User talk:Rrius/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

List of life peerages

I've added a link to the new page you created to the main List of life peerages. I had wondered where all the new ones had gone!

Incidentally, thanks for the heads up about Michael Ancram's peerage. I'd missed that announcement, which for obvious reasons is of interest to peerage buffs! JRawle (Talk) 14:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the link. I'd totally forgotten about that page. I updated the peerage template, but it is quite possible I missed others as well. -Rrius (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Senate seniority

Hi. I've already made some additions and edits to the Senate seniority list for the incoming 112th. They're in my sandbox. I redefined a couple of columns as well as adding the new Senators and removing the outgoing ones. Let me know what you think. JTRH (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

First, I don't think your version should be added immediately at the changeover because it marks a dramatic shift from the current format. Editors should not have to work hard to unpick the changes if they disagree. As to the merits, I have to admit that I don't see the point of including the all-time rank. It doesn't seem to have much intrinsic value to a list of current senators (as opposed to the list of all senators it is derived from). The method of counting is also open to some debate (i.e., should re-elected senators be counted once or twice). Finally, whatever value it does not seem to me to justify the space it takes up. As to the tie-breakers, I think your version is more confusing than the current version. As it stands, it is easy to tell why Senator A comes before Senator B and why B comes before Senator C: if their service dates are the same, the tie-breaker appears next to the date. If that tie-breaker is the same for two of them, a further tie-breaker is in the next column. That clarity is injured by sorting by type of tie-breaker rather than the order in which they are used. -Rrius (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The all-time rank makes it possible to avoid some disputes among editors in applying the tiebreakers. For example, I take it from a commented-out note within the article that there's been a dispute involving Jim Webb's service as Secretary of the Navy, and someone's (repeatedly?) incorrectly inserted him above Bob Casey on the erroneous belief that the Secretary of the Navy is still a Cabinet officer (not true since 1947). The all-time number makes that order clear (Casey 1889, Webb 1890 - no basis for argument there). A Senator is only counted once on the all-time list, even if he returns; Frank Lautenberg keeps the number he was given in 1983 even though his service was interrupted, and the same will be true for Dan Coats (there's no Grover Cleveland-type precedent in the Senate). In my chart, the tiebreakers are now arranged in the order in which they're applied (previous service, then state population). I would submit that it's easier to understand that way than in a column called "Second Factor" which lists previous legislative service in some cases and state populations in others, and then one called "Third Factor." In my chart, those two columns always contain the same type of information. It looks exactly the same for those who have data in both columns, e.g., McCain and Reid have equal service in the House, so McCain gets precedence on state population. There's no entry in the previous service column when it's not relevant, and none in the state population column when previous service is determinative. But when population is relevant and previous service isn't, it's easy to jump over one blank column (e.g., see Lugar and Hatch). Would you like me to reproduce the chart somewhere it's more accessible for other editors to participate in the discussion? JTRH (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
To your first point, listing the rank doesn't do any better of a job than comments and footnotes. In fact, I'll wager that just about every single one of the comments is a relic from a period before an updated chronological list was available. Having a ref to the chronlist is much simpler fix to the perceived problem than is adding a whole new column.
As to your second point, you say you are listing tie-breakers in the order they are applied, which implies that the current practice is different. That's not quite true. The current practice is to list the first relevant factor, then the second relevant factor. Your version lists offices, even if it isn't relevant. It also ignores the possibility that two former governors could join the Senate at the same time, with one of them having also been a former representative. In that case, the current system would put "Former governor" in the first column and "Former U.S. representative" in the second. Yours would shove both in the first column, which is hardly satisfactory when a clearer alternative is available. Your version is also problematic in that it sometimes (often, actually) has a large gap before the actual tie-breaker used. That just doesn't look right and makes the chart somewhat more difficult to use for readers not accustomed to it. The current system, which flows naturally from left to right, is simply more intuitive.
As to a wider discussion, I would suggest delaying until after January 3. At that point, you should start a discussion at Talk:Seniority in the United States Senate with a link to your sandbox. If you feel determined to be bold at that point, I would ask that you allow the current format to be updated fully before doing so. As regards reproducing the chart elsewhere, you could of course create a separate page for it, such as User:JTRH/Sandbox 1, if you feel it would be more convenient, but there's really no reason why the information itself would need to be centrally located so long as there is a centrally located link, i.e., at the eventual discussion on the matter at Talk:Seniority in the United States Senate. -Rrius (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay. With the exception of adding in Mark Kirk when the Illinois vote is certified, there's no reason for anyone to do anything until January 3, anyway. JTRH (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Cool beans—so far my goal of not thinking about Wikipedia during the holidays is still on track. Oh, and I may not respond to a discussion right away on the 3d or 4th because, speaking of tracks, I have travel plans around then. -Rrius (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
While I understand about listing 'every possible outcome', which I did not, I listed the change that was scheduled - no different than calling someone a 'senator elect' - and the one unresolved issue, now likely moot, although credentials acceptable to the congress come from the secretary of state and governor, not AP, and I see you did not correct the note in your sandbox... (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. -Rrius (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the IP meant to respond to me. At some point, there was inserted into the "most junior senior senator" footnote something along the lines of "it's Mark Udall now but will be Jeanne Shaheen unless Joe Miller wins and then it's Mark Begich..." I was trying to make the point that the footnote didn't need to include every possible outcome. It just needs to be changed on Jan. 3. JTRH (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I was half wondering whether I'd started sleep-editing. -Rrius (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

New peers

I'm glad you're adding them, as I'm not sure I can be bothered, given the huge number!

I know it doesn't matter while it's commented out, but just for fun: I doubt they'll allow the title "Lord Lord" (can you imagine in debates, "...the noble Lord, Lord Lord..."!) Looking through the list, Lord Bishop looks dodgy too. Also, as I suggested on the Peerage News discussion group earlier today, Julian Fellowes's wife is the only surviving relative of Earl Kitchener, so there's a possibility he'll choose Kitchener as part of his title. JRawle (Talk) 00:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought the same thing re: Lord (though I have to admit I wish he could be Lord Lord of Lords) and Bishop, but leaving them that way reminds me to keep an eye out for oddities. Good thinking on Fellowes; it would be cool if he decided on Baron Fellowes of Kitchener. -Rrius (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Since he changed his surname to Kitchener-Fellowes I assume that will be his title - since he will be the first K-F he won't need an 'of' Garlicplanting (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I had only read the article title, i.e., not the lead, so I had no idea. -Rrius (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Illinois gubernatorial "consensus"

Can you point me to where this consensus exists to exclude Labno and Jones? It was at best no consensus. In the only discussion following the election, 2 of the 3 discussing editors agreed to include at least Jones.--TM 01:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than edit-warring and referring to a made-up consensus, please comment here on the talk page. Please point to the consensus because I'm not seeing it anywhere.--TM 01:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The consensus you think exists was pre-election. I agreed to include Jones pre-election. The election is over and there is no serious contention that either minor-party candidate was a major factor in the race. Minor-party candidates, even ones from those two parties, ran in elections throughout the country but are not included in the infoboxes at those articles. Have you ever stopped to consider why that might be? What is it about Illinois or about these two particular candidates that makes them special. Since Jerzy and I are the ones trying to conform the infobox to every other American election infobox, I find laughable your accusation of activism, and am sorely tempted to throw it back at you. I will, however, assume the good faith that you failed to and just assume that you legitimately believe these two should be in the infobox and have for reasons yet to be revealed contained your belief to Illinois's 2010 Senate article. -Rrius (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The margin of the election was very, very close. Some commentators say Jones cost the Dems the election. Both Jones and Labno were within the margin of the difference. Prominent commentators noted Jones in the race. Jones comes from an established, major political party. He received significant coverage during the race, which itself is enough to be included in the infobox. You and other editors dogmatically hold onto an artificial voting threshold and care not to actually investigate the election themselves. Jones and to a lesser extent Labno played a significant part in the election and need to be included. Please join in the discussion on the talk page which I pointed you to.--TM 02:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear god, please stop posting here. It is bad enough having to have this stupid conversation again at the article's talk page without you coming here and telling me how I'm "dogmatically" doing X or Y. Get over yourself. -Rrius (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Governor of Minnesota

Wowsers, I wonder how long the recount will take. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it'll be a race between the recount and any court battles finishing and the inauguration date for the new governor. I wonder what happens if it ends up like Franken and Coleman two years ago. -Rrius (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Is the Lieutenant Governor elected seperately? GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what would happen if the elections people failed to certify but the inauguration date. From reading the Minnesota Constitution and relevant statute (or at least the one I could find), it would seem that the last President of the Senate would fill the remainder of the term, but that doesn't really make sense, so there's got to be another answer. Right? -Rrius (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I reckon, if the election isn't settled by inaguration day - the President of the state Senate would assume gubernatorial duties as Acting Governor - until a Governor & Lieutenant Governor are certfied as elected. GoodDay (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
That would make sense, but the statute doesn't seem to read that way. I'm sure it won't be an issue, but it's surprising how poorly these things are thought out. -Rrius (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. GoodDay (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 5#Utah Territory's At-large congressional district

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 5#Utah Territory's At-large congressional district. —Markles 11:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Christirmas & Boxing Day

Merry Christmas & Happy Boxing Day, Rrius. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Problem_with_User:Lucy-marie. Kittybrewster 22:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved by Lucy-marie to User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Naming convention and peerages. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Richard Bassett#Bassett's "Party"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Richard Bassett#Bassett's "Party". —Markles 17:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})