror 20:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)SwedishConqueror[reply]

  • It's great that you've done all this work and I really look forward to seeing more from you! Would you consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress?
  • I would avoid the word "solidly" and just use the appropriate fraction (or ratio). I would thus make it more objective and less opinionated. Such as: "Massachusetts has all (twelve out of twelve) Democratic members of its delegation" and not: "Massachusetts's delegation is solidly Democratic."
  • Don't use links (especially false ones) to make colors. Links should be used for linking only. See the help pages for making colors directly.
  • I recommend that you go back and modify these articles, but that's up to you, of course.
  • —GoldRingChip 01:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eponymous templates[edit]

You created this category a few days ago, but didn't explain what it was for, and didn't put more than one item in it. Rather than going through a whole CfD nom, I thought I'd ask you first - what did you intend to use this for? If it has turned out to be a bad idea, please speedy it as author req, which would be much simpler. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for contacting me. The category is for templates named for people. The one template that's so far in this category is {{GWB}}, which is named for George W. Bush.—GoldRingChip 10:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USBill[edit]

{{USBill}} appears to be broken. It spits out a broken link right now. Would you mind looking at it? -Harmil 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School vs. college[edit]

You recently added the Massachusetts school stub template to Hellenic College, Cambridge College, and Lesley University. I don't think it's appropriate. First of all, though 'school' is used informally for colleges and universities (and more formally for faculties within them, e.g. a medical school), the template seems oriented to pre-college schools. Secondly, these articles are already tagged with university stub templates. --Macrakis 21:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fine with me. Sorry for the confusion. You can change them back.—GoldRingChip 23:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1853[edit]

Hello. I'd to make you aware of this new article of mine. If you have any improvements to make, please go ahead. Do you think it might be worthy of being featured on DYK? Biruitorul 23:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S legislation[edit]

good work on this list. i have supported its candidacy to become featured list Covalent 17:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Territory's At-large congressional district[edit]

Regarding Northwest Territory's At-large congressional district: You mention succumbing to reason to nuke the page...what is the reason? I have been going under the assumption that we will have a comprehensive set of articles dealing with delegations, districts, etc. from each state and each territory. What is the basis for the exception in this case?--G1076 20:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for the weird language, G1076. It's just that the article to which it (now) redirects has the same information, and the district article doesn't say anything new. However, I didn't take into account (or even consider) the work you've been doing this summer on the obsolete districts. Therefore, feel free to restore the article, with my apologies!—GoldRingChip 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response--no offence taken. I assumed good faith, but just wanted to know if there was change in direction for the overall goals of Project Congress. I am more focused (and/or interested) in the structure and organization of the congressional articles so sometimes content lags behind.--G1076 15:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading key[edit]

Another question while you are here: Can you explain why the templates Template:Party shading/Pro-Jacksonian2 and Template:Party shading/Federalist2 were created? I appreciate the assistance.--G1076 15:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because when I created them, some articles used the colors from {{Party shading/Pro-Jacksonian2}} instead of the colors from {{Party shading/Pro-Jacksonian}}. Ditto for …Federalist2 & …Federalist. Therefore I created the two version2s. If however, you think the version2s are now unnecessary (and I hope they are), then please TFD them. —GoldRingChip 20:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mass City-Town Note}}[edit]

I would like to change the note by adding the word statutory, as in: it is a statutory city, taking out the emphais on is. The claim it is a city is a little incomprehensible to those who live in other parts of the U.S., where the consequences of the name form of government are hazier, as many live in unincorporated towns, and even unincorporated city-sized locales. Silver Spring, Maryland comes to mind as a great example of a city that is an unincorporated part of the county. Any concerns/comments/objections? (also posted to the talk page at the template) Yellowdesk 15:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made the change today. Yellowdesk 16:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry I didn't get back to you. I very much like this template you've created. —GoldRingChip 20:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990[edit]

Thanks for your editing help in formatting and improving my introduction to this article. As a newbie wikipedian (this is only the second serious editing or writing task that I have performed on the wikipedia), I wondering if there was a good way to make clear to readers that the article body is not the actual text of the law? Many thanks again.--NDM 07:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Welcome, then, to Wikipedia, newbie. The best way in this case would be to edit the text so it doesn't have all the legalistic language in it. Do you know where this language originated?—GoldRingChip 11:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical Directory of the United States Congress[edit]

Bioguide[edit]

Hey GoldRingChip, what's new? Just wanted to commend you for your ongoing work on the U.S. Representatives project. Today Bioguide, tomorrow every other reference work in the world, will be incorporated into this great and noble project of ours. Keep it up...best, Paul 17:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional people source[edit]

I've found a nice, reliable, online source for getting the names of the people in Congressional delegations: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd108-222/index.html , but I'm not sure how best to incoporate it into the many, many articles we have that could use it as a reference. I strongly suspect this has already been discussed... If you have any suggestions, please let me know. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

House Document No. 108-222[edit]

What an excellent find. Or I guess I compliments should go to JesseW -- I only noticed when you added the link. older ≠ wiser 14:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Losing articles[edit]

Hello. Just so you know, in the past few days, we've lost the articles on Mass. Governors Charles F. Hurley, Joseph B. Ely, Alvan T. Fuller, Samuel W. McCall, and Channing H. Cox due to some copyright concerns that I thought were overblown, but so it goes. I've made stubs out of them for now; hopefully, in time, the articles can be recreated in such a way that they conform to copyright standards. Biruitorul 04:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mace of the United States House of Representatives[edit]

GoldRingChip, check out the talk page on this article. I am afraid we might lose this one as well. If you have some time, please make some edits and cite some sources on it. I will do the same as time allows. Thanks!--Daysleeper47 14:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Election/congress[edit]

I fully intend to clean them up, yeah. Including fixing the header on each. I'm going through all 55 in turn. :)

PS, what do you think of Delaware's format for the senate? It's the only one that does it, and except for the president, I kinda like it - I like how it has bars showing the six-year terms. --Golbez 14:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't like the way many of the pages associated with Delaware are formatted. There is one editor who has done a fantastic amount of good work with those articles, but he won't allow other editors to make changes. As a result, Delaware articles don't have the same format as all the other states. This includes the articles about individual members of Congress and Senators from Delaware.—GoldRingChip 16:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the six-year bars though? Those could be adapted (with much work, blood, sweat, and tears) to the other articles, and I think they might be useful. --Golbez 22:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio election results[edit]

I'm wondering about the move of "Election Results, Ohio Governor" and "Election Results, Ohio Lieutenant Governor" to "Ohio Gubernatorial Elections" etc. It seems an unnecessary move to me and breaks the pattern for most of the other Ohio election results pages, which take the form "Election Results, Ohio [office]." Were you planning on moving them all? 68.106.119.47 21:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It matches the style from most other states. I wasn't planning on moving the rest; but they should be moved by somebody, o anonymous one.—GoldRingChip 11:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congress number[edit]

Re: this revert, are we really going to show lame duck candidates for the next two months and make it harder for readers to find the people who will be in charge for the next two years? To me, that doesn't sound helpful for readers. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lame duck session this year is already scheduled; in fact, the House and Senate are coming back into session today, though I'm not sure whether it's a pro forma session or they are going to be doing meaningful work, so we can't just write off the 109th Congress as history. On the other hand, the election results are sufficient proof of who the Members of the 110th Congress will be that I wouldn't say listing them would take us into "crystal ball" territory; we're not making mere predictions here, except for the possibility of a death or resignation or successful election contest, we know exactly who the Members will be. In a perfect world, lists for both the 109th and 110th Congresses would be available, but I don't know how do-able that is given the time constraints. Newyorkbrad 16:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with making separate templates for 109th vs. 110th. It's probably advisable since you know for damn sure I'm not the only one who will tamper with them between now and January. And I also agree with Newyorkbrad's assessment - crystal balling is saying that Band X is going to release a new album in May 2007 when their last 4 CD's have each been 2 months late. There's no reason not to have a template showing the 110th Congress - whether it's separate or not - it's useful info and people will be annoyed if it's difficult to find. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, if you think it would make sense to include whatever-elects in a separate area of the existing template(s), that's fine too. But claiming that Tim Mahoney cannot be in a template because he's not yet technically in Congress is not information-friendly. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Rep[edit]

I reverter this edit as per my edit summary. If you have any questions about it, please do not hesitate to contact me about it. American Patriot 1776 21:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois' / Illinois's[edit]

In the past, you've been involved in changing "Illinois' Xth congressional district" to "Illinois's Xth congressional district" or visa-versa. The issue has come up again. If you have any input, please discuss it at Template talk:USCongDistStateIL. --Interiot 02:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahoney, Zach Space, and whoever replaced Duke Cunningham...[edit]

...were sworn in immediately when Congress reconvened this week, to finish the unexpired terms of the resigned ex-Reps. The ceremonies were on C-SPAN, and are probably archived on their website. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Group[edit]

Hello GoldRingChip I notice you have contibuted to some Boston articles - I am looking for some people to join Wikipedia:WikiProject_Boston. Markco1 04:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House SAA[edit]

Thanks for linking the dates. That was on this afternoon's To-Do list; I just hadn't done it yet. One interesting thing I am asking around about; former House SAA Nehemiah G. Ordway is listed on the House SAA webpage as being named Nathanial. I can't ascertain which is correct. I am just asking people to help me look into it. If you find anything, let me know. Thanks, Daysleeper47 16:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senate committee list move[edit]

Hi GoldRingChip,

I noticed that you moved the list of members of senate committees in the 110th congress to a talk page without any comment. You may have had a very good reason to do this, but I would greatly appreciate if you could explain your rationale a bit on Talk:110th United States Congress.

Thank you, GabrielF 05:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Foley Scandal[edit]

Please note that I have just nominated Mark Foley Scandal for Featured Article status. You can find comments about its nomination here. I am leaving this message because you have significantly contributed to the article. Thesmothete 02:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States House of Representatives[edit]

United States House of Representatives is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. --Daysleeper47 13:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Jersey delegation to the 110th Congress[edit]

Hi. Re: this edit, what are your thoughts about having templates for the individual Congresses ("Congressi"?) and having the "current" templates redirect to the individual ones? I realize it doesn't matter a heckuva lot now but it seemed a little more appropriate to keep the histories of the individual Congresses in the individual Congresses' templates and have the current templates' histories simply be changing their redirects from 109th to 110th, etc. I'm probably overthinking things... —Wknight94 (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't particularly care for ephemeral templates. In this case, 110th=Current now that Sires has taken the seat.—GoldRingChip 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. I don't particularly care for anything with "Current" in the title - too WikiNewsish. "110th" will always be "110th" and will eventually be static. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But then the problem escalates when you put the template(s) in articles. Should Robert Byrd have several dozen of these templates because he's been in Congress for so long?—GoldRingChip
        • Yes, that's the part I haven't worked out. Byrd certainly should not have dozens of them but the many folks who were only in one Congress should have one - I suppose. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worcester/Worcester County Redundancy[edit]

Hi........Thought I would let you know that the county and city are not really redundant. I added both catagories since someone may want to view the city list, some others the county list. The county adds about 59 other towns...............I think they should be listed in both places....... Thanks for looking the articles over. I am a Worcester native so I hope to expand the article a bit more.......Let me know what you think and if I can help you with any Central Mass material...... Pmeleski 23:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • thanks for the info, I'll keep it in mind as I move forward Pmeleski 02:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Congressional District 14[edit]

I ended up redoing the representatives list from the 14th. I already started working on the table before I saw you expanded it tonight. I thought I'd replace yours since I think my version looks a bit cleaner and I finished before looking at your update. I would have left and gone elsewhere had I known you were doing the 14th tonight..... Should we share what we each are up to in MA, or should I leave the updating of the congressional districts to you???????? I'm happy to defer, since there is much to do....... pmeleski 01:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please feel free to do them yourself. You're doing a great job. I'm very busy with lots of other non-Wiki things right now. However, I reverted Massachusetts Congressional District 14 because the district was created in 1795. Also, the dates should be linked. Was that you (as anonymous) who had made the changes?—GoldRingChip 11:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for checking the 14th MA district. Must have gotten a bit tired at the end of the day. It certainly is interesting learning how to write and set up tables..........I ended up setting up all past reps of MA-11 last night. I haven't linked the dates or set up the redistricts yet.......You may want to take a peek.......Thanks for your help again............

Pmeleski 12:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Investigations[edit]

No problem. I just happened to notice the mistake and corrected it. I have worked on this set of articles for a while but have taken a break from them, and was intending to come back and do more work on them later, but I am working on some Utah Legislature related articles and wanted to get them finished before January. Edward Lalone 02:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

110th Congress[edit]

There is now a comment thread on the 110th discussion page re. the Tim Johnson situation. Lexicom 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special elections to the United States House of Representatives[edit]

Why did you remove my "Completes" from the sections in this article. I thought it would be useful to know which of the lists were complete, and which weren't. While the article on top says this is an "incomplete list", certain of the lists for the congresses are complete, and I think we should say so. I can also provide references from the US Congress to prove they are complete. Simon12 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, I didn't know what you'd meant by "complete". Perhaps there's a different way to indicate it without putting it in the heading of each section? Maybe a note merely stating which Congresses are incomplete?—GoldRingChip 05:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how best to show it. I'll think about it. Simon12 06:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put the Complete notices back, in a different way. To me, saying something is complete is more important than saying a section is incomplete, since the article at top says the whole article is incomplete. I tried adding footnotes, but didn't like the formating. Simon12 04:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts-gov-stub[edit]

Hi - this new stub type of your creationhas been listed at WP:WSS/D as a newly discovered and unproposed stub type. Please make any comments there as to the reasons for its creation. Please also note that stub types should be debated for a week prior to creation at WP:WSS/P, to confirm that they follow the standard stub hierarchy and will have a viable number of stubs (usually taken as meaninsg 60 stubs). Currently this stub type does not have that number, and is unique in being a stub type for government of a specific US state - state government stubs are usually simply double-stubbed with US-gov-stub and the specific state template. Grutness...wha? 05:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vermont politician stubs[edit]

I'm not sure that this is common, but the bot (or whatever) has alphabetized Vermont politicians by their first names. While there are fortunately (!) not a lot of them, it is still a bit awkward working with them. Is there a change in the mill that might alphabetize these by their last names? Thanks.Student7 19:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2006&oldid=1143027474"