User talk:Dcmacnut/Archive

Welcome!

Hello, Dcmacnut, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Question on Senate committees

First, you've been adding a lot of good info on the congressional articles. Thanks! Second, do you know how is the size of the majority on House and Senate committees determined? In the next Senate, I assume the Dems will have just a 1 vote majority on each committee. How big would their overall majority have to be before they would get a 2 vote majority on the committees? Is there a set formula somewhere? Or based on precedence? Or just negotiated every two years? Same question for the House. And if this info isn't in Wikipedia somewhere (I couldn't find it on a quick check), it probably should be. Thanks. You can answer either here or on my talk page. Simon12 15:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks!Simon12 17:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixing my sandbox

Hey, thanks for fixing my little sandbox page with this edit! Just to let you know, it's usually best not to touch a page in someone's user area (meaning it begins with User:). I personally don't mind - esp. when it's to fix my mistake - but someone else might have gotten upset.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed it was your user page after the fact (wasn't paying close attention). I figured that might be frowned upon, but one cannot take back a click once clicked.

Welcome, fellow registered user

Hello Dcmacnut, remember me? Glad you've decided to become a registered user. Just wanted to drop by and welcome you aboard. Welcome aboard. GoodDay 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Exclusion from the federal budget

Dcmacnut, the statement you removed from the House Committee on the Budget's article was technically correct as some programs are not included in the budget, including several approriations made for the war in Iraq. The statement probably needs to be reworded, but the point of the statement was factual. --Daysleeper47 20:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwoyeu Romatzyh‎

Having seen your name as a participant on WP:WPW, I wondered whether you might like to have a look at Gwoyeu Romatzyh, which I've been trying to bring up to scratch (GA/A/FA?). Any comments appreciated. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I can take a look, but not sure how I can contribute other than general clean up. I was trained in Pinyin romanization when I took Chinese. I had heard of Wage-Giles, but this is the first I'd heard of a third romanization system.Dcmacnut 16:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WPW newsletter

The Writing systems WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - December 2006
News Welcome to the newsletter of the Writing systems WikiProject, everyone. Our project currently has 29 members. Any questions or requests for assistance on writing system articles can be posted at WT:WPW. Our Article Assessment Project is currently underway. Feel free to contribute by assessing and improving all unassessed articles according to the assessment page. Any help is appreciated. We would like to bring all mid-, high-, and top-importance articles to at least B class by the end of the year. We are working on implementing writing systems templates into appropriate articles. Try to help out!	Writing system articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 1 1 3 GA 3 3 3 3 12 B 16 84 93 187 18 398 C 17 76 91 222 30 436 Start 4 136 363 1,024 62 1,589 Stub 2 21 482 51 556 List 2 12 14 426 1 7 462 Category 330 330 Disambig 13 13 File 28 28 Portal 2 2 Project 6 6 Redirect 10 30 60 203 303 Template 439 439 NA 1 36 37 Other 7 7 Assessed 42 324 616 2,406 1,065 168 4,621 Unassessed 1 1 Total 42 324 616 2,406 1,066 168 4,622 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 14,243 Ω = 4.76
To subscribe or unsubscribe this newsletter, or if you would like to edit the next issue, please drop a message on the discussion page.

This is the project's first newsletter. If you have any questions, comments, or ideas about it, feel free to post it on WT:WPW. Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Defunct committees

What do you think about putting categories in redirects? Specifically, see this. —Markles 13:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. I had thought of that, but wasn't sure if it was appropriate to categorize redirects. I'll start doing that to one's I come across. Also, what do you think about restored committees that were defunct at one time. United States House Committee on Education and Labor and United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs are examples. They have predecessors that are defunct, but the committee themselves are not. I would recommend removing them from the defunct list and addressing the history in the main article. Thoughts?Dcmacnut 23:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd keep them. I like the idea of having them on the list, with the discontinuity noted. —Markles 02:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Defunct Joint Committees

Committee	Esbablished	Terminated	Notes
Affairs of the District of Columbia, to Inquire into the	February 5, 1874	June 16, 1874
Alcohol in the Arts (Select)	June 3, 1896	December 17, 1897
Amending the Constitution on the Election of the President and Vice President	January 30, 1854	August 7, 1854
American Shipbuilding (Select)	August 7, 1882	December 15, 1882
Armor Plant Costs (Special)	June 30, 1914	February 24, 1915
Atomic Energy	August 1, 1946	September 30, 1977	Preceded by the Senate Special Committee on Atomic Energy.
United States Congress Joint Committee on Arrangements for the Bicentennial	September 5, 1975	October 1, 1976
Aviation Policy Board	July 30, 1947	December 31, 1948	[1]
Banking and Currency	March 4, 1923	March 3, 1925
Budget Control	December 7, 1880	August 8, 1882
Centennial of the Laying of the Capitol Cornerstone, Celebrate the	August 17, 1893	August 28, 1894
Centennial of the Telegraph, Commemorate the	1943	1945	78th Congress. [2]
Charities and Reformatory Institutions in the District of Columbia, Investigate	June 11, 1896	March 28, 1898
United States Congress Joint Committee on Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, Dedication of	February 9, 1895	March 26, 1896
Chinese Immigration, Investigate	July 17, 1876	February 27, 1877
Civil Service Retirement Act	1925	1927	69th Congress. [3]
Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, Inquire into the	April 10, 1871	February 19, 1872	Investigation of the Ku Klux Klan. [4]
Condition of the States which Formed the So-Called Confederate States, Inquire into the	December 13, 1865	June 8, 1866	American Civil War. [5]
Conditions in Alaska, Investigation of	March 4, 1911	April 4, 1911
Conditions of Indian Tribes (Special)	March 3, 1865	January 28, 1967
Conduct of the War	December 10, 1861	June 20, 1865	American Civil War. [6]
Congressional Operations	October 26, 1970	February 11, 1977	Functions transferred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
Congressional Salaries, Investigate	March 4, 1923	May 1, 1924
Construction of a Building for a Museum of History and Technology for the Smithsonian	June 28, 1955	September 15, 1965
Control of Aircraft for Seacoast Defense, Investigate	March 4, 1929	March 3, 1931
Defense Production	September 8, 1950	February 11, 1977
Determine what Employment may be Furnished Federal Prisoners	March 2, 1923	December 3, 1923
Dirigible Disasters, Investigate	April 20, 1933	June 14, 1933
Disposition of (Useless) Executive Papers	February 16, 1889	July 7, 1943	Renamed the Joint Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers.
Joint Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers	July 7, 1943	June 23, 1970
District of Columbia Public Parks	June 30, 1906	January 15, 1907
Economic Report	February 20, 1946	June 18, 1956	Renamed the Joint Economic Committee.
Enrolled Bills	July 27, 1789	August 14, 1876	Divided into the House Committee on Enrolled Bills and the Senate Committee on Enrolled Bills.
Eradication of the Mediterranean Fruit Fly	August 19, 1940	October 27, 1941
Fiscal Relations between the District of Columbia and the United States (1915)	March 3, 1915	January 6, 1916
Fiscal Relations between the District of Columbia and the United States (1922)	June 29, 1922	February 24, 1923
Federal Aid in Construction of Post Roads	August 24, 1912	November 25, 1914
Federal Reserve System	March 4, 1923	March 3, 1925
Ford's Theater Disaster	August 18, 1894	February 25, 1897	Preceded by the Senate Select Committee on the Ford Theater Disaster.
Foreign Economic Cooperation]	April 3, 1948	March 3, 1950
Forestry	June 14, 1938	March 23, 1941
General Parcel Post, to Investigate	August 24, 1912	February 12, 1915
Government for the District of Columbia, to Frame a Form of	August 14, 1876	January 11, 1877
Government Organization	February 3, 1937	August 21, 1937
Harriman Geographic Code System	March 4, 1927	February 7, 1929
Hawaii	August 21, 1937	February 15, 1938
Housing	July 25, 1947	March 15, 1948
High Cost of Living	1919	1921	66th Congress. [7]
Immigration and Nationality Policy	June 27, 1952	October 26, 1970
Inaugurating Washington's Statue, Making Arrangement for	February 16, 1860	February 25, 1860
Inaugural Ceremonies	see note		Convened every four years after the quadrennial presidential election. [8]
Interior Department and Forestry Service, to Investigate the	January 19, 1910	March 4, 1911
Internal Revenue Taxation	February 26, 1926	October 4, 1976	Renamed the Joint Committee on Taxation
Interstate Commerce	July 20, 1916	March 3, 1919
Interstate and Foreign Commerce	July 20, 1916	March 3, 1919
Labor Management Relations	June 23, 1947	April 11, 1949
Code of Laws for the District of Columbia (1832)	May 22, 1832	February 14, 1833	Preceded by the Joint Committee to Prepare a Code of Laws for the District of Columbia (1828)
Code of Laws for the District of Columbia, to Prepare a (1828)	February 5, 1828	February 12, 1828
Legislative Budget	January 2, 1947	January 3, 1971
Muscle Shoals	March 13, 1926	June 21, 1926
Navajo-Hopi indian Administration	April 19, 1950	January 6, 1973
Naval Affairs	January 12, 1894	August 28, 1894
Naval Personnel	January 12, 1894	March 3, 1895
Northern Pacific Railroad Land Grants, Investigation of	June 5, 1924	April 19, 1929
Ordnance (Select)	March 30, 1867	February 25, 1869
Organization of Congress (1946)	December 15, 1944	May 31, 1946	Adoption of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946
Organization of Congress (1965)	March 9, 1965	June 28, 1966	Adoption of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970
Organization of Congress (1991)	August 6, 1992	November 23, 1993	[9]
Pacific Coast Naval Bases	June 4, 1920	December 31, 1920
Pacific Islands, to Study	June 18, 1948	December 31, 1948
Pearl Harbor Attack, Investigation of the	September 11, 1945	July 16, 1946|
Phosphate Resource of the United States, to Investigate	June 16, 1938	January 16, 1941
Police and Preservation of the Capital	December 12, 1825	December 23, 1825
Postage on 2nd Class Mail Matter and Compensation for Transportation of Mails	August 24, 1912	March 3, 1915
Postal Salaries	February 28, 1919	March 3, 1921
Postal Service	April 24, 1920	February 8, 1924
Railroad Retirement Legislation	October 18, 1951	January 9, 1953
Safety of Roofs over Senate and House Wings of the Capitol, Investigate	January 13, 1821	February 6, 1821
Readjustment of Service Pay (Special)	February 16, 1922	March 22, 1922
Reclassification of Salaries	March 1, 1919	March 12, 1920
Reconstruction	December 12, 1865	March 3, 1867	Succeeded by the House Select Committee on Reconstruction
Revision of the Laws	March 2, 1907	March 15, 1910	Separate from House and Senate committees of the same name
Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures	September 20, 1941	July 12, 1974
Reorganization	December 29, 1920	June 3, 1924
Reorganization of the Administrative Branch of the Government	December 29, 1920	June 3, 1924
Reorganization of the Army	June 18, 1878	December 12, 1878
Reorganize the Civil Service in the Departments	February 1, 1869	March 3, 1869
Repairs and Furnishings of the Executive Mansion, to Examine the Accounts for	March 11, 1867	November 10, 1868
Retrenchment	July 19, 1866	March 3, 1871
Revise and Equalize the Pay of the Employees of Each House	March 6, 1867	March 3, 1869
Rural Credits	March 4, 1915	January 4, 1916	64th Congress. [10]
Salaries of Officers and Employees of the Senate and the House, to Investigate the	February 28, 1929	June 14, 1929
San Francisco Disaster	January 16, 1854	February 16, 1854
Scientific Bureaus	July 7, 1884	June 8, 1886
Second Class Mail Matter	June 26, 1906	January 28, 1907
Second Class Mail Matter and Compensation for Rail Mail Service	August 24, 1912	December 8, 1914
Selective Service Deferments	April 8, 1943	March 31, 1947
Senate Chamber and Hall of the House of Representatives	May 10, 1864	February 20, 1865
Smithsonian Bequest	February 19, 1844	August 10, 1846
State, War and Navy Department Building	August 5, 1882	March 3, 1883
System of Shortime Rural Credits, to Investigate	May 31, 1920	June 30, 1922
Tax Evasion and Avoidance	June 11, 1937	August 5, 1937	75th Congress. [11]
Temporary National Economics	June 16, 1938	March 31, 1941
Tennessee Valley Authority	April 5, 1938	April 1, 1939
Transfer of the Indian Bureau	June 18, 1878	January 31, 1879
Veterans' Affairs	June 30, 1932	May 26, 1933	Restored as House Committee on Veterans' Affairs in 1947 and Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs in 1970.
Washington (DC) Metropolitan Problems	August 29, 1957	August 23, 1960
Washington Aqueduct Tunnel, to Investigate Work on the	October 9, 1888	February 26, 1889

Kumar P. Barve photo

If the photo is the Associated Press' then it will likely be removed. Use of State Legistlator publicity photos created by their state government also will not withstand the current interpretation of fair use by the more legalistic (some say paranoid) group of editors that are stripping wikipedia down to free use images only. I have had several State Government produced photos made for publicity purposes for House Members of the State of Minnesota removed with that reasoning.--Wowaconia 01:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Senior Senator

Hey. I do not know you, but i see you are a member of North Dakota Wikiproject. Please, could you answer my question. I would like to point out that in 1992, Kent Conrad retired, and Byron Dorgan won. Dorgan is still in the Senate. And then Conrad ran and won a few years later. Wouldn't this make Dorgan senior senator from North Dakota??

Thanks, Politics rule 23:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for re-plying on my Talk page. I've asked a lot of North Dakotinas, and each time, I get more info, that helps me. Thanks again for your help. So far, you've summed it up the best!

Regards,

Politics rule 01:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixing the two seantors pages

I took a brief look at Conrad's pages history, and saw your edits. I am tired, and I am going to bed, but from what I saw, I would give you 100%. I will take a lot of time tomorrow, and give you my final thoughts! But from what I saw, it looked good!

Thank you for wanting my input!!!,

Politics rule 02:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I went through, spent about an hour, looking at Dorgan, and conrad's pages. They look very good, and the making understandable about the part that Conrad was ingurated on the 14th, and Doragn on the 15th. However, when I took a look at the history of Dorgan's page, MatthewUND fixed a mistake of yours. You used the word office back-to-back. MatthewUND fixed it.

I believe 100% that Conrad and Dorgan's articles are more understandible on this matter!

Thanks for taking your time for fixing it!! =)

Politics rule 11:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Look

Could you look at the change I made on Governor Stinner page, about him encouraging Conrad to run. I add something called "Governor Years". Politics rule 12:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ok. I'll look around at some stuff, and see if I can find anything.

Thanks for the response! Politics rule 21:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey. I haven't seen you in a while, and was just check-in!

See ya,

Politics rule 21:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Senate staff & Rules question

Thanks for your compromise on the U.S. Congress page. I'm eager to hear for whom you worked in the Senate and to test your Senate rules knowledge with a question surrounding a motion to divide the question. If you're interested in sharing, reply back and I'll watch your talk page. If not, no worries. Thanks again. JasonCNJ 17:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I worked for the Democratic Leader until 2005. I was a bit stumped by the "motion to divide the question." That's more of a House parlimentary maneuver, not something usally done in the Senate. The House is very strict when it comes to parlimentary procedure (with 435 members you need a lot of rules) rather than the more laid back atmosphere of the Senate, where unanimous consent is the most common approach. A quick google search yielded this article on Robert's Rules of Order which indicates that a question (i.e. a motion or amendment) can be divided into independent parts that are able to stand completely on their own. See this from the House Rules Committee how it applied to a particular House vote issue. There were two amendments being debated, but rather than voting on the motion to proceed to both together, the motion was divided to be voted on separately. Hope that helps.Dcmacnut 00:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Official Congressional Directory

I was noticing your efforts at Alabama's 8th congressional district. Where did you find a copy of the "Official Congressional Directory? I've been looking for a source to give the boundaries of the district but couldn't find anything. I knew it had to exist but didn't know where to look. Thanks JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 11:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I first stumbled upon them through Google Book Search. Just search "Official Congressional Directory" and you get several versions from the 1800s and early 1900s. Be sure to click "Full View" to get the most. Google is refusing to post full versions of anything after 1913, even though they are not copyright protected being federal works. For the more recent years, I went to my state library and found several from 1950 and up. I've been going through them looking at district boundaries for various states. The counties as well as Census data are listed alongside the congressman's biography for that district (for later ones) are listed (the hard cover books have maps; some of the on-line versions from 1890 on do as well). Alabama was just the first one I stopped at. I'm working on the rest of the Ala. districts in my sandbox.

Another good source, which I'm waiting for through an Inter-Library Loan, is the Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States. It has district information all the way back to 1789. Since I haven't been able to find a copy of the Directory between 1913 and 1933, that's proably my best hope for getting anything on District 10.Dcmacnut 13:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hey, I love the stuff in your sandbox. When are you going to put them up in the article namespace? —Markles 19:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• The new defunct committee list is a work in progress, though the Joint Committees is as complete as it is going to get, so I could post it anytime. The Alabama CDs are still incomplete, so I've put them on hold. As far as the committee comparision list and the Exclusive/Non-exclusive and A, B, C committees for the House and Senate, I started those a long time ago and really couldn't decide where they belong. Any suggestions? I was thinking the congressional committee article, as that discusses what Exclusive and A, B, C means as far as membership rules.

I've run into a bit of a jam with the rest of the defunct committees. I have the listings from the Walter Stubbs compliation, so that's not a problem. I'm running into a question of article naming and alphabetizing. There are a lot of "committee to investigate, study, examine," multiple "campaign" investigation committees, and others that even handled complaints of just one person or group of persons. So I want to put more thought into proper display. At the very least, I think for the defunct committee list to be accurate, it needs to include all committees, even thoughs that lasted a few months or a few days, to be complete.Dcmacnut 21:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

At-large designation

Moved to Talk:List of United States congressional districts § At-large designation

Craig resignation

Thanks for reverting me on the 110th Congress regarding the Larry Craig resignation. I jumped the gun.—Markles 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• No problem. Given it was you, I figured you wouldn't mind, and it was quicker than posting on your talk page.Dcmacnut 02:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Passages"

Yeah, I kind of stopped in the middle because my reference works were showing errors, and until I could get a better one (I may have the chance in a couple of months) I didn't want to keep putting effort into it. Since then, I've come up with what I think is a better method, used in articles like List of Governors of Alabama et.al., using refs for the footnotes. When I started those articles, that wasn't an option. I may hop back in. I simply used the term 'passages' to show the unusual passage of the office from one holder to another, no special meaning. --Golbez 23:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Party Color Templates

Moved to Template talk:Party shading § Colors too similar

Party Color Shade Template

I've been adding rosters to the New England congressional districts and have been trying to get some consistency in the early districts. Democratic-Republicans seem to have been worked out. 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. Pmeleski 22:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw your earlier comments at User_talk:Stilltim. I'm not entirely sure we can just call them National Republican. I'm more comfortable calling them "Adams" or "Anti-Jacksonian" in the party key, since there is the related "Jacksonian" party field and that is what the parties were official known as in Congress. The key is mainly for identifying the parties of elected congressmen and senators, and the National Republican's technically never elected a single member to Congress. The only official National Republican candidate was Henry Clay in his 1832 presidential race.

Also, since the name of the party should be included whenever the color is used, we can always add "Adams Republican" or "Anti-Jacksonian" or "National Republican" as the case may be.Dcmacnut 23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Adams Party (United States)

Hi.....Comments I've sent to Markles, what do you think??????

• • 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 22:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Will respond on Markles page.Dcmacnut 02:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC) 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)

• • • I dont mind keeping the party color for the Adamsites the same for the Anti-Jacksons or the National Repubs. I thought the National Republican article needs to be updated (slightly) to explain the Adams affiliation just a little bit better. Otherwise you have the Adams faction affiliated with the National Repubs prior to the party organizing. It could leave someone confused. So I changed the article sightly which I think clears things up. It makes the party affiliation work, the party shading key work, and the timeline work. I also think the National Repubs had more to their agenda then simply opposing Andrew Jackson. They did have a platform as the National Repub article states. My suggestion, then, is to call the party shade National Republican, and leave the Adams and Anti-Jacksons out of the shade box. The tie in for both would be their inclusion in the National Repub article. If you leave it as it is now with no changes,it leaves the Adamses out there, and risk someone being confused how they fit. What do you think???????Pmeleski 22:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Good changes. That's one reason I moved the short Adams party article into National Republican. However, I think as far as the party key is concerned, we need to still say National Republican"/Anti-Jacksonian. The Anti-Jacksonians were the main opposition party after the National Republican Party disbanded, and since there's a key for Jacksonian, we need that additional piece for clarity. I've added specific mention of Adams and Anti-Jacksonian in the opening sentence.

One thing I recently found that throws a wrench in all of this is while the House doesn't list any National Republicans in office, the Senate does. See the 22nd Congress heading here. However, it only lists two NRs and 22 Anti-Jacksonians. But the Wikipedia article for 22nd Congress lists 22 NRs and 2 Nullifiers (which must be the what the Senate site references). So in the end, there's no one good source to use. But the one thing I think is that for our purposes, National Republicans had a limited official "party" presence in Congress, and Adams, Anti-Jacksonians should be part of the main article, but they shouldn't be the primary identifier for the party in the key. Does that make sense?Dcmacnut 01:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If it was up to me, I would identify the National Republicans as the party of choice for the Party Shading Key. Thats the article you are referred to when you try to access through the key. The opening line highlights all the coalitions to hopefully avoid further confusion........What do you think???????......Pmeleski 19:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree. No member of Congress is listed as "National Republican," and the purpose of the key is to easily identify the member's party. Including Anti-Jacksonian addresses that. If you're suggestion were followed to its fullest extent, then technically there shouldn't be a "Jacksonian" party key either, since Jacksonians were technically "Democrats." But that wouldn't work, since Democrats were a later creation that evolved from Jacksonians. The same applies to Anti-Jacksonian/National Republican.Dcmacnut 20:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't where I was going with my argument. My argument was the article the Anti-Jacksonian key forwards to is the National Republicans. I think the key should reflect the aticle it refers to, not name the key after how many reps are with a particular faction. For example, the Jacksonian key forwards to Jacksonian democracy, the Democratic-Republican key feeds to the Democratic-Repulicans,etc. I'm expecting to be led to the Anti-Jacksonian Party rather than the National Republican Party (as the large header title indicates) if I access through the key as it stands now . (How many people are actually going to do that is another question-probably not many). Now I know the National Republican group doesn't fit into any tightly organized grouping as the other parties do, and there will always be some ambiguity. And from my previous post that this group includes more than simply people who were against Andrew Jackson (The Adamses had reps FOR JQA and his platform). The National Republican term kind of serves as that all encompasing middle ground term which sort of includes both the Pro-Adams and Anti-Jacksonians agendas ..........But it's not worth getting into an edit war over since its pretty small potatoes we are disagreeing over. Just letting you know I prefer something else based on the above argument. Mind if I move this whole discussion over to the National Republican discussion page?.....Pmeleski 11:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and move it. I've love to see what others think. You may want to cross post at Template_talk:Party shading key as the party key folks may have other views to share. I definitely understand where you are coming from on this, but the key is more than just a link back to individual party articles. It's a color coded identifier of "this color=this party." Anti-Jacksonian was separate from National Republican in that the National Republican party only lasted from 1828 to 1832 by some accounts, but Anti-Jacksonians were in Congress long after that. Mentioning Anti-Jacksonian's in the National Republican article helps avoid duplication. I've added National Republican back to the party key alongside Anti-J to reflect the dualism of both parties.Dcmacnut 15:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Template talk:Party shading key

Moved to Talk:National Republican Party (United States)

Featured List nomination

109th United States Congress has been nominated for Featured List status. Please comment here. —Markles —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: speedy delete requests of several templates

My apologies. I put those up for deletion as they were text-only names incorrectly (I thought) placed in the template namespace. I saw they weren't being used (only in your sandbox), and thought they weren't needed. I'm not familiar with the system your using, so I'm not sure if there's a better way, but I've never seen this before. If you say you need them, then it's cool. I've removed the deletion requests. Again, I'm sorry for not looking into the purpose of these more. Best regards, Rocket000 00:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

us political parties

Most leftist US political parties were already only in the Leftist US political party category; I completed this work. I also created a Rightist US political parties category and moved relevant parties there. Creating/populating subcategories is normal WP work and not an extreme change. Categories help in understanding and navigation. Thanks Hmains 19:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Metrology, not Meterology

Hi Dcmacnut, I think your recent removal of a wikilink on United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation was well-intentioned, but is not correct. Metrology is the science of weights and measures (indcluding distances) -- read the intro to the Wikipedia article and look at the greek root for the word. It is not even close to Meterology. Thus, I think the wikilink to measurement that I had put in the article is, in fact, correct. But it's not very important to me, and I didn't want to run the risk of a wikiwar over a misunderstanding of a rarely used word, so I'm making the comment on your talk page rather than just modifying the article. Cheers. N2e 14:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, my apologies. I have selective dyslexia on occasion, and having never seen the term you used in that way, I added an extra "e" when reading it. I will revert the edit back. Thanks for the note.Dcmacnut 14:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. And thanks for conscientiously fixing it! N2e 21:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

U.S. House races 1822-1825

Thank you for the note. I appreciate your work.

First, I would like to caution against using the US House Clerk's work as the authority on these earlier elections. The information for the 1822 election, which I also changed at Wikipedia, divides U.S. Representatives into political parties that did not exist during the congressional campaign of 1822-1823. No one was elected as a Jacksonian or as a Crawford Republican in 1822-1823, regardless of what the Clerk says.

Second, the election data on the page was derived from CQ's Guide to US Elections, a source that has been superseded and should not be referenced today. The appropriate reference is Michael J. Dubin's U.S. Congressional Elections 1788-1997. Dubin's information in North Carolina is partially based upon primary source data I collected in the NC Archives, which was printed in the book North Carolina Election Returns 1790-1866, printed in 1991.

The North Carolina election was held after the Contingent Election of 1825. The NC race was waged on the basis of how the lame duck members of the 18th Congress voted in the Contingent Election. I changed all "Adams" candidates to "National Republican" because by the time NC voted in 8/1825, they were administration supporters. In CD-07, both McNeill and Culpepper were Federalists, regardless of how Culpepper voted in the Contingent Election. Lewis Williams supported Crawford in 1824 but thereafter was consistently an Administration man and was a leading Whig in NC. John H. Bryan was an Administration man, not a Jackson supporter, so I don't know any reason to list him that way.

I am willing to work with people to achieve a better recap of the election, and I apologize that I messed up some things. Chronicler3 20:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

That sounds fine. I agree that consistency is needed.

The problem I have with CQ is that their staff will not include research conducted by others with experience in primary research when they produce later versions of their books. Their information for Presidential primaries is based on work by James W. Davis, who collected stats from newspapers. Many state manuals provide the official returns. For the 1912 primaries, CQ left out several states altogether. I have researched a lot of these and posted the certified totals at Our Campaigns. I also went to the state archives in New Jersey and found their certification of presidential primary results.

CQ deliberately rejects elections before 1824 (though in later updates they included races for Governor back to 1789). The ICPSR data is clearly deficient in many states, particularly New Jersey, in providing names of candidates. It would have been nice if CQ had at least stated how many votes were cast for candidates who received less than 5% of the vote. In one cast in NC, a candidate received 40% of the vote but was not listed.

Also if you really want to know, I can give you more information on mistaken attributions, miscalculated statewide totals, use of the name of the wrong candidate, and more in CQ's work.

One thing that I like about CQ is its use of markers. A check means that no returns are known to exist for a particular race or that the party affiliation changed. An asterisk indicates an incumbent. I like these markers and hope that we can incorporate them into the tables at Wikipedia.

In general I believe that Wikipedia is a general reference for this kind of information. By contrast, OurCampaigns is a website for detailed information. OC's information is far more likely to be sourced or to have a primary source than Wikipedia. I don't say this to criticize Wiki - just as an explanation of what I see is the difference between the two. Each can do what it does better and reference the other one.Chronicler3 21:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:American politics/party colours/Labor Party/row

A tag has been placed on Template:American politics/party colours/Labor Party/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)