Talk:Political party strength in Massachusetts

Merge or separate the terms of re-elected politicians?

I had previously separated individual terms of re-elected politicians so it better indicates the political party strength of their re-elections. User:Nevermore27 recombined them into continuous service. It's not an issue of which is correct, but rather I think my way was better. What are your thoughts on this?—GoldRingChip 11:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I think there is merit to separating politicians by term instead of by continuous service, but I think that is outweighed by the confusing visuals when you look at politicians like Ted Kennedy (7 terms in the Senate) or Thomas J. Buckley (20 years as State Auditor). I think listing by continuous service is a better model, one followed by every other "Political party strength" page. But I welcome the discussion. Nevermore27 (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. Although I am rarely persuaded by "every other similar article does it" as it stifles innovation, it does sometimes have merit for consistency's sake. Showing Ted K's many terms makes a visual impact which I think is the point of this article… he got elected over and over and over…. It also differentiates the length of terms, showing 1-year, 2-year, 4-year terms, etc. 17:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Well there's something to be said for consistency and uniformity in something like an encyclopedia. Nevermore27 (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Something, yes. But beyond that, there are the merits of the changes… should beneficial changes be reverted merely for the sake of consistency with other articles? How else can one innovate new ideas?—GoldRingChip 13:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Collectively. Nevermore27 (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you elaborate, please?—GoldRingChip 19:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we at least revert it back to my formatting so editors & readers can see what a different format would be like?—GoldRingChip 11:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There are still large parts of the article that still reflect your vision. Unfortunately I think this dispute is only going to be resolved by you and I, no one else has weighed in. Nevermore27 (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Alas, you're right. These articles are too obscure for another editor to chime in.—GoldRingChip 20:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see pros and cons either way. Overall, however, I prefer a single block to show an individual's full length of service. If Wikipedia allowed inclusion of dotted lines between terms (does it?), I think that would be useful. Additional opinions remain welcome.—ADavidB 02:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Dashed lines

After learning how, I've applied dashed borders within some other 'party strength' articles. I just added it to this article between U.S. Senate terms from the Kennedys onward. Any significant opposition or comments before I continue?—ADavidB 03:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice! No opposition from me.—GoldRingChip 11:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, now I see a problem. The dotted lines are different from the solid lines, but it's hard to make enough distinction so you can tell the name is carried along. That is, the block of Ted Kennedy looks like lots of little blank blocks.—GoldRingChip 01:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The color of the dashed line needs to be a lighter gray? —ADavidB 11:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If that helps, sure. But do you see the problem?—GoldRingChip 14:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I went with a lighter color for the dashed lines. This seems to reduce a perception that adjacent dashed regions are completely separate. (Some lighter background colors may need a darker dashed line color.) —ADavidB 02:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Much better!—GoldRingChip 14:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the dashed lines are working. For some earlier political parties, it's harder to tell the dashes from the solids. In the end, to correct that problem, you have to code more which takes away from the elegance of the page. Also, it's hard to tell when a two-term Senator served if their name is only centered in their first or second term, but not over the length of both.—GoldRingChip 13:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm open to ideas for solutions. It's probably possible to put text at the bottom or top of a term box rather than always at its center. —ADavidB 03:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you repeat the names in each box?—GoldRingChip 11:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of the dashed lines is to show the term boundaries without having to repeat an office holder's name with each election. Duplication is not my preference. —ADavidB 12:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree on the purpose. But the lines without duplication is confusing.—GoldRingChip 14:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Reconsideration

Have you changed your mind completely from "no objections" and "much better", or only in some cases? I don't believe there was name duplication when you wrote those words. —ADavidB 00:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sort of yes, sort of no. I didn't say I had "no objections" but I DO think the dashed lines are better than one long block without any dividers. The reason I changed it from one long block to multiple blocks was to emphasize the re-election of the officeholder. Re-election of someone to 3 two-year terms shows greater political party strength then election to a single six-year term. Your –Lines still showed those real actions and it wasn't as intrusive as the solid lines I put in, that's why it was better.—GoldRingChip 18:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Future years?

@Nevermore27: has applied WP:CRYSTALBALL and removed years beyond 2017 from the party strength table. @GoldRingChip: has twice undone such changes, suggesting that because 2019 only lists "TBD" or some politicians have been elected to terms that normally extend through 2018 or 2019, these future years should be color coded accordingly. Everybody knows that future years' party strength is "TBD" and such doesn't need to be included. If the same reasoning is to be applied consistently, one wonders why Senator Markey's and the electoral college terms have not yet been represented to their normal end through 2020. —ADavidB 22:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL forbids adding events until they occur. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball. By adding 2019 and 2020, @GoldRingChip: presumes that the officeholders will serve their full terms through the end of 2018, which is simply not supported by facts, because there are no facts to base them on. It's the future. Nevermore27 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

If we must be pedantic, I have no facts to base the claim that they will serve beyond tomorrow, the rest of 2017, or the rest of their terms. On this page, the claim is only that they are elected to serve that long. —GoldRingChip 18:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You can (and should) say on individual politicians' pages that they are elected to serve through 2019. But these political party strength pages are to mark actual events, not speculation. Nevermore27 (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Then what do we do, for example, with Governor Baker? Do we say he served only through January 16, 2017 because saying he served in all of 2017 is speculative?—GoldRingChip 20:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Baker's term can be shown into 2017, since years are not divided into months here, and nothing yet follows. —ADavidB 20:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

He's served through all of 2017 so far, so it's not really speculative. Nevermore27 (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Work needed

This chart is a complete mess and needs serious work. The party legend at the top is completely incorrect and obviously just copy-pasted from another article and left unedited (Independence of New York in Massachusetts???). There are also just straight up wrong things (last time I checked, we never had a President Pinckney). The chart is big and I don't really know the format, so some help is definitely appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curbon7 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The Pinckney/King ticket is changed to show that it was not the national result. I've left the party legend for another editor to update. —ADavidB 08:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Page is undesirable

The structure and layout of this page is questionable. Does this pass muster for inclusion? Jondvdsn1 (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You'll find the party strength articles for other states are stuctured and laid out similarly. Do you have specific suggestions for improvement? —ADavidB 15:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of emojis

There are emojis in the introduction text? Jondvdsn1 (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The check mark Y and X mark N are not used as emojis, if that is to what you're referring. —ADavidB 15:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)