Jump to content

User talk:GoodDay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SonofSetanta (talk | contribs) at 15:44, 7 December 2018 (→I was never away.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello to all fellow Wikipedians. GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 11 months and 3 days.

You may be wondering why my archives only start at August 2007. The reason: I didn't archive my pages before that date, I merely deleted them (as I didn't know how to archive). Therefore, if anyone wishes to see material before August 2007? check out this talkpage's 'history'.

Awards

I've an Awards page, where I keep a list of Wikipedia awards bestowed upon me.

Edit count & Pie chart

Edit records

My Arbcom Case

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay


CA-21 Call

Hey, why did you delete the portion of United States House of Representatives elections, 2018#Seats to be called detailing the status of CA-21 as a district that still may flip despite the AP's call? I think, seeing as the latest numbers have pushed it down to half a point, that that's something that warrants mention. Westroopnerd (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to have. If the seat flips, we then flip it at the article & make the appropriate changes. Otherwise, we don't flip anything. FWIW, I'm trying my best to keep the United States House of Representatives elections, 2018 & 116th United States Congress articles as coordinated as possible. Many IPs & newbies are popping in at these articles & throwing numbers out of wack. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would contend otherwise. It's clearly a major sticking point among election experts, with many arguing that calling the race was certainly a premature move. AP hasn't been infallible this cycle. Describing the race as a done deal, like the article currently does, is incredibly misleading. Westroopnerd (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And who made you the King of the Midterms? You're actively misleading the general public. Westroopnerd (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bring your concerns to the article's talkpage. That way, you'll get more input. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see @Westroopnerd:, the CA-21 race can be placed next to the NY-27 race, quite neatly, without a huge write up. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election

Thanks for creating 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election.

A New Page Patroller Boleyn just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll eventually get around to it :) GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership infobox

Done. It was actually a separate nested template, {{Canadian politics/leadership election/Progressive Conservative Party of Prince Edward Island}}, that gets called by the infobox rather than being coded in the infobox per se, but I found it and added the links. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Florida

The table syntax has gotten complex; I'm 100% fine with adding if requested and justified. But right now, it's not justified. There's no source that says Scott is resigning; for us to then label Lopez-Cantera as governor-designate is original research. Will Scott resign? Almost certainly. But *almost*. It's happened before where people didn't resign governor to enter the senate right away. Fundamentally, without any sources, we can't say it. --Golbez (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to remove the original research from the Carlos Lopez-Cantera, Rick Scott & Ron DeSantis articles, too. All three have CLC as being the next Florida governor. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell the people who do work on those articles that they've put up original research. I'm not interested in working on the articles or composing copy for them, it's not necessarily my job to clean up after peoples' original research if I can point it out to them and they can do their due diligence to correct it. --Golbez (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is consistency across such related articles. I'll start a discussion at Carlos Lopez-Cantera (as that's the key article in this topic). I won't mind which way it goes, as long as there's a settlement :) GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, btw, for my tone. It was a lot more confrontational and angry than I'd intended. --Golbez (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. PS: I've been around the 'pedia for over 13 years & still can't figure out the mechanics of color, rows etc of those List articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Not the info boxes"?

I overwrote one of your "not the info boxes" capitalization of title before I noticed what was going on. Please explain the point there; what makes one want to go against MOS:CAPS in this context? Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They stay capitalized in the infobox headings. If you were to make such changes to the US President & Vice Presidents? many editors would revert you. PS: You were doing great in the content. But, the infoboxes stay capitalized. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But why? The template, too. Headings are always in sentence case. Dicklyon (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's how it is, with the American political articles. Captialization is always the case for infobox titles. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. The Wikipedia Manual of style is very clear about this. The style of capitalization for infobox titles (actually their headers) is sentence case not title case. Please refer to the MOS:HEADCAPS section in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. There are no exceptions because the whole purpose and concept of "infobox by template" is to maintain consistency. And by its very definition, it makes no sense to place an artificial restriction on consistency (geographically or otherwise). ChrisJBenson (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, it's always been capitalized. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid argument; see WP:CONTENTAGE. When WP:P&G material gets clarified, the clarifications are applied to all articles (over time); there is no magical exemption for content to remain non-compliant simply because it pre-existed the clarification.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to decapitalize the infoboxes. But you're likely to face opposition from others. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have I finally got it right?

On the US House #s? I think I fixed what I broke everywhere I broke it... Levivich (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm certain of, is that the article will be settled by January 3, 2019. GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that is six weeks away, during which time I think it hurts wikipedia’s reputation if it can’t get something as well documented as how many seats are still up for grabs right. No? Levivich (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor or ip, will come along & change the numbers again & again & again. I've given up on stability for that article, until January 2019. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Took 12 hours for you to be proven right, but it was a gloriously stable 12 hours, eh? Levivich (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, it'll be unstable until at least January 2019. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seat change

Hello, me again. I was trying to go by the other House articles on the seat change:

2016: seats change = seats won - last election (not seats before)

2014: seats change = seats won - last election, seats before isn't even listed

Then:

2012: seats change = seats won - I think seats before, but seats before isn't listed (it's not last election, though, not per the math)

2010: seats change = seats - seats before

2008: seats change = seats - seats before

...and that's as far back as I went.

I inferred this meant in 2012–2014 the consensus was to use "last election" and not "seats before." Apologies if that was mistaken.

In any event, I think "seats before" makes more sense, in which case the number ought to be 39–40 pending CA-21. But, more importantly, it ought to be the same across these articles.

Thoughts? Thanks. Levivich (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the House elections are done as seat change going into the election. Thus in the case of 2018? It would be Republicans decreasing from 235 'not' 241 & Democrats increasing from 193 'not' 194. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2004, 2002, and 2000, 98, 94, 92, 90 also all use "last election," not "seats before" (which isn't listed in many/most of them), from what I can tell. 96 seem to use "seats before" but doesn't list it.
The template documentation says "seat change" calculates from "Last election" not "Seats before." Seat change: "The change in the number of seats won at the election compared to the previous election. template:infobox election
Are you sure you're right about this? I only ask because the majority of the elections over the last 30 years go the other way, as does the template documentation. Mind you, I think "seats before" makes more sense, and I don't see a problem with ignoring the template documentation. (I see you've already updated some; thanks.)
But if calculating "seat change" from "seats before" is the standard, in variation from the template documentation, we ought to document that somewhere. Where would such a thing be documented? Or is it documented somewhere I missed?
I don't mean to argue with you, I just don't understand how things work here and why something this basic (like the definition of an infobox line for major elections) remains apparently unresolved/inconsistent and undocumented or improperly documented. I followed the documentation and what I saw in the previous two cycles, and that was apparently incorrect. We should clarify this for the next newcomer that comes along. Levivich (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind which way they're done. As long as it's consistent across the board, for the House (and Senate) elections. Perhaps a discussion concerning all House & Senate races should be had. Since usually the numbers are different, due to special elections during the 2 year cycles. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the same way, as long as it's consistent, I don't care which. Taking this discussion to the talk page section you started. Thanks. Levivich (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brainstorming an idea

What do you think of [1] ? Adding details to the governor, so 1) they aren't always tied to the election [but those are still useful to quickly illustrate transitions], 2) people who can't easily use tables (screenreaders, etc) can still get the full context; 3) it allows detail on when terms began even for re-elected people; 4) it allows to say why a governor left office, if they lost or didn't run, or whatever; 5) every entry gets one, unlike elections, where if a footnote exists you know it's important. What do you think? --Golbez (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez: go for it. GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh ooh I had a better idea: User:Golbez/sandbox Put in why they left office in the date column, and stop treating the 'election' column as a way to describe distinct terms because, well, sometimes it doesn't work out that way. (I realized this when working on Alabama and getting to the 1860s. Whoops.) Benefits: cutting down on footnotes, putting footnotes where they're contextually relevant, simplifying table layout (much less need for complex rowspans), less need to jump between table and footnote to get the full picture. Thoughts? --Golbez (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Golbez: go for it :) GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush

I apologize. I did not know there was a consensus. Tigerdude9 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember where the discussion is/was, though. To be fair, you can open a discussion at the article-in-question, to get clarification. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was never away.

Thanks for your message but I was never away, just concentrating on other things and doing very little editing. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoodDay&oldid=872510724"