2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016
Date format conversion request
Hi, do you still have access to the script that converts iso dates into mdy dates? If so, could you run it on the Meghan McCain article, which currently is a mishmash of the two and should be all mdy? Thanks in advance ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I do. Done. Glad to help.—GoldRingChip 20:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I just want to pipe here and make a request that this particular script/tool be used judiciously – in addition to "fixing" reference 'dates', it seems to also automatically convert reference 'accessdates' from ISO format to mdy dates format. On some pages that's fine. But there are plenty of Wikipedia pages in which reference 'accessdates' are predominantly in the form of ISO dates. On pages like those, changing 'accessdate' format to mdy format, which is not required under MOS:DATEFORMATs (and, in fact, many wiki articles have 'accessdates' in ISO format, intentionally and by design) and would represent a WP:DATERET issue. If I see that in the future, I can't promise I won't revert on those grounds. Basically, I just ask that this particular script be used judiciously, and that those pages in which ISO 'accessdates' are predominant are not converted to mdy dates. Thanks. --IJBall (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's interesting: I didn't know some pages had ISO date formats on purpose. I'll be more careful in the future. What is the reason for the intentional use of ISO formats?—GoldRingChip 15:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Some editors (and I count myself among them) prefer the ISO style for ref accessdates – my personal explanation can be found at my Talk page... I will say this, it looks like you've been using this script at the U.S. elections and politics pages, and those articles to seem to already have a pre-established "house style" in which both reference 'dates' and 'accessdates' are in mdy format – so at those articles, I don't think using your script is a big deal. But I'd be careful about using that script on other types of articles. P.S. Yesterday, I was thinking about the current states of the California congressional district articles and how they're presently unsatisfactory (IMO)... So I may be stopping by your Talk page in the near future with a completely different set of questions on any suggestions you might have to improve those! Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for doing my previous request. I have one more if you don't mind: Tony Bennett. It's also a mishmash of iso and mdy that I want to be all mdy. I'm the primary editor of the page and I'm the one who took it to GA status so there shouldn't be any doubt regarding intent. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done—GoldRingChip 17:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I've contacted Risker about my concerns with User:Therequiembellishere's refusal to wait until 114th Congress begins, before he updates infoboxes & succession boxes of Senators, Representatives, Governors & Lieutenant Governors. For some reason Therequiemllishere is also refusing to acknowledge editors on his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- The changes to the 114th Congress are premature but of no long-lasting harm. I agree that it shouldn't be done, but it's a negligible mistake. My greater concerns are with the editor's mass changes to lots of other pages that are content-driven and should be reverted.—GoldRingChip 14:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Therequiem is a funny editor - I don't doubt he's done alot of good for the encyclopaedia, but alongside that he also has some strange edit habits. As evidenced on his talk page, I had a dispute with him over his strange obsession with removing office orders from infoboxes. You know, the 12th Governor of Hawaii, 4th Governor of Alaska, stuff like that, where he would remove the numerical orders. I raised my concerns first in November 2012, and on-off over the following year, but I never received a response. It would seem that, when challenged, therequiem just goes silent and carries on his work regardless. Eventually, it got to the point where I felt there was no alternative but an ANI. Unfortunately, it received scant attention, either in approval or disapproval of my concerns, because I suspect it was a little too niche for most people. A dispute over office orders isn't exactly going to set the world on fire. Rather than acknowledge the ANI, therequiem just simply stopped editing for a few weeks until it all died over. Afterwards, he 'seems' to have cut back on this office order stuff, but I haven't exactly been analysing his edits. Looking back over the history of his talk page, it seems this concern has been raised by others for many years. I don't have has much beef with him as I used to, but nevertheless I suspect that, whilst he has done good, this could be one of those editors who has also done damage for many years under the radar, and is worth an appraisal of his work. Redverton (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- His choosing to ignore others concerns, is very troubling. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. I don't think I should start a complaint because I'm an Admin and it's kind of a conflict. I'm happy to add to it once it's started, however.—GoldRingChip 17:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Likewise, my particular concern with him isn't as relevant anymore, so I can't start anything up. However, I too am happy to contribute. Redverton (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note, that he's gone into hiding, again. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not willing to attribute it to malice or even negligence.—GoldRingChip 16:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I went back into class and work last Saturday and I'm pretty occupied from 9 to 11 most days. So sorry.
First regarding GoldRingChip, I never understood the purpose of the specific succession boxes for US Representatives considering the normal succession box is perfectly functional. I also don't really understand why American federal offices feel the need to have their own unique box with it's own set of rules different from every other parliamentarian, which just deals with "Member of the [xxx legislature] from [xxx constituency]" typed in manually. I find this to be far more accessible to editing from a casual editor, especially non-American editors. As far as the information goes, the only difference are specific dates, which I almost never see in any other succession box. Usually, I've only seen the "years" section filled with just years.
- The succession boxes for U.S. Congresscritters allows additional fields such as districts, classes, and alongsides.—GoldRingChip 16:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is no reason to remove the specific date in favor of the year-only date other than "that's how it's done elsewhere." If you're creating the succession box for the first time, feel free to include just the years as that's better than nothing. But if you're editing an already-existing box, I suggest that you not remove correct information for the sake of consistency.—GoldRingChip 16:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Redverton, office orders have been an on-off issue over the past years I've edited and while the last time I was involved in a major discussion regarding their need, the consensus largely fell on the side that they weren't. Again, American articles have a particular sensitivity to including them and their determination in keeping them seems to have bled into the larger project due to their high profile (due to the high amount of American editors). Which is something that I will admit I've slowly and grudgingly come to concede. The thing that does irk me most is the assumption that once the order appears on a page, no matter how long the particular page or the larger list of officeholders in that line have existed without it, removing them is automatically seen as something much more malicious than what it is. It's something I am coming slowly around to, but my natural inclination is still against them overall.
GoodDay, I think you do tend to blow things out of proportion in a rather protective way. What I would see as a small difference in editing style you tend to characterize as some sort of personal slight. That may itself be overstating it, but considering the years I and other editors have spent merely putting in end dates on a succession box once a confirmed successor is known to be heading imminently into office, it seems to me like your own personal aim to prevent this from happening more than anything else. I'm particularly confused with your taking issue with me updating boxes simply because the date is in the future. We know these people will take the office I update onto them and I try to make sure I use the "succeeding" section to prevent the "Incumbent" label from appearing beneath their title, as well as the "Elect/Designate" appellation depending on their mode of selection. I don't get why it's wrong to put their upcoming office in the infobox and succession box when they are known to have been publicly selected for that office and would rather see hiding such information as more disruptive. Your final point of contention is over a matter of hours regarding when these indicators of imminent ascension are taken down for incumbency. I again don't really see why it is so important to make sure that they not be edited between midnight and the exact minute of noon considering how many various officeholders around the world without the heightened glare are edited at midnight on their known date of assumption.
- I'm glad you've contacted us. But, I still disagree with your elect/designate succession boxes. GoodDay (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- BTW, you're correct that I shouldn't have hidden the succession boxes, that you created. Therefore, I've unhidden them & made slight changes to them per a compromise offer. GoodDay (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Overall, I do find these differences to be mostly down to my own style of editing and belief in trying for uniformity across the project as opposed to the regionalisms that have taken hold over some geocultural leaders. In some extreme cases, this imbalance has led to the significant declining of quality and/or readability of some articles' boxes. My focus on American boxes as of late is in the vein of how prominent their articles are on the larger scene and proclivity for reference in debates far off and removed. Despite some form of consensus toward one way (like not having office orders) in a majority of articles, the amount of views on American articles elevates them to a point that influences beyond just other American articles. So I've sought to make the American boxes as uniform across one another (particularly among the higher-profile articles, such as the federal leadership) and as high quality and updated as I can to try to make sure that when they are used in this manner, it's not a faulty box being held up. I've talked in circles a few times here so I'll wrap it up. Thanks. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
You previously voted, opined, commented, or otherwise took part, at Template talk:Succession box#RfC. Please see a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Kraxler (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Request for opinion and advice
Hi! You seem to be one of the most experienced U.S. politics editors on en Wiki, so I though I'd ask you some questions about a few things.
First off, I'm thinking of revising the List of United States House of Representatives elections articles: List of United States House of Representatives elections, 1789–1812 and List of United States House of Representatives elections, 1814–1834. The reason for doing this is best expressed by the first comment at Talk:List of United States House of Representatives elections, 1789–1812 – indeed, I've worked up a "vertical table" version of this table at my Sandbox page. But in so doing, I realized that the current date ranges for these articles are completely arbitrary – so I've got a proposal about this at the Talk page. Basically, I'd like to revise these articles with "vertical tables", but covering date ranges more closely corresponding to the First Party System, the Second Party System, etc. (which will necessitate a couple of article moves).
Which brings me to my first big question for you: What do you think is a better idea? – Doing a third list article, List of United States House of Representatives elections, 1854–present, which would cover all Dem-v-Rep elections (to the present day)? Or do you think it would be better to split this list up into separate articles, roughly tracking the time periods covered by the Third Party System, Fourth Party System, etc.?
Second question – is there a "U.S. elections" project on en Wiki? I looked around for one the other day, and didn't see much. I have concerns about how many U.S. House district articles are currently focused, esp. the California ones – as these are currently focused more on past election results, rather than on the geographical locations of previous district lines. (IOW, the past election results for many districts in large states are irrelevant, as the area "California's 20th congressional district" covers now is usually quite different than what "California's 20th congressional district" looked like in, say, 1960 – an extreme example of what I'm talking about is, here which lists election results all the way back to the 1860s when CA-01 was totally different back then than what it looks like today... But I don't want to make any big changes to articles on this front, until I can check with a larger pool of editors that such changes will be accepted, which is why I'm hoping there's a "U.S. elections" project group I can check in with first.
Sorry to ramble, but thanks in advance for any help you can provide! --IJBall (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, they should be reoriented to be vertical, not horizontal. I also think it's better to have larger articles that are more inclusive, instead of splitting up articles into smaller chunks. Historical trends are easier to understand that way. So I suggest either making the article one mammoth table (1789–present) or at most, breaking it in to parts: 1789–1854 & 1854–present. There are some US elections wikiprojects; I believe I'm a member. I also used to edit Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress, but it's been dormant for years. There is some debate over districts that no longer cover the same geography; I won't argue it all here, but my take is that it is a consistency in name on paper even though it changes soil every decade and there's some value to it– all districts (in states with more than one district) change at least a little each decade, and sometimes the change is wholesale. —GoldRingChip 15:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me. For logistical reasons, I think I'm going to stick to my plan for three lists (1789-1822, 1824-1852, and 1854-present) – because there were so many different parties operating from 1789-1852, trying to cram them all in to one table (even a "vertical" one) would be too difficult, and I don't think such a table would "fit" on one screen, whereas that shouldn't be a problem if this period is split into two tables for 1789-1822 and 1824-1854. But your thoughts did help me clear up for me that it's better to do one 1854-present list, so that's good.
- On the Wikiprojects – yeah, I did get the impression that they were dormant these days... Too bad.
- On the district articles and election results: my thinking on this is that historical election results should actually be listed in separate elections based articles – e.g. the election results for CA-01 in 1864 should be listed at United States House of Representatives elections in California, 1864 (which they are), but not necessarily at California's 1st congressional district as they really aren't germane there. But I'm in no hurry to do anything on this front. It's just too bad that there's not a forum like a Wikiproject to discuss these kinds of things with a wider audience of editors...
- Anyway, thanks again! --IJBall (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Great initiative— good luck and Be bold! Let me know if/when you'd like me to review your work.—GoldRingChip 13:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Nice revisions to that list
I like what you've done on the List of Presidents of the United States. Have you considered making George Clinton's VP tenure extend down across both presidents he served under? I was working on something similar here, but was never happy with the formatting. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Done! —GoldRingChip 20:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Cool! That list has been on my to-do list forever, I'm glad someone went and did it. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Now that you see how it can be done, you can apply it to other pages. It's a neat trick I learned a few months ago.—GoldRingChip 00:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have reverted your edit from the List of Presidents of the United States. Please seek input from other editors before making a massive edit like that one. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK. Will do.—GoldRingChip 13:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you fix the template? The transclusion looks broken: 114th United States Congress. --George Ho (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done. My mistake! Thanks for bringing it to my attention!!—GoldRingChip 01:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)