Talk:2018 California's 21st congressional district election
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Naming
[edit]@Greengreengreenred: thanks for starting this article! I'd recommend that we rename it to 2018 California's 21st congressional district election, to be consistent with the new naming scheme for election articles (similar to 2018 California's 10th congressional district election and 2018 California's 39th congressional district election) -- RobLa (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks :) Ah I see, this is a new convention. Dang, I miss the old way election articles were formatted (IMO having the date adjacent to a possessive state name sounds really awkward). Oh well whatever, feel free to move it (no need to ask; WP:BOLD and what-not :) ). Greengreengreenred 07:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with you that year-state(possessive)-districtnumber-electiontype is a little weird, and that something like your formulation (e.g. "2018 election for California's 21st Congressional District", "2018 election in California's 21st Congressional District", or "2018 election for California's 21st Congressional District representative") seems more natural to me too. I really like the new year-first formulation in the context of presidential elections, but U.S. House elections are going to be awkward no matter how we do it. It may be worth suggesting an incremental improvement over at WT:NC-GAL. Eliminating the "comma year" convention seems pretty much settled for now, but I'm guessing that consensus could form around tweaking the remainder of the convention to better accommodate U.S. congressional races. Regardless, I'll make sure the CA-10, CA-21, and CA-39 articles line up. -- RobLa (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll look into it; I can get used to the new format for the most part :) Greengreengreenred 03:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with you that year-state(possessive)-districtnumber-electiontype is a little weird, and that something like your formulation (e.g. "2018 election for California's 21st Congressional District", "2018 election in California's 21st Congressional District", or "2018 election for California's 21st Congressional District representative") seems more natural to me too. I really like the new year-first formulation in the context of presidential elections, but U.S. House elections are going to be awkward no matter how we do it. It may be worth suggesting an incremental improvement over at WT:NC-GAL. Eliminating the "comma year" convention seems pretty much settled for now, but I'm guessing that consensus could form around tweaking the remainder of the convention to better accommodate U.S. congressional races. Regardless, I'll make sure the CA-10, CA-21, and CA-39 articles line up. -- RobLa (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)