Talk:Political party strength in the District of Columbia

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Names and Not Dots[edit]

I am not very sure how to structure this as I have not contributed to a talk page before, but this page should be changed back to the previous version with names and not dots for parties. Every other state and territory's page is structured to include the names of officeholders and I believe that to be more helpful as it allows one to see who was elected when and I personally have used it to fall down several rabbit holes. I would go ahead and revert the change but since it occurred earlier this year the reversion did not look simple enough for my inexperience editing Wikipedia. PresidentClio (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The change was made by another editor in January. You're the only person to express dislike for it, now seven months later. Perhaps we can get some more discussion before taking any action. —ADavidB 18:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it should be a pretty simple revert back to the old style. Consistency with all the other articles in this series is important and the removal of names is a big loss on the amount of useful information. On top of that, I find this dot format to be a much more confusing (and frankly uglier) way to represent the data. Yeoutie (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]