User talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2007

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      

United States attorneys, past[edit]

I've for a while admired your list/table efforts on congressional members.
In the Department of Justice, there are presently 94 United States Attorney districts (same as number of federal district courts), and 93 US attorneys (one Pacific islands office covers two districts). Editors involved in Dismissal of United States attorneys controversy have been learning how useful it is to know who was in what office when, and we don't know how or where to get comprehensive information, either recent or historical. Any suggestions on where to go for sources...and any idea who in wikipedia might be interested in getting this collection of people organized into tables or lists? -- Yellowdesk 12:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not too sure where you might get more information. The attorneys' districts are the same as the judicial districts served by United States District Courts. So you might go to the U.S. Courts website for more information (http://www.uscourts.gov/districtcourts.html). As applied in Wikipedia, legislative and judicial districts have little in common. Legislative districts are political creations with historic significance. Judicial districts, however, are administrative conveniences. Many states are single districts and other states are divided not for constitutional reasons but for the convenience of breaking up excessive workloads.
OK, thanks. The larger appeals court / circuit court districts are not insignificant historically. Note that the West coast and Pacific Islands 9th circuit is gigantic and suffering from a two decade impass on rational geography/population and work-load reduction, and the split of the southern states' 5th Circuit into the 5th and 11th was a very big and historic deal when it happened (when Georgia, Alabama and Florida were permitted to have their own circuit). (see United_States_district_court)-- Yellowdesk 02:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salem witch Trials[edit]

I have been talking to a couple other wikipedians and we would like to create a Salem witch Trials task force, if that is okay with you and the other members of the Massachusetts Wikiproject. Psdubow 20:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure. Good idea! 21:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK! Great! Another user and I created the page around a week or two ago, we still need to expand it some more though. If possible, can you join our task force and help us, and encourage other members of your Project to join as well? Check it out: Wikipedia:WikiProject Massachusetts/Salem Witch Trials Task Force

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Psdubow 23:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The race for the 5th[edit]

I was just wondering if I could get your opinion on something on the Talk:Massachusetts's 5th congressional district special election, 2007 page it seems the new independents father is editing the page in favor of his son or atleast trying. Gang14 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More presidential vetoes - S. 214 (2007)[edit]

I don't think this was your change, but I've removed the veto listing for S. 214 (2007). I agree with your comment-question about whether a recess is equivalent to an adjournment for a pocket veto (in fact, Congress gets pissed off enough when President's try to pocket veto between sessions of Congress, which it claims the President can't do). But more to the point, in THOMAS, just because it says "Cleared for White House" doesn't mean that the President has seen it yet; that doesn't happen until the status says "Presented to President" (see H.R. 1591, G.W. Bush's last veto). So until we know that Bush has seen the bill and it has been ten days without the bill signed and with Congress recessed, then we can try to figure out what happens next. In the meantime, I'd suggest that S. 214 be held out of the list. –Pakman044 03:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See alsos[edit]

It doesn't matter at all to me which way the seealsos are handled, but there are a whole lot of ordinal congresses that have them like this::See also: U.S. Senators. Free free to change them all if you want to.--Appraiser 23:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I would like some consistency among the ordinal congresses. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that {[tl|main}} and {[tl|see also}} ought direct the user to the exact page they're looking at, and therefore no pipes. I'm too lazy, however, to change them all now. So when I see them, I'll change them. —GoldRingChip 00:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coming in late on this...the problem with using the above approach is that it leaves programming code "#" marks which is in violation of every guideline, or leaves the reader at the beginning of a long and complicated article, such as the federal legislation one. I agree the reader should know exactly where they are going, but let's get them all the way there, and tell them in English please. I do not understand the objection to piped links. We have discussed this before, and I had thought the matter was resolved. stilltim 03:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Colorado Territory[edit]

Greetings. I saw you added Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Colorado to the Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Colorado Territory description page. I'm not sure that's a good idea. After all, although the territory of Colorado had the same boundaries as the state, that isn't true for many other territories. (And we can't really do that for Dakota, since it was split.) It seems to me that State Reps should be separate from pre-state delegates -- but you seem to know more about the political history of the U.S. House than I do. What do you think? – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon representatives tables[edit]

Hey there, you had a comment about the columns in your revision note. I believe you originally copied the format here from the Massachusetts page, but once all the data was in, I found the varied column width to be very distracting and hard to read as you move down the page, especially since there are far fewer Oregon reps than Massachusetts (see here). I think the fixed column widths look neater. I don't think many states have pages like this yet, so perhaps we should keep the two styles until a consensus style can be agreed to. --Sprkee 22:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, you can use fixed widths. That's fine! Let's hope we can get the other states' pages like this too!—GoldRingChip 22:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hope so too. --Sprkee 23:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Former Reps List Size[edit]

I'm going to de-wikilink a few more parties. I'm developing a template for historical political parties of the United States (I think the Political Parties of the United States template just looks horrendous, and ill-suited to the article) with my goal being to de-wikilink nearly all of the parties when the template is ready. — Valadius 01:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, but it's going to take more than that, I believe.—GoldRingChip 02:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title 6[edit]

Hey GoldRingChip, I understand what the asterisk does, but why do you feel Title 6 should go first in sort order? Groupthink 04:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Join WikiProject NIH[edit]

I noticed you've contributed to the National Institutes of Health pages; I've started WikiProject NIH, and thought you might be interested. Check it out if you are! Cmw4117 22:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taskforce[edit]

You are being recruited by the Salem Witch Trials Task Force, a collaborative project committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Salem Witch Trials. Join us! 
Psdubow 15:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:GoldRingChip/Archive 2[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I was updating a double redirect CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NH Rep Districts[edit]

GoldRingChip: I'm in the process of tabling each of the NH US Rep Disticts. I Noticed that NH had an at-large district in the early years (similar to RI). The current congressional table could use some updating. I'll try to get to it when I get a chance, but I thought you may want to know. Also, NH rep districts only go up to 4,including the obsolete ones. The redlinked 5 and 6th district should be removed. I'd do it but I'm not sure how. Eventually, both CT and VT also need updating with their at-large districts added(CT only has 4 districts as well)Pmeleski 23:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does that mean that there were two or more reps per district? And that's why there were no 5th and 6th districts? Because the 5th and 6th Rep were sharing a district on a general ticket? Were there one or two districts until 1847? I'm guessing by your edits to other articles that the reps were elected statewide (1 district) At-large on a general ticket. Some states had multiple districts with multiple reps. Do you know which it was in NH? And do you have a source? I just want to know if that's what you're saying. I can make corrections if I have all the data. —GoldRingChip 01:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm basing my judgements on the individual Congresses (i.e. 1st, 2nd,etc.) Each of those mention At Large representatives up to 1847 with no district representation for NH. Any idea where I can verify????????Pmeleski 15:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007[edit]

Which part isn't current? Best, MoodyGroove 03:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

  • Whoops! My mistake. I've corrected it. —GoldRingChip 15:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was just making sure! Thanks, GoldRingChip. MoodyGroove 00:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

List of United States Government apologies[edit]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article List of United States Government apologies, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Editmaniac 08:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US election templates[edit]

WikiProject Congress subcategories[edit]

Hey, I just noticed the new subcategories you created for WikiProject Congress articles. They look great. I was kicking around your suggestion to do so, and your way is cleaner. My original thought was to have a subcategory for districts, one for senators, one for representatives, one for committees, one for ordinal congresses and so on. Take a look at my user page for a test I was working on. Do you think more detail like that would be appropriate, or would that get too complex and general subcategories is the way to go. If anything, we might want to have a senators and representatives subcategory, and leave persons for congressional officers and other non-elected employees. If you have no objections, I may create those two additional subcategories.

Also, I'm thinking some items could be categories more than one way with such a system. For example, I would consider the United States Botanic Garden both a place and a thing. Do we want a buildings category to differentiate between a thing like the House of Representatives and a place like the Hart Senate Office Building? Or is that still too much detail?Dcmacnut 03:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting duplicate reps[edit]

I'm not sure if you are an admin, but I've duplicated a couple of reps, sorry. Can either you delete or recommend someone to delete the following: John Parrott (New Hampshire), George Sullivan (New Hampshire) and Jonathan Freeman (New Hampshire). I've removed the links I placed. Pmeleski 17:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amendments and legislation[edit]

Securities Legislation a subset of Financial Legislation?[edit]

Hi GoldRingChip- If I understand correctly, you think that all federal financial legislation is also securities legislation? Am I missing something? --Conant Webb 01:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No wait… I had it backwards. My mistake!—GoldRingChip 02:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct Committees[edit]

Template:Project Congress[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. I'm trying to make assessment work ... -- Prove It (talk)

US Senate Party affiliations from State Congressional Delegations[edit]

GoldRingChip: Here is one for you. I was looking at the Senatorial Rosters from most of the state US senate delegations,and it seems only the first party a particular senator was elected to is indicated. (i.e, X Senator was colored and sent to Federalist designation,even if the sen changed to anther party later(ie Democrat-Republican. It seems to ccur only in the early parties. I'm not sure how big a deal it is for now, but I thought I'd share the info. I tried fixing but I can't get the columns to line up right,particularly if a Senator was replaced mid term. Pmeleski 23:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template to generate Congressional Committee Wikilinks[edit]

I've been working on a new template to simplify generation of Wikilinks for congressional committees. Typing exceptionally long committee names out long-hand can be tiring, something I've noticed working on the Senate defunct committee list. A shortened template could also help reduce file size of the longer committee list articles (I think). Check out my first attempt at User:Dcmacnut/DCTemplates with examples of how I envision it to work. It's only a rough attempt, and I'm running into a roadblock trying to figure out how to add conditional code to make it simpler (my earlier attempts, as you can see from the history, didn't work out so well). Right now it only outputs the text to the right of the "|", and only applies to full committees. Ultimately, I'd like to have it work for subcommittees as well, and also vary the output depending on the users needs. Any help to push me in the right direction or example of code that might due this from an existing template would be helpful.Dcmacnut 04:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've given it a quick look-over. While it's a good idea to standardize committee names, it seems you haven't saved yourself any keystroking effort. Some of those templates take as much keystrokes as the link they generate.
  • Compare:
  • You're only eliminating the words "United States" and "Committee". Maybe you could reduce the houses to abbreviations and code a switch" field: H: House; S:Senate; C:Congress. Ditto for "on"/"on the" and type="Select", "Special", "Joint", or "".
  • And then the editor would still have to memorize the standard template format. Thus, they're still typing in a standardized format.
  • Keep trying, though. I think you're on to something, but I don't know how to execute it.
  • —GoldRingChip 10:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I did play around with a switch function, and came up with two solutions. The first is at User:Dcmacnut/DCTemplates and is what I'm calling the "list" option. It generates a piped wikilink with just the committee's short name for use in lists like List of defunct United States Congressional committees or List of United States Senate committees

  • {{USCongCom|S|ST|ot|Judiciary}}

The second option is at User:Dcmacnut/DCTemplates3, and I'm calling it the "article" option. It generates the full official name of the committee, abreviated U.S. for United States, for use in the main body of an article.

  • {{USCongCom|S|ST|ot|Judiciary}}

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000. "Census Demographic Profiles, Judiciary" (PDF). CenStats Databases. <http://censtats.census.gov/data/>. Retrieved 2009-01-31. {{cite web}}: External link in |work= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) Both versions have a 5th optional field where an editor can override the default by entering in their own piped text. This is helpful for committees with really long names where you may want to use a nickname, or if the short name just isn't short "enough." An example would be the House Katrina Committee. U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000. Bipartisanto.pdf "Census Demographic Profiles, Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina" (PDF). CenStats Databases. <http://censtats.census.gov/data/>. Retrieved 2009-01-31. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); External link in |work= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) Instead of U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000. Bipartisanto.pdf "Census Demographic Profiles, Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina" (PDF). CenStats Databases. <http://censtats.census.gov/data/>. Retrieved 2009-01-31. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); External link in |work= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link).

I am thinking that both display options have merit, and rather than making it more complex by combining both into a single template, we'd create two templates {{USCongCom-s}} for shorthand and {{USCongCom-l}} for long names. People could still type out links long-hand, but who'd want to. I admit this is mainly for my own sanity (and ergonomics) in updating the defunct list. Thoughts?Dcmacnut 19:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK. If it's for your benefit, then go right ahead. —GoldRingChip 21:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant that last part as a sort of joke. What I meant was that my repeated typing made me think this would be a useful template for other editors. I didn't mean to imply that I'm only doing it for my own benefit.Dcmacnut 23:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created a template called {{GOP}}. I use it strictly for subst:'ing. Maybe that's what would work best for you here.—GoldRingChip 12:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Mikulski edits[edit]

I noticed with this edit you made, that it seems as if you were editing an older version of the page, since you reverted a lot of recent changes. I reverted your edits, since I wasn't sure what was intentional or not. --Tom (talk - email) 20:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was intentional. I'm following Wikipedia formats and standards. For example, don't link solitary years (WP:MOS); I linked to the elections; I used templates for color shading; I used {{CongBio2}} and {{VoteSmart}} which are best for recent/current members of Congress. PLEASE revert your edits. —GoldRingChip 21:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please look closer. I see a lot of good changes, but notice that you readded the "Babbs" nickname to her infobox, reverted to an archaic categorization scheme (removing "defaultsort"), and removed the link to her Finnish Wikipedia article. That's what I noticed off the bat. Are you sure? Tom (talk - email) 22:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, you're right. I really must have grabbed an out-of-date version.—GoldRingChip 01:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing it up. Tom (talk - email) 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At-large designation[edit]

Template:Cat class[edit]

I saw on that template that you did the last edit, that is why I am contacting you. I am curious as to why some of the other "classes" such as Category or even List is not on that bar? I know it wouldn't be prudent to include ALL of the classes, but those two and maybe Image would be good classes to include. Is that something that could be added? Thanks for any insight you have on this.--Kranar drogin 05:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you be more specific? On what article/template/category do you mean?—GoldRingChip 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought I had linked it. Template:Cat class is the template I am talking about. Sorry for the confusion, but sometimes I get ahead of myself.--Kranar drogin 14:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. The only work I've done on that template, however, is to remove the superfluous vertical space. I'm not that confident in the overall scheme of these classes, so I can't help here. Sorry.—GoldRingChip 16:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, see what I can find. Thanks for your time!--Kranar drogin 16:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:CongBio[edit]

This template is transcluded over 9,000 times on some very high-profile pages. It's also one of the most linked-to templates. Vandalism on this template would be very widespread and would cause the re-caching of 9,000 pages, twice. The relevant guideline is available here. While I know that protection is annoying, other high-use templates are treated the same way, e.g., Template:Infobox Officeholder. If this template were for talk pages and not for actual articles, I'd be more inclined to leave it unprotected, but with the possibility of articles like Abraham Lincoln being vandalized, I think it should be under full protection. You're more than welcome to list it on WP:RFPP, I won't take offense, but I would disagree with it being unprotected. {{editprotected}} was designed for this very purpose and I spend a good deal of time ensuring that editprotected requests are handled in a timely manner. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the one hand, you're absolutely right. On every point. On the other hand, I created the template and its progeny, {{CongBio2}}. I will pursue WP:RFPP and let the chips fall where they may.—GoldRingChip 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoldRingChip' RfA[edit]

Are you planning on adding your RfA to the main RfA page? Just thought I'd ask. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

succession boxes[edit]

Hi, I stumbled into some Members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_from_West_Virginia articles and was working on them. I was just wondering how to add the succession boxes. Then I stumbled into your rfa and the link to applying the succession boxes. SO

Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
  • Thanks. That's sweet.

    Or creepy— I'm not sure.—GoldRingChip 02:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CT At-Large District[edit]

Good luck with your admin application! I supported your nom (for what it's worth-my nom,not your adminship) I think you'll do fine if you are successful........Got another issue. This time it's CT At-Large. If all the reps are elected at large (the early ones anyway), why is it that Benjamin Tallmadge goes from seat 1 to seat 5 if he's serving consecutive terms on the United States Congressional Delegations from Connecticut Delegation roster? I was going to transfer the info to the At-Large article but I thought I'd get clarification firstPmeleski 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no idea why it's like that. I presume that the original editor made a mistake or was unable to code it properly.
    I suggest:
    A) swapping in the 9th-14th Congresses: Samuel W. Dana + Epaphroditus Champion with Benjamin Tallmadge; then
    B) extending Tallmadge from the 7th straight though to the 14th; and
    C) extending Dana from the 4th straight through to the 9th.
    Can you do this or would you like me to?—GoldRingChip 22:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw your reply...........I ended up redoing the 1st seat of the CT At-Large and was going to ask you your opinion about how it looked before I went forward. The biggest question is if I continue with the other 6 seats, I think the article will look at bit too long. Maybe I should just import the CT Congressional Delegations table for the at-large reps to make it more readable............What do you think????? Regarding the Delegations table itself, it is going to need a bit of realignment work. There are more reps that are not lined up correctly.............Pmeleski 02:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • They should all be done together in the Delegations article. They all need to be lined up. THEN I think they should be moved as a table to the at-large article. Can you do it? I can, but not for a day or two.—GoldRingChip 02:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I rearranged the at-large seats on the Delegations article. The at-large article is now ready for you to do with as you will. Cheers! —GoldRingChip 13:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for rearranging the CT at-large seats. I tried playing around with them also, but you can't line them up cleanly. I think leaving them as is works for now. I've also added a couple comments on the Democratic-Republican and National Republican Party discussion pages. I figurerd I'd try for clarfication before I moved forward...........Congratulations on your adminship!Pmeleski 22:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator[edit]

Congratulations, you are now an administrator! If you haven't already, now is the time to visit the Wikipedia:New admin school and look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 02:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Pedro |  Chat  07:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations GoldRingChip, and keep up the good work. --CapitalR 17:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. I expect we'll be working together a lot.--Appraiser 17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adams-Clay Republicans[edit]

As I go though this effort to add historical US rep rosters to various Rep districts, one thing I haven't worked out in my mind (and in the spirit of trying to be accurate) is if Adams-Clay Republicans should be grouped with Democratic-Republicans or National Republicans........Most of the rosters here show Adams-Clay as National Republicans, but outside sources show the election of 1824 shows the Democratic-Republican group (of which Adams-Clay was around then)as the only viable party at this time. I was reading the threads on Democratic/Republican vs. Republican vs. Jeffersonian Republican and certainly don't want to start an edit war. But if I go forward with creating the rosters, I don't want to create additional work by grouping this in the wrong body and having myself or someone else change them later. I suppose I could leave it alone for now, but someone else may come along and do it anyway without concensus. Any thoughts?........

And do you know who has access to the political party key?????? I wanted to discuss some stuff there too......Pmeleski 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid I can't be much help on the National Republican issue. Perhaps contact User:Rjensen (cite back to me). He/she is very knowledgeable about 19th Century politics & government. He/she isn't interested much in the U.S. Congress, but has written a lot about political parties. Is this the key you're looking for: {{United States political party shading key}}?—GoldRingChip 02:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the tip. I'll try to contact Rjensen. I saw you reverted the changes to the National Republican Party shading template. There is some ambiguity with National Republicans. The key shows both Anti-Jacksonians and National Republicans listed in the key. Adams representatives also fall under this party listing. I've followed the arguments of leaving sub-groups out (ie Democratic-Republicans as the sole heading for Jeffersonian, Adams-Clay and Crawford Republicans), so we should probably remove Anti-Jacksonians as well, leaving National Republicans the sole list header for Adams and Anti-Jacksonians. We could also list all the sub groups..........Either way, we should be consistent. I prefer leaving them all out. I'll take the Anti-Jacksonians out of the National Repub color shade. Let me know what you thinkPmeleski 22:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's leave Anti-J's in. From what little I know, the Anti-J's were a real group. The reason I said no to subgroups is that it seems silly to list on the key "Adams DR", "Clay DR", "DR", "Fred's DR" blah blah blah. "DR" should be sufficient - that's all I meant.—GoldRingChip 01:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem, for what it's worth, though, the Adams's seemed like a legit group as when you look at the Cong Bios and the historical record from the clerk of the house. They were pretty prominent in the Northeast (to NJ). All the info I've read so far identifies them in the National Republican grouping after the breakdown of the D-R's after the Election of 1824. I'll identify the sub goups in the individual congresspersons roster block. Hope that all works.....Pmeleski 11:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I've meant to do is just to take all the similarly named permutations out of the KEY. So, for example, we don't need to name "Silver Republicans" on the KEY. They should still be listed in various articles & lists as "Silver Republicans" but the Key doesn't need to say EXPLICITLY that Silver Republicans are also color #FFD1DC. Silver Republicans should be colored FFD1DC, but we don't need to reproduce their full name in the key. Ditto for Adams DR, etc. Anti-Jacksonians and National Republicans DO both need to be listed because it's not obvious to the reader of the key that they are basically the same party. —GoldRingChip 13:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've read some more about the era around 1824 and have finally figured things out, I think. Adams-Clay Repubs should be identified with the D-R's since the party hadn't fell apart yet. After 1824, the D-R's fell apart and were distinguished by factions (instead of parties) of which Adams was one. I apologize and shouldn't have called Adams as an Adams Republican. I should have simply ID'ed it as Adams. Since the National Republicans haven't been formed yet, I think the Adamses should stand alone as a seperate group (similar to the Pro and Anti-Admin Parties which also weren't official political parties). The Adams faction was pretty large with a base in the Northeast, but with allied members in every state at that time. Does that work? And what about a seperate party shade?????? Thanks for any commentsPmeleski 22:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Pmeleski's comments on my talk page. My thoughts on the whole Adams/Jackson conundrum is generally based on two things -- how the parties were listed by the House of Representatives and party philosophy. Adams, National Republicans, and Anti-Jacksonians are all basically the same party. Adams split off from Democratic-Republican the same time as the Jacksonians did, effective with the 19th Congress (1825-1827). This marks the dissolution of the old D-Rs. the 18th Congress is the only Congress where the pro-Adams and pro-Jackson factions are still listed as part of the official D-R umbrella. All sub-factions (Adams, Jackson, Crawford, Clay, etc.) should be colored as D-R for that congress, but labele with their appropriate title.

I guess I would have no problem with Adams having their own party color, since the Jacksonians have their own, but I think it's better to assign all three the same color, and just make the appropriate notation in the text. All three (Adams, National Republicans, and Anti-Jacksonians) had one common purpose: opposition to Andrew Jackson. Party organization changed, but not the underlying political beliefs. Another point I've made is that National Republicans technically never elected a member to the House, according to the party statistics for the time period. They may have ran as National Republicans in their respective states, but according to the House historical record, they are Adams or Anti-Jacksonian. In this regard, the Wikipedia articles for the 19th through 24th Congresses that list Democrats and NRs are wrong, and I'm working on fixing them. Anti-Jacksonians first appeared in 1829 with the 21st Congress, and ultimately became the Whigs starting in 1837 (25th Congress), which is when the Democrats also first appeared.Dcmacnut 03:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Republican color[edit]

GoldRingChip, I'm interested in your last comment on Silver Republicans. You indicate they should be colored with the general Republican color, but identified as "Silver Republicans." I always thought SRs should be colored using Free Silver. They were more than just a faction within the Republican Party, and actually split off and rand their own candidates and were aligned with Populists and independent Democrats. Using a different color would highlight the split in philospy. Several articles, particularly United States Congressional Delegations from Colorado use this method. There is a separate shading key for Silver Republican that is a shade of brown. I'm thinking that template should be redirected to Free Silver. Otherwise, the color would only be used for those Silvers elected from Nevada.Dcmacnut 14:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My mistake. I was being sloppy. My point is (and was) that sometimes there are subtle grades of philosophy inside the same party. If and when that Rep calls him/herself a "Georgian Unionist" for example (something I made up), then they should be labelled a "Georgian Unionist" and in the party shading key there needs not be a separate line for "Georgian Unionist" under "Unionist." As always, I'm sorry for being confusing.—GoldRingChip 14:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries. I understood your point and figured you mentioned it as just a "for instance," but with the varied editing philosphies around here, one can't be too careful around here about misintrepreted intents. Congrats, BTW, on being and Administrator. You've been a great help to me.Dcmacnut 14:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Tips[edit]

Thanks for the info on linking dates, I'll keep an eye on doing it the right way. Regarding color shading, it appears each state does it differently, and there is no standard. Colorado is one example, Pennsylvania another. I like shading the entire row because it highlights the party better, but I could be convinced to do something else.......Another question I had was regarding the Vermont At-Large/1st Cong district seat. Should the Vermont 1st and At-Large districts be seperated rather than having the 1st redirect to the At-Large??????? They would be technically different.....If you look at MA, there is an At-Large district and a 1st distict. Thought about that after I created the article. What do you think????......Pmeleski 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shading- True there isn't a standard. There should be, however. Some reps changed parties, after all.
  • Vermont- 1st should redirect to At-large (by the way, spell it, "At-large"). Vermont has been 1 seat only (ergo, at large) for the last 80 years. Massachusetts's At-large seat was around for only one term in 1793-95.—GoldRingChip 20:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted my map...[edit]

I noticed that you deleted the map Image:2004CampaignAttention.png I added to the United States presidential election, 2004 article. I don't know, but I thought it was pretty informative and relevant to the topic... Szu 07:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is pretty informative and relevant. I deleted it by accident. I have now restored it.—GoldRingChip 20:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Szu 09:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates reminder[edit]

This is just a note to inform you that when you move an article, as you've been doing en masse of late, you should modify the corresponding template as well by linking to the new title, else the template won't work properly (ie, it won't turn black when viewing that page). Biruitorul 01:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point. To which template do you refer?—GoldRingChip 01:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, any, but this one in particular - and I see you've corrected the problem. Thank you. Biruitorul 22:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it took me some time and it hadn't occured to me at first. I was doing so many articles and I couldn't change the template until I was done with all the articles. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.—GoldRingChip 22:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need 3rd party opinion on {{Infobox Government agency}}[edit]

Hi GoldRingChip. Seeing that you do lots of work on government articles, and that you're an admin, I was hoping you could look at my talk page at a problem someone has had with my edits to {{Infobox Government agency}}. I'm being accused of "polluting" and vandalizing the template by adding additional features that in no way hurt existing instances of the template. It looks to me like a clear case of WP:OWN, as the guy who created it is blocking my good faith edits. By reverting my edits, he actually has broken lots of pages that use the new features. Anyways, I'd just appreciate it if you could look into it for me as a 3rd party. You should also read the talk page Template_talk:Infobox Government agency#Recent_changes, as it's quite interesting. Thanks, --CapitalR 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have reviewed the template and posted my opinion there.—GoldRingChip 22:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tabs[edit]

Hey don't mention it :) I think I copied the idea off somewhere else back in the day, although I made a few modifications for size and colour. Orderinchaos 15:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, found it - User:Lar. Orderinchaos 06:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winthrop, Massachusetts[edit]

Winthrop operates under a city form of government but calls itself a town.

Massachusetts town government has a town meeting and Board of Selectman. Town elections are in the spring, and are held annually.

"Towns" that operate under a "town council," without selectmen and town meeting, are operating under a city plan of government. Cities also hold elections on the traditional election day in odd numbered years. This describes the government in Winthrop.

The 2005 vote to restructure the government in Winthrop abolished Town Meeting, the Board of Selectmen, and the annual spring election.

See http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-39-toc.htm for the legal rules for towns and cities.

See http://www.town.winthrop.ma.us/Pages/WinthropMA_Bcomm/councilors for the councilors in Winthrop, and http://www.town.winthrop.ma.us/Pages/WinthropMA_BBoard/010FD0E9-000F8513 for the election cycle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlichtman (talk • contribs) 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion[edit]

Hi GoldRingChip, I have speedy deleted Category:United States presidential election templates, 2008, which you had nominated at CfD.

I just thought that it might help to point you towards Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. As the creator of a now-empty category, you could have asked for a speedy deletion by using {{db-author}}. Less work for you than a CfD nomination, and less work for admins.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Frank[edit]

I was wondering if I could get you to look into this page because one user keeps trying to change the page to what he thinks is right and the rest of us feel the original version is the best Gang14 05:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Semi-protection should not be used:
. . .
* In a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users.

However, if more action is necessary, please let me know. —GoldRingChip 10:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FL Main page proposal[edit]

You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination recently. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congresses[edit]

Hi, GoldRingChip -- I had tried to bring 10th Congress in line with (at least some of) the other Congress pages. I don't have any strong preference, but it seems odd to have 9th Congress one way and 10th Congress another. But the dab page is cleaned up, which was my primary goal. -- JHunterJ 23:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's best to have it the way I did it this time with the 10th Congress. I suppose the others should be done similarly, too; I just didn't think to look at them.—GoldRingChip 01:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a helpful hint on talk page moves[edit]

On October 9th, you moved the template and talk page for

I think it's a fine move. I just now picked up the talk archive page and moved it. If I had done the original move, I probably would have missed the archive too. The special page, "articles with prefix" was my own check for any other pages left behind. A dandy tool Special:Prefixindex.
No reply needed. -- Yellowdesk 00:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of 19th Century congressional redistricting in Ohio[edit]

I left questions at Talk:History of 19th Century congressional redistricting in Ohio. Can you address these? Bearian'sBooties 02:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Politicians[edit]

Thanks for the clarification.......Ithought it a bit duplicitous also, but I when I began adding the additional NY reps, I noticed (the ones I looked at anyway) had both, so I copied both. I'll leave Politicians off and remove any I see that I edit...........Pmeleski 11:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Agriculture legislation" category on proposed legislation[edit]

Why don't you think that Category:United States federal agriculture legislation belongs on proposed legislation? The 2007 Farm Bill certainly is agriculture legislation, whether or not it is enacted yet. It wouldn't belong in a "federal agricultural law" section, because it hasn't passed from legislation into law, but it is still "legislation". johnpseudo 18:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because that category only contains enacted legislation. As of today, the Farm Bill is merely proposed. Once enacted, you can move it to the aggie law category. I've clarified that now in the aggie category.—GoldRingChip 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOTD proposal[edit]

You have nominated a recently successful WP:FL. There have been two recent proposals to begin a List of the Day feature on the main page, which have both received majorities but have not been approved as overwhelming support sufficient to change the main page. WP:LOTDP is a new proposal to try to get the ball rolling based on the original proposal. You can voice your thoughts on its talk page. Basically, what the proposal entails is attempting to run an official trial, and then vote after the trial run on whether to change the main page. Support to run a trial requires much less consensus than support to change the main page. Should we succeed at eventually getting such a feature on the main page it would tentatively look like this. Whether or not you support an experimental trial or not you should come discuss the matter at WP:LOTDP's talk page. I apologize if you have either already voiced your opinion on this matter or already tired of hearing about it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congbio[edit]

OK, I figured it out. the first PAGENAME needed braces around it. I've reverted, with braces added. Cool Hand Luke 17:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conglinks[edit]

Just a thought to help you with Conglinks.......maybe a bot can speed things up instead of doing the manual thing?????????? Pmeleski (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A bot will speed them up. I, however, am not a bot-writer -- alas. —GoldRingChip 00:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for CongLinks. :-) I had added most of those links separately earlier, but your template should ensure all of them are always included (where possible). Since neither a bot nor a bot-writer appears to be forthcoming, i've converted the remaining current U.S. Senators manually. If I might make a suggestion...the Officeholder infobox doesn't require the deletion of 'empty' options, and it would be helpful if your template didn't either. First, it's counter-intuitive. Second (and more important), appointed officeholders generally don't have FEC and opensecrets links until the next election. Empty options serve as a reminder to add this information when available. While we're on the topic, I ran into some Senators who had additional FEC and opensecrets pages for other offices. I added these separately, but in the interests of clarity it would be helpful if your template labeled them as 'House' or 'Senate' or 'Presidential' when you format the description line. I'm thinking Wikipedians could enter 'current office' as a separate option for you to reference.Flatterworld (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States presidential candidates[edit]

I began to populate Category:United States presidential candidates, but noticed a similar category Category:United States presidential election, 2008.....Worthwhile keeping both?????? Pmeleski (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One pretty good reason for

is the difference between a biographical article, and an article about an event having a relation to the process, like a primary, convention, debate, and so on.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "…Candidates" would just be a subcategory of "…election…", right? If it is sufficiently important and sufficiently large, then sure, make the subcat. —GoldRingChip 14:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. Further details on Category:United States presidential candidates, 2008 -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain[edit]

Who says that McCain's fundraising totals are 'poor'. I don't know why you keep changing that back. It's just an opinion and I'm trying to make it more factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlma ad (talk • contribs) 01:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of proposing deletion of navigational templates[edit]

Why not instead propose rules for their use? Wouldn't that be more cnstructive?--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it would have been more constructive. Feel free to oppose my TFD. I just can't imagine looking at an article about, for example, Orrin Hatch, and seeing 20 of these templates at the bottom.—GoldRingChip 16:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of current United States Representatives by seniority[edit]

I think the order is incorrect[edit]

Can you provide any insight into the discussion I started?--Dr who1975 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing? I figured you might know about this stuff... or at least be able to tell me where I canlook or who I can ask.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've answered it now. Sorry I couldn't do more.—GoldRingChip 20:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leading Zeros[edit]

good idea... I was considering doing it too. I'll see if I can finish it off.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio's 5th congressional district[edit]

Thanks for your note. Party spending has continued to escalate, so I edited the sentence again to reflect the close nature of the race, and included a cite for one of the major media buys made by the NRCC as reported to the FEC. It was the best I could find, but then again, it'll only be up there for a few more days - Tuesday is election day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politics608 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the sake of the historical record, those notes should not be removed just because the election is over.—GoldRingChip 22:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sections[edit]

Hey, not being real familiar with statutes, and how the go in Wikipedia, I'm curious why it is that the pertinent section numbers of the Anarchist Exclusion Acts was too much info. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe the Act would have had many sections. I was as if you wrote, "Herman Melville wrote a book. It was called, 'Moby Dick.' chapter 1." Why mention the section of the Act; like why mention chapter 1 of Moby Dick? On the other hand, if you wanted to say "Herman Melville introduced his story-teller at the beginning of his book, 'Moby Dick,' chapter 1." THEN, the section would be appropriate: "An anarchist is defined in the 'Anarchist Exclusion Act', § 32." That's when you'd cite the specific section of the Act. I don't know if that's what you're doing, but that's why I removed the section citation. Was that clear?—GoldRingChip 02:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 11 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anarchist Exclusion Act, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Congressional Delegations from Ohio[edit]

Hello, I saw that you were working on United States Congressional Delegations from Ohio at the same time that I was. I went ahead and split off two more sections in the table (some detail of what I did can be seen in the history of User:Ardric47/T1), but we can change it back if that's not what you had in mind. Ardric47 (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Gubernatorial?[edit]

I know what "gubernatorial" means, but I've never heard the term "lieutenant gubernatorial election." It's always "election for lieutenant governor." Acsenray 19:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Import Wikitable from US House Current Members[edit]

I'd like to import the wikitable someone created for the List of current members of the United States House of Representatives and import it to the Congressional roster of the 110th Congress. The graphics I think make for a better read, although it does extend out the article a bit more. The other option is to link the table from a seperate article to the 110th. I'd also like to create the same wikitable for the U.S. Senators over the next few weeks. It does address the comment above about years in office, as well as adding a bit more info. Any strong thoughts either way. No comments I'd interpret as to go forward............ Pmeleski 12:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree. "Current" will not be the same as the 110th because once someone retires, dies or resigns, then the person is no longer current. Furthermore, I think all the extraneous personal background info (such as Hometown, First took office, Prior background, and Education) is unnecessary in the article about the 110th Congress. —GoldRingChip 15:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more double redirects[edit]

At 12:07, 4 January 2007 you moved United States House Committee on Education and the Workforce to its new name United States House Committee on Education and Labor, as well as moved several other House committees to their new names. You have not, however, followed through with cleaning up the double redirects (see, for example, the 'What links here' for United States House Committee on Education and Labor, where there are three dozen double redirects that need to be fixed). As the move page says: "You are responsible for making sure that links continue to point where they are supposed to go." Happy editing. BlankVerse 01:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right. I've now corrected them, where I could.—GoldRingChip 19:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Gibson (police officer) nominated AFD[edit]

GoldRingChip, the article for USCP Officer John Gibson (police officer) has been nominated for deletion; you may want to comment on this here. --Daysleeper47 13:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoldRingChip, check out the new article here: U.S. Capitol shooting incident (1998) --Daysleeper47 15:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a good resolution to the AFD.—GoldRingChip 16:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to "List" vs. "Delegations" article (Minnesota)[edit]

Many articles link to List of United States Representatives from Minnesota because of the templates that are used across all 50 states. There's no practical way to change which article they link to as long as there is no consensus to merge, rename, or delete the article (as it now seems is the case). However, a few articles explicitly linked there, which I was able to change to link to United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota. Whenever the "List" article is completed, I wouldn't mind linking the articles there again, but right now only 24 of the ~140 representatives are on the List and the "Delegations" article has all ~140 representatives with links to each of their own articles (which several of us worked on completing). I see no reason to deny the reader the link to the much more complete article, when we have the option. Can you think of any reason to link to the incomplete one at this point, in those few articles that we have a choice about?--Appraiser 01:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current US Representative List Merge[edit]

The List of current members of the United States House of Representatives is currently being discussed as a list merge with the Current List of US Representatives from the 110th Congress. Thought you might like to add to the discussion. Pmeleski 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lt.GovSuccessionBox[edit]

I tried to model this template after Template:U.S. Senator box, however, I cannot get the "Served alongside" to say "Governor." Would you know how this is done, and if so, would you be so kind as to fix it? Thank you kindly. American Patriot 1776 22:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Code[edit]

Yeah, I was kind of slopping them in for now (I was going to revise the all caps and wikilink key terms as I did on Title 1). In time, I hoped to add a little analysis/history for each Title. One question-- I was linking to the gpo.gov version and you have used the cornell.edu version. Should we do one throughout for consistency? I don't know which one is better. Jokestress 23:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I greatly prefer the Cornell version. And that's the one which the templates {{usc}}, {{usc2}}, {{usc-title-chap}}, etc. use. For consistency sake, therefore, let's stick with Cornell. If we determine that GPO is better (which is possible), then we'll change the templates.—GoldRingChip 23:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Not sure what got into User:RHaworth on my talk page, but his addition of "no shouting" to one of the articles doesn't seem very constructive. I have run into a lot of problems with people who no longer think it's OK to start a stub, which is a shame. Also, just making sure you noticed I didn't write that terse response on my talk page... Jokestress 02:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making your suggested fixes... I don't know much about this stuff, so is there a difference between a Part and a Chapter and a Subtitle? I was trying to fix Title 5 and they are listed as Parts. Title 10 has Subtitles. Don't want to link to the wrong thing. Is there a different template for each? Jokestress 03:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between subtitle, part, subpart, chapter, subchapter, etc. Some titles use parts & subtitles. All titles use chapters, but in different ways. Therefore, don't bother linking them right now unless you can get them to correspond to the templates listed here: {{UnitedStatesCode/doc}}.—GoldRingChip 11:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon statewide elections, 2006[edit]

Hi-

Just curious why you changed the name of this page. I've done most of the work there, and its name has been changed at least twice. It's a little frustrating to have to go fix double-redirects (I don't know any efficient way of finding them.) If you're working off some kind of consensus-supported concept of how such articles should be named, please let me know where it is, so I get it right from the beginning next time.

Thanks, -Pete 02:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd been trying to create a standard naming system. Sadly, I left a whole bunch of double-redirects. Sorry.—GoldRingChip 13:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay- in the future, I think it would be nice if you'd mention it in the "talk" page a few days before pulling the trigger. No harm done though - double-redirects all fixed. -Pete 18:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ndash[edit]

I noticed that you have a way to replace – with an unicode one. I don't know how to do that. (I'm using XP with Firefox.) I'd appreciate it if you could tell me how.--Appraiser 21:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Buy a Mac! It's option-dash. I don't know if it's possible with Windows. While we're on the topic, I can't use AWB with my Mac, and there's an automated task I can't do: the 150+ articles in Category:Committees of the United States Congress need to be moved into the newly created subcategories. Have a look and tell me if you know how to do that.—GoldRingChip 22:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually that committee is defunct. Thus, it would go in [[:Category:Defunct committees of the United States Senate|District of Columbia]]. Is that going to be complicated?—GoldRingChip 22:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think AWB will be very useful for this. It's good at repetitive tasks, but this task requires a judgement about which category each one goes into and I don't think AWB can sort them automatically.--Appraiser 13:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Died in office[edit]

I think ideally, "died in office" and "died" should be changed to "died on March 3, 2007". I'll plan to put that task on a to-do list of mine. Is that acceptable to you?--Appraiser 21:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about in the ordinal congresses? death dates generally aren't there.--Appraiser 22:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Committees of the United States Congress[edit]

I've finished my diffusions! What do you think? --Hemlock Martinis 06:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon congressional delegation[edit]

Okay - I like what you did to redirect the reader in the meantime. Before, it didn't seem adequately clear that there was another option. -Pete 18:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 50 states, each with Delegations, Senators, and Reps pages; also non-voting delegations pages: that's a lot of pages to coordinate, but somehow it ought to be done. But I guess that's the job of WikiProject U.S. Congress, though.—GoldRingChip 20:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congessional Project Barnstar Submission[edit]

(Discussion consolidated at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals)

Illinois' 3rd congressional district[edit]

I've been working on Illinois' 3rd congressional district, and would be interested if you'd take a look and suggest anything which you might believe helpful. In particular, I've been wondering if the opening line should be revised to say "3rd District" rather than "Third District", both to conform with the title and because I think the mentions of later districts would look better that way; but I've hesitated to make the change because it appears that all the district articles spell the number out in the opening line, and I'm not eager to either break from established practice or to go through and change all the rest (especially without asking for a second opinion). There've been a couple of discussions regarding different ideas on the article's talk page as well. MisfitToys 23:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional District Template[edit]

Where could I find info on a district's area, urban/rural population, and white collar/blue collar jobs> I'm sure the answer is fairly obvious, but I can't find it at the census page and I've been searching around the web for a while. Thanks --Oneworld25 16:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alas, I don't know either. I suggest nationalatlas.gov, but don't get your hopes up. Sorry.—GoldRingChip 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cd109th/xx (where xx is the abbreviation for the state e.g. AZ). Then in the list click on the link that is "ur c9 xx.pdf" xx seems to vary, but I have no idea what the digits represent. These sites have some of the information. --Appraiser 13:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veto list fun![edit]

I tossed back a few ideas about the page formatting on the talk page. Let me know what you think. –Pakman044 17:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar point, is there some way you could change Template:USBill so it handles THOMAS pages from older Congresses than the 101st? For example, the THOMAS pages exist for bills in the 97th, and the only difference in the URL scheme is that a "0" is inserted before the Congress number (for example for H.J. Res. 357 in the 97th Congress, the URL would be http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d097:H.J.RES.357:). I'm not familiar enough with the template syntax, and I'd rather not just change the cutoff condition, which could break the template on other pages. Thanks! –Pakman044 19:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done!
Thanks for your work; it was very helpful and appreciated! –Pakman044 23:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prop. 2.5[edit]

Nice job on Proposition 2½! -Pete 19:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou[edit]

Thank you for putting the poll in the Texas seante election 2008, in the right spot!!! Politics rule 23:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from 2006[edit]

List of former members of the United States House of Representatives[edit]

Before you swap years and state, can we discuss it first? I think it's a really bad idea. Valadius 13:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of removing the state links! Valadius 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're welcome. I would really rather have more information and more links, but the page is just too big. Do you want to do the same with the parties? In fact, we could remove the party column altogether. —GoldRingChip 22:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2007&oldid=1081184896"