User talk:XinaNicole/Archive

Mississippi County, Arkansas

Hi Xina, I undid your edit to List of counties in Arkansas, as the source for the article ([1]) lists the date of establishment as 1883, not 1833. Do you know of any reliable sources that contradict this? Jujutacular ^talk 00:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The county government's website says 1833 http://www.mcagov.com/ I'd say that's a pretty reliable source :-) XinaNicole (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good then! Thanks for the reference. Jujutacular ^talk 02:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional delegations

Can you please explain your changes to congressional delegation pages?—GoldRingChip 06:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just tidying up appearances. For example, there was no need to have two separate columns for Congresses in Arizona's page XinaNicole (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was! It showed the changes in tenures mid-Congress. For example, Giffords left during the 112th, and it could be seen in the old version, not the new. Please revert these changes!—GoldRingChip 06:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't see how it's any less clear in the new version? The old version also looked rather cluttered with every Congress being shown divided, even when there wasn't a mid-term change. I can see the logic in showing the 112th Congress with a division, but every Congress even ones without a change? And the right column does still strike me as unnessary. How about this:

Congress	District
Congress	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th
108th (2003–2005)	Rick Renzi (R)	Trent Franks (R)	John B. Shadegg (R)	Ed Pastor (D)	J. D. Hayworth (R)	Jeff Flake (R)	Raúl M. Grijalva (D)	Jim Kolbe (R)
109th (2005–2007)					J. D. Hayworth (R)			Jim Kolbe (R)
110th (2007–2009)					Harry Mitchell (D)			Gabrielle Giffords^[1] (D)
111th (2009–2011)	Ann Kirkpatrick (D)				Harry Mitchell (D)
112th (2011–2013)	Paul Gosar (R)		Ben Quayle (R)		David Schweikert (R)
112th (2011–2013)	Paul Gosar (R)		Ben Quayle (R)		David Schweikert (R)			Ron Barber (D)

That way you still get it showing a mid-term split without having an unnecessary column on the right. Is that an acceptable compromise? XinaNicole (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that's fine. But that's not what you had done… you only made this version after I began this discussion. I think you've found a good compromise.—GoldRingChip 11:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... I never claimed to have made it before this discussion? At any rate, most of the other states' articles did it the way I'd changed Arizona's to before this, and other users seem to be fine with those. Then again, there's not really any standardized format between articles on state delegations (some states have a separate section for every time the number of Representatives changes, while others just have one big table, for example). XinaNicole (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. House elections

Love the additions you're making to these many articles! Check out the recent edit I just made to United States House of Representatives elections, 1802, for some additional formatting ideas.—GoldRingChip 14:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And, yeah, I'd just been thinking of doing just that! XinaNicole (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few more thoughts, some of which are in the 1802 article:

We typically use "Retired" instead of "Did not run for re-election."
If there's an explanation of a vacancy or plural districts, we typically put it in the table instead of footnotes.
I recently just started adding check marks "√ " before winning candidates' names, especially when there are multiple winners in a plural district. What do you think?
I suggest leaving the vote totals out of parentheses to avoid clutter.
"none (new seat)" can be expanded to three columns and capitalized as "None (new seat)."

—GoldRingChip 01:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the check mark is needed when the winner(s) is/are already shown by bolding. It seems redundant to add check marks. Especially when the already-complete articles for more recent elections don't have it XinaNicole (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. No checks, then.—GoldRingChip 01:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One last idea: link to the election when "first elected." Such as [[United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania 1794|1794]]. Don't worry about redlinks, those we'll redirect later.—GoldRingChip 01:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a party hold has to be bolded, because it's not a significant event like a gain or loss. E.g., "Federalist hold."—GoldRingChip 18:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. Looking at pages for modern results, holds aren't bolded. I'll unbold those XinaNicole (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special elections

Should special elections be covered in the 1794 article if they happened in 1796? I know the 1794 article is about the members who were elected to the 4th Congress, but the article is titled, "…1794." I've worked a little on the modern articles, and we've created separate articles for the off-year elections. I'm not sure what to do. Your thoughts? —GoldRingChip 01:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... separate articles could work. I wasn't sure either, because it didn't feel right putting it in either one. I think I'll do that, making separate articles XinaNicole (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps combining elections from the article year and the next year? For example: United States House of Representatives elections, 1792 would contain both 1792 and 1793 elections. United States House of Representatives elections, 1794 would contain both 1794 and 1795 elections.—GoldRingChip 12:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we've started merging the "Special Elections to the Nth Congress" articles back into the "Changes in membership" section of the "Nth Congress" articles, because it seems unnecessary to have an extra article just about a few special elections.—GoldRingChip 15:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... that makes sense! XinaNicole (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee's congressional districts

What is the source for these changes? The source you posted on the Tennessee's 2nd congressional district talk page doesn't appear to indicate districts, or who served in what district. Bms4880 (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source for being divided into districts is the House's website http://artandhistory.house.gov/house_history/bioguide-front/9.pdf States with at-large districts show representatives as "Representatives at large", and it shows that for the 8th Congress as well. As for who was elected to which district, this site gives district returns for 1805, 1807, 1809, 1811 XinaNicole (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just noticed your creation of special congressional election articles. (You apparently just now got to Kentucky, my state of interest.) Just wanted to say that I find this a worthwhile endeavor and hope you will continue with it. It is a useful addition to the encyclopedia. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama

In United States House of Representatives elections, 1818, you listed the Alabama's at-large congressional district as a new seat, but the election "Result" as "Democratic-Republican hold." Shouldn't it be a gain?—GoldRingChip 14:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right. That was a mistake. Thanks for catching it :) XinaNicole (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States House of Representatives elections, YEAR

Great job adding all the local U.S. Representatives elections articles. Should we add Category:United States House of Representatives elections, YEAR to them? I think so.—GoldRingChip 15:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the special elections articles? XinaNicole (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although it wouldn't have to apply to just those (see, e.g., United States House of Representatives elections in Louisiana, 1820.—GoldRingChip 03:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really make sense to put categories on redirect pages, though? Shouldn't categories include just pages that are actual articles? XinaNicole (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily I say categories shouldn't be on redirect pages; but in these cases, the redirects are just placeholders until an article is written (some day in the future). I've created easy templates to insert these categories on my personal sandbox. See User:GoldRingChip/sandbox3.—GoldRingChip 14:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, if they are turned into full articles, then it would make sense to place them in those categories, but until that time, it does seem like they shouldn't be in the category. I mean, a lot of those are probably never going to be actual articles XinaNicole (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe yes, maybe not. OK, probably not. But still… look at Category:United States House of Representatives elections, 1800, for example. It has two articles and two redirects. Someone actually wrote United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 1800. Furthermore, look at all the articles (& redirects) in Category:United States House of Representatives elections in New York. —GoldRingChip 14:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whigs

In United States House of Representatives elections, 1834, I don't think there were any incumbents who were Whigs, or anyone winners who were Whigs. —GoldRingChip 18:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was mostly going off what was there before. Plus, the Whig Party (United States) article gives their formation as 1833 XinaNicole (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Known as the… district"

I like the additions you just made to United States House of Representatives elections, 1796. How about instead of using footnotes, just put it in the tables as so:

Massachusetts

Massachusetts' general elections were held November 7, 1796. A majority was required for election. The second ballot was held on January 16, 1797, and the third on April 3, 1797

District		Incumbent	Party	First elected	Result	Candidates
District		Incumbent	Party	First elected	Result	First ballot	Second ballot	Third ballot
Massachusetts 1 (Known as the "1st Western District")		Previous incumbent Theodore Sedgwick (F) resigned in June upon being elected to the Senate			Democratic-Republican gain	Thomson J. Skinner^[2] (DR) 56.4% Ephraim Williams (F) 43.6%
Massachusetts 2 (Known as the "2nd Western District")		William Lyman	Democratic-Republican	1792	Lost re-election Federalist gain	William Shepard (F) 46.3% Sam Hinshaw 23.9% William Lyman (DR) 21.4% John Williams 4.0% Nahum Park 2.0% Scattering 2.4%	William Shepard (F) 100%
Massachusetts 3 (Known as the "3rd Western District")		Samuel Lyman	Federalist	1794	Re-elected	Samuel Lyman (F) 83.3% Daniel Bigelow (DR) 16.7%
Massachusetts 4 (Known as the "4th Western District")		Dwight Foster	Federalist	1792	Re-elected	Dwight Foster (F) 80.8% Levi Lincoln, Sr. (DR) 19.2%
Massachusetts 5 (Known as the "1st Southern District")		Nathaniel Freeman, Jr.	Democratic-Republican	1794	Re-elected	Nathaniel Freeman, Jr. (DR) 82.1% Peleg Coffin, Jr. (F) 17.9%
Massachusetts 6 (Known as the "2nd Southern District")		John Reed, Sr.	Federalist	1794	Re-elected	John Reed, Sr. (F) 78.8% Edward H. Robbins (F) 21.2%
Massachusetts 7 (Known as the "3rd Southern District")		George Leonard	Federalist	1788 1794	Retired Federalist hold	Elisha May (F) 45.3% Stephen Bullock (F) 28.3% Laban Wheaton (F) 26.4%	Stephen Bullock (F) 35.8% Laban Wheaton (F) 32.7% Elisha May (F) 31.5%	Stephen Bullock (F) 56.7% Elisha May (F) 28.3% Laban Wheaton (F) 15.1%
Massachusetts 8 (Known as the "1st Middle District")		Fisher Ames	Federalist	1788	Retired Federalist hold	Harrison Gray Otis (F) 57.0% James Bowdoin (DR) 43.0%
Massachusetts 9 (Known as the "2nd Middle District")		Joseph Bradley Varnum	Democratic-Republican	1794	Re-elected	Joseph Bradley Varnum (DR) 69.0% Ebenezer Bridge (F) 16.8% Samuel Dexter (F) 14.3%
Massachusetts 10 (Known as the "3rd Middle District")		Previous incumbent Benjamin Goodhue (F) resigned in June, 1796 upon being elected to the Senate			Federalist hold	Samuel Sewall^[2] (F) 67.9% Loammi Baldwin (F) 22.1%
Massachusetts 11 (Known as the "4th Middle District")		Theophilus Bradbury	Federalist	1794	Re-elected	Theophilus Bradbury (F) 100%
District of Maine	Massachusetts 12 (Known as the "1st Eastern District")	Henry Dearborn	Democratic-Republican	1792	Lost re-election Federalist gain	Isaac Parker (F) 40.5% Henry Dearborn (DR) 31.7% John Bowman 27.8%	Isaac Parker (F) 48.2% Henry Dearborn (DR) 33.8% John Bowman 18.0%	Isaac Parker (F) 52.6% Henry Dearborn (DR) 47.5%
	Massachusetts 13 (Known as the "2nd Eastern District")	Peleg Wadsworth	Federalist	1792	Re-elected	Peleg Wadsworth (F) 100%
	Massachusetts 14 (Known as the "3rd Eastern District")	George Thatcher	Federalist	1788	Re-elected	George Thatcher (F) 100%

In the 11th district, Theophilus Bradbury (F) resigned July 24, 1797, which vacancy was filled in a special election by Bailey Bartlett (F)^[3]

I had thought of doing it that way, but I thought it might clutter up the table putting it that way. Though, actually, now that I see it laid out, it does look better that way (and also cuts down on the number of footnotes!) XinaNicole (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts, exactly.—GoldRingChip 15:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference resigned was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference sp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ http://artandhistory.house.gov/house_history/bioguide-front/5.pdf footnotes 18 and 19

[resigned-1] Cite error: The named reference resigned was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[sp-2] Cite error: The named reference sp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[3] ttp://artandhistory.house.gov/house_history/bioguide-front/5.pdf footnotes 18 and 19

[1]

[2]

[3]