User talk:LightSoup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, LightSoup! Thank you for your contributions. I am Gobonobo and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Gobōnobō + c 20:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Format for redistricting in infoboxes[edit]

Hi LightSoup. Thank you so much for all of the work you've been doing on Minnesota legislators and politics.

I've been going through the state senators and updating for redistricting and I wanted to share with you how I'm formatting the infoboxes. Instead of using separate terms for pre- and post-redistricting tenures, I've been including both the old and new district numbers in the "district" field along with the years that they have represented the previous district(s). Take a look at David Hann to see what I'm referring to.

There are different ways we could approach this as well, but I'm basing this format off of this discussion and I think it's a good solution. If we do end up using different terms, we need to be careful not to confuse readers by using the predecessor/successor fields to refer to legislators that served in the same numbered district prior to redistricting. Let me know if you have thoughts/questions and keep up the good work. Gobōnobō + c 04:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a perfect solution for this, but I think what you suggest is the best one. It is true that the predecessors for legislators in newly drawn districts are not necessarily the "true" predecessors since a given redrawn district can be moved entirely out of its old area. However, given your solution, there is the problem of determining the "true" predecessors of freshmen in newly drawn districts. Since they did not have a district to move from, it would be difficult to determine which old district the new one overlaps with for the purposes of determining the last occupant of the old district. One solution is, if they were a successful challenger, is to use the defeated incumbent as the predecessor (this may not be perfect as an incumbent could have moved their residence following redistricting to be in a different newly drawn district). If there was no incumbent in a given race, another, though tedious, solution is to physically compare maps of the old and new districts to determine which previous legislator, using their residence, would have occupied the new district, though there is a risk of 2 legislators falling into one redrawn district. There are probably other problems to your solution, though I still think it is the best one. It would probably just be easier not to list a predecessor at all (for freshmen that is).
In the articles you have edited so far to implement this solution, I have seen that you have inserted breaks for new lines for the old districts. It might be better if you were to use an undocumented variable called "prior_term". This accomplishes what you are doing without having to insert a break or a small tag. It also avoids the problem with the word "district". I have already done this on David Hann so you can go there to see what I mean. In the article for Lyle Koenen, however, I see that you still went with two separate headers for his old and new Senate seats.
As for year ranges in the articles you have implemented your solution, I see that you have used the last full year as the ending year for the old district instead of the year it ended in. I understand why you did this, since the term only lasted for a week or so in the new year, although this suggests that the term ended in 2012 and not in 2013. I feel it would be better if you used the year the term ended in. Not only is this more accurate, but I think that given American politics, most people will assume that the term did not last the whole year and instead only lasted for a short while at the beginning of the year, especially if there is no discontinuity in terms served from their old to new district.
One last thing as a friendly reminder. For year ranges, use en dashes (ALT+0150) instead of hyphens as outlined at WP:DASH.
Thanks. - LightSoup (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad that you pointed out the 'prior term' field. I agree that in many cases it would be best not to list predecessors when redistricting enters the equation. I'm not sure what I was doing on the Koenen article, but I've since corrected it. You're quite right about the term end years—I was using the legislative session end date. I've started a sweep to include the prior term field and to adjust the year (and dash). Thank you, Gobōnobō + c 02:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A note from a friend down south[edit]

(talk page stalker) Thanks for letting me know that I forgot to document |prior_term=.

What I'm doing for Iowa legislators is adjusting the infobox (using |prior_term=) according to this idea:

That where the "complete" infobox of an Iowa legislator would show multiple headers (multiple places that say "Member of the Iowa house from the nth District") for the same house in the General Assembly, and where such change in districts is the result of redistricting and not of moving from one district to another nor of a discontinuity of service in that house, the infobox should show only one "header" for the time in office, listing the original predecessor and final challenger. From WT:WPIA/G#Proposed standard for Iowa Legislator Infoboxes

I still document them district-by-district using succession boxes at the bottom. You can see my working draft at User:Philosopher/Legislative model. Note that if a legislator lost re-election or retired and came back later, I document it as though it was two separate offices. For beginning and end years, I'm using the exact date - this year, January 14, 2013 - the legislators began and ended their terms, using just the year in the succession boxes. Fortunately, the Iowa legislature provides those for most (but not quite all) legislators, so it's perhaps easier for me than for others.

Obviously, I'm not going to get involved in what the best way to document Minnesota legislators is, but I thought I'd let you know what I was doing down here for Iowa. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
For all your help regarding Minnesota Legislature related articles JayJayWhat did I do? 23:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Great job with Minneapolis City Council elections, 2013[edit]

MinneapolisNeighborhoodsAndCommunities.PNG A Minneapolis Award!
Fantastic start to Minneapolis City Council elections, 2013! I'll be about to help with it...with a little prose expansion, it'll be good for DYK on the front page, which I'll work on soon. BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 17:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion re Minneapolis_mayoral_election,_2013#Results[edit]

A suggestion if I may: One of us needs to split the table. I suggest rounds 1 to 13, then 14 to 27-ish or so, and so on, so that the table(s) will fit on a landscape-oriented piece of 8.5x11 inch paper. I'll post a similar suggestion to User:Guyb123321.
LP-mn (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW... You're doing a great job on the table(s).
LP-mn (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! LightSoup (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)