User talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2018

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Senate election in New Mexico, 2012

Hi there, just wanted to give you a heads-up that your recent edit at United States Senate election in New Mexico, 2012 broke some formatting in the "Declined" section that I can't quite figure out (or I'd fix it myself). Cheers! Jessicapierce (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oh, dear. Thanks for letting me know. I'll get to it within 24 hours.—GoldRingChip 02:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Texas, 2012

Hi, I'm just informing you that you broke something on United States Senate election in Texas, 2012 in the Republican polling numbers table. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 03:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

List of United States Senators from Maine

Hey,

We have a problem with the List of United States Senators from Maine page since the list is far too big for small screens. Can you do sth about it? Thanks!

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid we have the same problem (at various degrees) on List of United States Senators from Virginia, List of United States Senators from Tennessee, List of United States Senators from Delaware and List of United States Senators from Massachusetts... WhatsUpWorld (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Not much can be done with those four. I'd removed the "nowrap" on the Senators' names from the Maine article, and that helped. But the other four articles don't have "nowrap" on the Senators' names. On those articles, the only "nowrap" is on the dates, and those really shouldn't get wrapped because: 1. Wrapped dates look awful and are harder to read in a list; 2. Wrapping doesn't help much anyway to narrow the width.—GoldRingChip 15:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Alright I'll try to reduce the images' size. Same on List of United States Senators from New Jersey. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The image sizes, at least on my screen, are not a large issue unless you (perhaps??) change it on the default of your preferences. Frankly, I know the table is somewhat wide, but there's little that can be done to trim it sufficiently to make a difference without causing problems.—GoldRingChip 01:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Your script(?) appears to be parsing exclamation points incorrectly

It looks like you are using a script that is deleting valid pipe characters when they follow an exclamation point. See this fix, for example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Whoa! Thanks for catching my mistake. It's not a script, it was sort of manual (but I used a lot of repetitions).—GoldRingChip 19:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2016

You accidentally added endorsements of some politician (I don't know which) to the list of independent candidates - could you fix that? And also, are you removing a large degree of information from the articles - because it says you removed 15,170 bytes? MB298 (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll have a look and report back here.—GoldRingChip 20:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done. Does it look OK, now? —GoldRingChip 20:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it looks good - thanks. MB298 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

PVI sorting on Senate classes page

I think your recent change broke PVI sorting on the senate classes page — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonYoung (talk • contribs) 19:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for letting me know. I'll have a look!—GoldRingChip 20:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I fixed it. But for unknown reasons, I couldn't use negatives in the sort. Furthermore, I had to use sort numbers with all the same places of digits (007, 07, 7), as if that mattered. —GoldRingChip 12:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Tks, I have never understood how the sorting works, but political junkies love this sort on this table LondonYoung (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

AIV

First time I've seen an admin reported at AIV - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism/TB2&oldid=821636765. I think the bot was fooled. Cleared as false alarm.  :-) Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Wow. Thanks for catching, correcting, and notifying. Sheesh.—GoldRingChip 19:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

1918 House elections

My dear ColdRinc,

I am updating the 1918 House elections by reference to state manuals and so on. It is a painstaking task and may never be complete as the various reference books are not online. Perhaps you might like to search out the source texts for 1916, 1914 etc, state-by-state, or do some original research, rather than adding empty boxes and dead links to Wikipedia articles on House elections in that period, in the vain hope someone might fill them for you. Marplesmustgo (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the suggestion. You're doing a fantastic job with the 1918 article. Keep up the good work! —GoldRingChip 02:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

1920 House elections

In your quest to impose uniformity to certain pages, you have made a series of alterations to the page United States House of Representatives elections, 1920. In particular, for many districts where the incumbent lost the election, and where the box previously read, e.g.

  • Lost re-election
    Republican gain

you have replaced it with:

  • Incumbent lost re-nomination.
    New member elected.
    Republican gain.

Losing re-election and losing re-nomination are two very different things. So in your quest to impose a facile uniformity of irrelevant red links and circular links, you have changed accurate information into absolutely inaccurate information.

Are you going to go back and undo this? If you don't, I will go back and undo all your links on that page, so we can have accurate information instead of your uniform presentation. Marplesmustgo (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I didn't change re-election to lost re-nomination on purpose. That was a mistake. Please do not revert the entire article for just those details. Thank you for letting me know. I will correct them.—GoldRingChip 12:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Fixed—GoldRingChip 12:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Your recent contributions

Here's a radical idea. Stop creating ten tons of red links to U.S. House of Representatives election in X STATE in Y YEAR, when no such page currently exists on Wikipedia, and when all you do is redirect the red link straight back to U.S. House of Representatives election in Y YEAR; which utterly defeats the object of the link to the separate page for the state - and start mining some info for those years instead. Marplesmustgo (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry the creation of the articles is causing problems. I was unaware it was so harmful. I appreciate your bringing it to my attention. I do add information for many article but I'm sorry I can't keep up with the rate you would seemingly prefer. Kindly explain the harm I created and I will endeavor to mitigate it. Cheers.—GoldRingChip 02:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Your "creation of these articles" would not be harmful, if you were actually creating the articles. To create the page, United States House of Representatives elections in Alabama, 1918, would be a good thing. You are not "creating" these pages, you are simply generating re-directs that go straight back to United States House of Representatives elections, 1918#Alabama. It is a circular re-direct and generates no value at all. Marplesmustgo (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know your opinion. Those redirects are placeholders until an article is written. Other articles link to the redirect, which is why it exists. You may change the redirects to articles when you have substantive information to add. WP:BB!—GoldRingChip 12:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

13 years of editing, today

Hey, GoldRingChip. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Senate election 2018 majority

Hi, you reverted my edit on the United States Senate elections, 2018 on the number of seats required for a majority. I won't start an edit war on this, but surely the majority indicator refers to which caucus will become the majority caucus in the Senate? See how the Senate majority changes, despite a 50-50 split in the 107th United States Congress, which would make it fair to assume that the Republicans only need 50 seats to be the majority, whereas Democrats need 51? MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  • That's a good point, actually, and thank you for avoiding an edit war. What I think I was trying to convey in my edit to United States Senate elections, 2018 was the actual visual majority of seats since. However, now that you mentioned it, in United States Senate elections, 2002#After the general elections, I (as editor at the time) noted that the Republicans had a "Majority with Republican Vice President." Note, however, that I've only noted it when there's been a split that required a VP vote, not when there's a clear/outright majority. As there are currently 51 GOP Senators, they have a clear/outirght majority so there's no need to mention the VP vote. I understand that they can technically control a majority with 50+VP, but it's not necessary here and I think it's best in this case to keep it simple. If they are left with 50 GOP senators post-election, then it should be noted that they control a majority as it was in 2002. Is that OK?—GoldRingChip 17:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

page moves

why did you move current us senators and representatives if the move request reached no consensus? עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I hadn't remembered the move request. Seemed like a good idea when I moved it and I thought it was just routine maintenance. If you think it's a bad idea, then it's ok for you to move them back.—GoldRingChip 18:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

About election rating table

Hi! I just want to ask you an opinion. In US election pages, I think the table in "Most recent result" should replace with "Victory margin". I think it's better to compare PVI, margin, and ratings. Especially, the race with crowd of minority parties and independents that the result may be under 50%, but the margin more than 10%. Like, Alaska senate race of Murkowski. I think it also is better to compare the top two primary race when top two candidates are same party. Thanks Noncommittalp (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Interesting question. I don't have an opinion either way, for now.—GoldRingChip 16:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

About DFL and D-NPL

I saw on page Senate Election, 2014 that Al Franken lebel as Democratic-FarmerLabor. Also in page Women in US senate that lebel Amy Kobuchar and Tina Smith in the same way. So, I just want to ask you if we have ti keep all pages use the name Democratic, or fellow the state. In my opinion, I think it should depend on state because of Wikipedia:No Original Research. Thanks Noncommittalp (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting and problematic question…
  • As an aside, I don't think WP:OR applies because we're really handling a style question not a party-identification question. Many sources glass over the DFL/D-NPL distinction and some don't and WP:OR doesn't mean we ahve to obey such a stylistic question. It's more of a WP:MOS issue.
  • My general inclination is to call them just "Democratic" instead of DFL or D-NPL. I would only make the distinction when relevant or truly necessary. Such occasions might be the politicians' articles.
  • There are going to be exceptions. Historically, there were Farmer–Labor politicians who competed against Democrats before their parties merged. And there were NPL who were Republicans, too. Therefore, should we gloss over current DFL/D-NPL members but retain the distinction for historical articles?
What do you think about that?—GoldRingChip 14:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no argument. The congress website has reconized both DFL and D-NPL as Democratic. Noncommittalp (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Other parties

I have one more question. Recently, an editor add note to show candidates' party preference that doesn't access on ballot in California. The editor change "No party preference" to the parties that the candidates claim. I don't agree with that. I think it should be "No party preference" and leave the note. So, what do you think? Noncommittalp (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a matter of semantics, and frankly trivial. As I understand it, some states have two levels of party identification: major parties that are identified on ballots and minor parties that haven't reached a minimum registration threshold. Sometimes those minor party candidates become "No party preference," "Independent," or "Unenrolled," etc. So it could go either way. I doubt if WP:MOS adresses this, but it's not worth the effort to edit it.—GoldRingChip 16:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hyde-Smith appointment date

The Certificate of Appointment dated April 2 is in the April 10 Congressional Record as part of the proceedings of her swearing-in. Cochran's resignation took effect at 11:59 PM on the 1st, so he was the Senator for the entire day. JTRH (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Conor Lamb

An FYI, someone continues to use the April 12 date for the infobox despite my comments......I'll switch back to March 13, but it looks like we're in an edit war...Pvmoutside (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

My bad....looks like all the 2018 special election reps show swearing in date rather than election date in the infobox....Did that change recently?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
No… it should be election date. On what article does it show "all the 2018 special election reps"? —GoldRingChip 11:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
see all the 2018 special election reps articles (Estes through Lamb) infoboxes at assumed office, also the 115th congress under date successor seated in the changes of membership......Pvmoutside (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The 115th is the so-called "Date of successor's formal installation." I hate that column, but I lost that battle years ago. People treat it like their swearing in and I just ignore it as long as the "Reason for Change" column indicates the correct election date. As for the special election reps articles… I'll go change them (again).—GoldRingChip 11:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
What Special eleciton reps articles, specifically, please?—GoldRingChip 11:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)ß
It would be REALLY nice if we had a non-WP:OR source to back up this assertion. Can you find something?—GoldRingChip 11:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
All of them for for the 115th (Estes through Lamb). Good luck, you may be edit warring.........Pvmoutside (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
No seriously, can you please link a specific election article. Or is the rep's articles?—GoldRingChip 11:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The Clerk of the House would be the official source, but I can't find anything. JTRH (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, which articles, are you talking about? Can you please link one here?—GoldRingChip 13:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Conor Lamb, John Curtis (American politician), Ralph Norman, Karen Handel, etc....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh! The Rep's articles, not the election articles.18:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please don't use events categories

I've removed Category:1883 events from Category:United States House of Representatives elections, 1883 and ditto 1933, which you created recently. For one thing, you should never add red-linked categories per WP:REDNOT - either create the category or don't add it. If you had tried to create those categories you would have seen that they were deleted per this CfD as "events" categories are essentially redundant when you just have simple year categories. Cheers. Le Deluge (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

  • OK, thanks for letting me know. That was my mistake and please let me know if/when there are others. Cheers!—GoldRingChip 11:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

John F. Collin

OK I'm stumped. I went over the code for his infobox 5x and can't seem to get it to work.....can you help?...…Pvmoutside (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Looking now.—GoldRingChip 19:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You put an extra {{{1}}}
      • That's surprising, actually. I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens in OK. —GoldRingChip 13:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • yep, those were the districts.....I changed them to where I hope it reads better now......feel free to change if you think something works better....Pvmoutside (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • If the seat is not going to have a special election, then saying "until determined by general election" makes the uninformed reader think that the seat will be filled in November. It really should say for the remainder of the term. —GoldRingChip 12:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Im pretty sure that is incorrect GoldRingChip.....Terms last until January 3rd, where the open seats will be filled in sometime in November, after the general election but before the term ends in January.....Pvmoutside (talk)

A Request...

GoldRingChip, would it be too much trouble to add links to List of United States House of Representatives elections, 1789–1822, List of United States House of Representatives elections, 1824–1854 and List of United States House of Representatives elections, 1856–present to the {{United States House of Representatives elections}} template?... These articles are getting very few page views, and I think it's because nobody knows they're out there, so I'm hoping adding them to this template will get more eyes on them... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I have no objection. Care to do it yourself? —GoldRingChip 16:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I could, but as that template is more of your "baby", I figured you'd maybe want to do it yourself... I can do it, but these should probably be added as a new "group" to the template – but what should the "group" be called? – "Lists", I guess, though that seems rather generic... Anyway, if you'd like me to do it, just let me know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I have no babies. Be bold! If you mess up (and you will!) then you figure out how to fix it and you become better at templates. Someday, with enough practice, they can be your babies. Yes, it could be a new group; name it whatever inspires you. If, as you hope, more people will come to those articles, then perhaps more editors will tweak your changes to the template. —GoldRingChip 16:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Numbers game

We need some major coordination with the 115th Congress ending seat number, concerning the articles 115th United States Congress, 116th United States Congress & United States House of Representatives elections, 2018
articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Hmmm… they look fine to me. What, specifically, is the problem? —GoldRingChip 19:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I think I've figured it out. We're zeroing in on those members-elect who've immediately taken office, to finish off vacant terms in the 115th congress. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Spare time

Sir....As I have spare time, I was thinking.....I noticed some congressional districts have each congress listed, others do not. Similarly, some have each election listed, some do not. Do you care which one is added first? I know each Congress has a link, but I'm not sure each election has yet.....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Good questions. I don't care much if the Congresses are included, although (if forced to make a decision) I would think that perhaps the should be included because it gives a good indication of how long the member served. I do, however, think it's good to have a full electoral history included, but I understand that's an enormous task. While, therefore, I would prefer adding first the full electoral histories, I think it would be easier to add first the Congresses. Thank you. —GoldRingChip 02:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Election stubs

Stubs have prose. All you did is copy templates. That provides nothing the main article doesn't already provide. 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in South Carolina is an example of the minimum required content and prose to justify its own article. Please self-revert until there's actually something to say about any of those races. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Fine. Please don't delete until you've made a good case to kill them. There is a massive renaming project running a bot which will change names of election articles and stubs but not redirects. Therefore, the stubs are better here. —GoldRingChip 16:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

116th US Congress

Howdy. Actually we won't put anybody in as House speaker, until the full House votes in January 2019. The Democrats nominating Pelosi doesn't count ;) GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Rhode Island

Hi,

I saw you had edited this page. Nice job. Hayholt (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for moving the page names of election articles to comply with the consensus naming conventions. Appreciate it! Marquardtika (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Tlaib and Jones

Thanks for the correction. I hadn't realized that Jones won the special but Tlaib won the two-year term. Somehow I thought they were running in different districts. JTRH (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Yeah, it's a bit confusing epscially because there is somehow some uncertainty over whether Jones is allowed to hold her position in the Detroit City Council while also serving in Congress. As I see it, local political positions do not disqualify congressional office holders from serving, but they didn't ask me (boo-hoo). —GoldRingChip 15:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    • There's some prohibition somewhere on dual office-holding, but I'm not sure how specific it is. JTRH (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
      • They seated her today after adopting a resolution allowing her to hold both. She'd undoubtedly have to resign from the City Council if she were going to be in Congress for more than a month. JTRH (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Interesting. Do you have information/sources about this? —GoldRingChip 13:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
          • https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/rep-brenda-jones-sworn-house-one-month-term JTRH (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
            • Thank you. From that article: "The Constitution doesn’t outright bar members of Congress from also holding another elective office, but the idea is generally frowned upon." The only bar I know is that members of the House can't also serve in the Senate, or in the Executive or Judidicial branches of the federal government. I believe there is no bar to serving in state or local positions. However, most members have historically behaved as if there is such a bar. Having said that, this House resolution is more symbolic (or reassuring) than legal. Therefore, she was elected and qualified on election day and her service technically begain November 6, 2018. Does that sound correct? —GoldRingChip 13:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
              • It depends on whether "under the United States" in "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office" (Art. I, Sec. 6) applies to state/local office or only to federal. I thought that it had historically been interpreted to mean both, but apparently not. I'm not sure the resolution is merely symbolic if it sets a precedent for someone else to do it in the future. I remain convinced that they wouldn't grant that consent for someone elected to a full term. The Congresswoman I worked for 30 years ago had to resign from her previous position in the state Senate in order to go to DC, and I don't think it would have ever occurred to anyone that she could have done both simultaneously. JTRH (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
                • Statement about the Jones resolution from Speaker Ryan on Dec. 6: "The Speaker, with the concurrence of the Democratic Leader, finds that this resolution (1) represents a narrow exception to the restriction established by the House on January 20, 1909, that the duties of a Member of the House and the Governor of a State are ``absolutely inconsistent and may not be ``simultaneously discharged by the same Member and (2) does not address the Constitutional qualifications of a Member." So there is precedent for a ban on simultaneous dual office-holding, and I see no reason to believe that someone serving in Congress for longer than a month would be permitted to hold another office at the same time. JTRH (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Rick Scott

Hi. I'm not sure how to revert your edit to the Senate chart, because there have been multiple intervening edits to the article since then. But if Scott isn't being sworn in to the Senate until January 8, that means that between the 3rd and the 8th, there will be 52 voting Republican Senators and a vacancy from Florida, unless he appoints a Senator to a five-day term until he leaves office as Governor. His seniority date may or may not be January 3; my understanding is that those who take office later than their classmates don't have the same seniority. There are a couple of precedents I need to look up. JTRH (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for bringing this to me instead of reverting. He may choose not be be sworn in, but he'll be a Senator once his term starts. As long as being Governor doesn't disqualify him, and I believe it doesn't. —GoldRingChip 00:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Isn't the chart supposed to reflect actual voting strength? He won't be able to vote until he's actually sworn in, even if he retroactively gets seniority beginning on the 3rd. So there will be 52 voting Republicans for five days, and 53 after that. JTRH (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Interesting point. Frankly, I don't know. I'm not sure what it's "supposed" to reflect. Maybe "how many people are in the House/Senate"? But in the past, we've always had it reflect the actual number of people in the house. If he was in a coma he would still count even though he'd hard-pressed to vote. In the past, howver, there have been some disputes about this and I haven't been able to find some good solid external reference that says it definitively. Some cites will accept that until someone is sworn then they're not a Senator, but others don't. Until it's settled, however, let's leave it as: he's a member, but have an {{efn}} note the distinction. —GoldRingChip 01:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Roll Call reports that he will have less seniority than the other members of the class. A quick bit of research indicates at least two other cases - Mark Hatfield (Oregon, 1967) and Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia, 1985) - of outgoing governors who waited until their terms expired to be sworn into the Senate a few days after January 3. Both had seniority from the date of the actual oath-taking, not from the day the term would have begun. There is apparently no precedent for simultaneous dual office-holding; Brenda Jones in the House this month required a unanimous consent request which undoubtedly wouldn't have been granted to a member elected to a full term. You don't count until you're actually sworn in. JTRH (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
        • This remains a debatable point, however, so let's please leave it as term begins Jan 3, but with a note. Most laws I've seen say that a term begins when 1) Elected and 2) Qualified. Furthermore, Brenda Jones didn't "require" a unanimous consent request, but she did get it which removed (most) doubt. Furthermore, seniority is only one of the many factors to consider: office space, salary, staffing, and there's more I can't remember right now. It's not up to Wikipedia to decide who's a Senator and who's not, however, so I don't think we can solve this ourselves. The real question you and I are debating is whether we count 52 or 53 senators on January 3. I agree with you that Scott won't be able to vote and whatever else, but we're really just nitpicking about the numbers on a chart, right? —GoldRingChip 13:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
          • I think it's clear that there will be 52, not 53, on January 3. There is no question that he can't vote until he takes the oath of office. Until that time, there will be 52 Republican senators and a vacancy. A few years ago, the House had to redo a vote which was originally taken on the afternoon of January 3, because a couple of people voted who had not been in the chamber earlier in the day when the oath was administered, and they were therefore not eligible to vote as members of Congress until they were sworn in. (They were not new members; they were incumbents in the previous Congress, but those terms expired at noon. You have to take the oath at the beginning of each term.) The term begins on January 3, but whether Scott will be there to fill it is a separate question. If he thought he could be eligible to simultaneously hold both offices, he would simply show up in DC on January 3, but the fact that he's not doing that seems to answer the question. JTRH (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Can we please open this up to a larger discussion instead of just insisting that it's about Scott's voting, Scott's unilateral opinion, or "it's clear that there will be 52"? —GoldRingChip 17:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
              • Larger discussion of what? JTRH (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
                • of "when does a Senator (or member of the House) become a member of that body?" and of "when should we include them in the 'Party Summary' section" etc? —GoldRingChip 18:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
                  • According to the Constitution, you become a member when you take the oath. There seems to be a clear precedent that your seniority is the oath date except if you're elected in a special. If they can't vote, there's no reason to count them in the Party Summary section. JTRH (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

But neither Article VI nor the The Hill article you cite says that "you become a member when you take the oath." There are other things like voting, office space, seniority, salaries, staff, etc. Although the The Hill article does have a member say the non-sworn member "was technically a non-member," it's a partisan claim and not dispositive. Again, I'm just getting at the base issue of "when does a member become a member" not about voting and all the other stuff. —GoldRingChip 16:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Membership is defined by voting eligibility, which is defined by having taken the oath. Seniority and office space are tangential issues. JTRH (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Until you take the oath, you're a "member-elect." Members-elect can have office space, hire staff, be listed for seniority purposes, etc., but their status as members is defined by the taking of the oath. JTRH (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Where did you get "Membership is defined by voting eligibility"? —GoldRingChip 22:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
When you take the oath, you transition from "member-elect" to "member" and are eligible to vote. I've been reading the annotated Rules of the House. JTRH (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
A-ha! That could be useful. Can you post a link? —GoldRingChip 22:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

1892 US House of Representatives Elections

After a mild panic from seeing how things were switched I've switched them back, temporarily at least as I copy the data over to my sandbox. The format that I chose I've been meaning to proposed as a new format for House elections as it would display a fuller list of data, including vote totals alongside percentages, whether candidates were endorsed by other parties, the names of Parties (or rather candidates in some cases) to avoid long lists of acronyms which may require the reader to scroll to the top (something that has happened more then once when I was looking at data for lesser known minor parties), and so on. That said, I've never really known anyone else that was working on the pages or if there was a group akin to the ... semi-functional Presidential Elections group I've been a member of. Is there somewhere I can propose the new format I've come up with? --Ariostos (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't know if anyone else is working on them. I've been going through them since 1788/89 and am up to 1816/1817, and I suggest looking to those early-year articles for formatting styles. Meanwhile, acronyms can be avoided by writing out the proper name. I hope that helps. —GoldRingChip 21:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Duplicates

I think all the redirects have now been moved, but it's thrown up a small number that I think might be duplicates:

Cheers, Number 57 15:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I've looked them over and removed the duplicates. —GoldRingChip 16:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2018&oldid=1066281527"