Talk:United States congressional delegations from Missouri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject U.S. Congress  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Events."
WikiProject Missouri  
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


I changed "Mel Carnahan" on the table to "Jean Carnahan", since Jean actually served in the Senate. However, I think we need to explain the whole messy situation (Mel elected though he's dead, Jean appointed for 2 years, Jim Talent wins special election in 2002 to finish term) somehow. I had started to write a footnote but got my phrasing all tangled... can anybody else give it a shot? - jredmond 17:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's in my to-do list. :) Since Missouri and Alabamer have gotten the most exposure on VP, I guess I should do these first. But a good footnote would probably be "Jean Carnahan was appointed to the seat of her husband, Mel Carnahan, who was elected posthumously." And a second footnote denoting that she was replaced by an elected senator (Since she was technically appointed). There will be three generic footnotes, "Died in office", "Resigned" and "Appointed; replaced by elected senator". Mrs. Carnahan would get two different footnotes in this case, one explaining the circumstances and the "appointed" one. --Golbez 17:36, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


Moved from Village Pump. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 14:46, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

For all the fans of my tables (... right, well, anyway), I've just popped a new House of Reps one up on US Congressional Delegations from Missouri. Questions

  1. Does the table look better with the thinner border? (Example of the other kind: US Congressional Delegations from Alabama)
  2. The previous opinion call told me that people wanted the passages information inline; i.e. it should say in the table when someone resigned, etc. But for a house table, particularly a crowded one like Missouri's or, god forbid, California's, that would add unneeded bloat to the table, IMO. Does anyone have any opinions on how best to do this? Or stick with in-line? Or abandon altogether and leave that to the individual articles?

Thanks! --Golbez 03:03, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Re 1) I like the thinner border -- fairly subtle difference, but nicer. Re 2), How about footnotes -- I only had a slight preference for the inline notes -- if people really want to know why a term ended early, they can scroll down for the note or look in the article. olderwiser 03:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I like that; and if they really want to know why and when the term ended, they can go to the individual person's article. --Golbez 03:28, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely lovely tables; if I were in control of the CSS, I'd add a table td, table th { font-size: smaller; } rule and all of your width problems would be solved once and for all. But your congressional tables are outstanding. I think the "block" layout is intuitive and superior to "inlining" dates of office. The scrolling is a small price to pay, in my opinion.
Footnotes like Bkonrad suggested are a good idea for irregular terms--one idea is to have them all link to the same #notes section in the manner of Saddam Hussein#Notes. 04:12, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Looks nice, though I'd suggest filling in those nonexistent table cells somehow, so the unenlightened (such as me) know why there isn't anything there. Aside from that, it's clear and intuitive! And I agree, scrolling is a small price to pay. -- Wapcaplet 04:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • You mean the ones where there were fewer districts than max? Hm. Not sure what I'd put there... thanks for the compliment. :) --Golbez 05:08, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps just an extra cell, spanning all the empty columns, saying something like "District not active at this time." It might also be good to add additional district-number headings periodically throughout the table (maybe every 10th Congress or so), so it's not necessary to scroll all the way to the top to see district numbers. Another thing to consider is having a separate article for a large, detailed table, while keeping a smaller, less-detailed one in the main article (compare Periodic table with Periodic table (huge), for example). -- Wapcaplet 16:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Except "Huge" has more information in the table. I can't really think of what info I'd remove... or do you mean the other way around? Have this be the "basic" table and then add all the info into a "huge" table? I don't think there's enough demand for the information to be at the fingertips for something like that, as opposed to the periodic table.. and yeah, I've thought of doing that congress thing too; unfortunately, it would break up the longer terms. Someone who's in congress for 40 years would end up having at least four blocks instead of one large one, somewhat dulling his influence (Or perhaps exemplifying it, since you'd easily be able to see someone dominating a single 10 year block?) What do you think?--Golbez 21:11, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • True, I wasn't sure whether there was additional information that could be added. If not, there's probably no point to have multiple table-sizes in different articles. Extra headings would indeed break up the longer terms; I'm not sure how to handle that. I don't think having multiple blocks for someone would disrupt the flow very much; it may even make it more readable, since users would not have to scroll around as much to see who's occupying that big block. At the very least, an extra heading at the very bottom of the table would help. It's tables like this that almost make me wish CSS would let us print text sideways! Maybe in the next version. -- Wapcaplet 22:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't see a difference on the classic skin. I've played around with the <font size=-1>fred</font> command (which produces fred), but it looks as if it has to be applied to every individual cell, rather than as a block command around the whole table. Bummer. Perhaps you could just apply it to the Congress column to make it shorter.

On the House of Representatives table, why don't you set the column widths, rather than relying on <br>? Like this


Anything wider than 50 pixels will force the column wider; wrapping will be enforced. (In District 8, you needed a space before 'Independent' to fix the width problem for that column.) I've made the changes on US Congressional Delegations from Missouri - just revert it back if you don't like it. (I haven't eliminated all the unnecessary breaks, though.) [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 10:02, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like it. It widens the table if it's so squished that the columns get unbearably thin. As for the extra >br<s, I only use those to set apart third parties. In fact, I should have had one before the Independent deal, just left it out in my fatigue. I should probably remove that mention altogether, it was more of a future reminder to me. Thanks, I like this idea. :) Probably works best on states with more than, oh, 8 or so districts. Or maybe I should force it on all states, though Alaska would start looking unnaturally cramped. --Golbez 15:18, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
If you are looking for a way to make the font smaller, add a style to the first line of your table (see below). Also instead of trying to repeat the district numbers inside the table you could put vertical lines between columns. For example to have a thick divider after every fourth column you might do this:
{| border=1 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0 align=center style="font-size:smaller;"
!rowspan="2" width="15%"|Congress
!rowspan=123 width=1 bgcolor=#000000| !!width=50|5th!!width=50|6th!!width=50|7th!!width=50|8th
!rowspan=123 width=1 bgcolor=#000000| !!width=50|9th!!width=50|10th!!width=50|11th!!width=50|12th
!rowspan=123 width=1 bgcolor=#000000| !!width=50|13th!!width=50|14th!!width=50|15th!!width=50|16th
One further note: you don't need to sprinkle align=center throughout the table as it is currently. If you change the style in the first line of the table (shown above) to style="font-size:smaller; text-align:center;" it has the same effect. —Mike 02:54, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

End Village Pump move


We have to put in party designations. Color-blind readers can't necessarily see them. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Formatting issues. Color can be left in, but we need to have also the (D) and (R) for the parties.—Mark Adler (markles) 20:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)