This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 |
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template ((Transclude lead excerpt)).
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 11:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This is strictly a style/formatting issue.
It has come to my attention at MOS:JOBTITLES and WP:TITLEFORMAT, that "Senators" and "Representatives" should be in lower case, not capitals.
Capitals should be retained followed by a person's name or for the institution. Otherwise, lower case.
Over the years, the capitals have spread around extensively, so now I predict there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles with the incorrect capital in the body and their article titles.
Just because it's widespread and common, doesn't mean it's correct.
Am I missing something?
I would be willing to begin changing these capitals to lower case (which would also mean moving articles and modifying templates) but I would prefer to have some consensus.
I welcome your comments.—GoldRingChip 12:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
PLEASE read MOS:JOBTITLES and WP:TITLEFORMAT before commenting here.
MoS is following the lower-casing trend (see Chicago Manual of Style, New Hart's Rules, etc.), not inventing it. Because the people who grew up capitalizing these things (like me and everyone else in my age bracket) aren't all dead yet, and haven't all broken old style habits yet, some people still insert capitals where MoS (and almost all other style guides) would have them not do so. It is not an emergency, or a sea change, or a rule deficiency; it's simply another MoS divergence to quietly clean up and move on from.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Why should polls be in reverse order when everything else in an article is in correct order? Should we reverse other parts of an article just because the later history is more current? If the election were from the 1960s, would it be ok to have it in correct order now in 2018? WP is not an election data source. Wikipedia is not an aggregator. It is an encyclopedia for historical reference. It is not a news website, pollster.com, 538.com, cpvi.com, or any other such thing. It is a historical reference… even if the history is current. If, as some might say, one has the ability to set up a sortable table, then shouldn't that table initially be in correct order and allow the reader to reverse it on demand? I welcome a broad discussion; thanks!—GoldRingChip 12:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Michael Cloud won a special election in June and was sworn into office on July, 10, 2018. The infobox notation said not to change his office date as the sworn in date, but elected and qualified date. I've searched the templates trying to find the editing guidelines on this. Any info would help. https://www.texastribune.org/2018/07/10/republican-michael-cloud-sworn-texas-newest-us-congressman/ P37307 (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
There is a RfC at the Martha McSally talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
There is an RfC at the Ron DeSantis talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
The issues raised in Talk:Dan Sullivan (American senator)#Requested move 8 September 2018 may be of interest. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I've been reading pages about US congressional committees as well as international committees and committees of other nations and I've found that the capitalization of the word committee in particular is highly inconsistent. There are some obvious examples where the word should be capitalized, such as the NPCSC where the term "Standing Committee" is part of an official and established title. Similarly, the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee is a committee with an established official title. However, there are many instances of committee being capitalized on its own. For example, in the "In the 20th century" section of this article the word committee alone is capitalized a couple times. Additionally, the "See also" section on standing committees and often times in pieces of the article that are not part of the main body of text there will be variations on the capitalization of the word committee, such as the image description found on the image in the Standing committees section of the US congressional committee article. This is just to name a few, but since these inconsistencies tend to appear in portions of articles such as "See also" sections and other miscellaneous portions of articles, I was wondering if there is a capitalization rule I can cite to fix these instances when I see them.
It seems clear to me that "committee" must be capitalized only when referring to a specifically named committee (or other obvious places where general capitalization rules apply, such as the beginning of a sentence). I just don't want to make a bunch of edits that wind up being against the MOS since I don't edit that often and this isn't my area of expertise. Thanks in advance for any feedback! Penitence (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I've started an RfC on changing the election/referendum naming format to move the year to the front (so e.g. French presidential election, 2017 becomes 2017 French presidential election). All comments welcome here. Cheers, Number 57 20:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
In U.S. Congressional races that are competitive according to fivethirtyeight.com, a number of articles about challengers that have received repeated national and international media attention have been deleted as non-notable. Examples are Max Rose (politician) and Sean Casten. Strongly disagree with this application of the policies, which is leading to coverage of the election on Wikipedia which is biased in favor of the incumbent. Currently, the policies are being revisited to potentially prevent this. See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Centralized_discussion_on_the_notability_of_political_candidates, WP:NPOL. La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
On the page United States House of Representatives elections, 2018, Louise Slaughter, deceased, is mentioned only once as the former incumbent for a special election. However, it intuitively feels like she should have a line in the "non-retirements" subsection of Retiring Incumbents - can y'all tell me whether that would be consistent with the style of other articles of this kind? 66.90.173.208 (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I am looking to improve and expand the above article. My question is: does this qualify as a valid reference? It is technically a blog post, but it was posted on history.house.gov which is the official historical site of the United States House of Representatives. I'm assuming that they do not post essays from random writers, but from certified experts. In my personal opinion, if the publishers of this website deemed it appropriate to post this essay, they must feel that it is accurate. I'm curious to hear what other people have to say. Thanks - PUZZLED🥕|🗣️ 21:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Is there a reason why 2022 United States elections is named differently from other pages such as United States elections, 2018 and United States elections, 2014? The move log shows a move by User:GoodDay, but they have referred to an RfC in their edit summary which I couldn't find (or find a link to) on the talk page. Airbornemihir (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
District | Incumbent | Party | First elected |
Result | Candidates | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kansas 1 | Case Broderick | Republican | 1890 | Re-elected | Case Broderick | Republican | 19,401 | 54.47% |
Fred J. Close | People's | 15,782 | 44.31% | |||||
T. J. McCormick | Prohibition | 276 | 0.78% | |||||
Ed Carroll | Democratic | 161 | 0.45% | |||||
Kansas 2 | Edward H. Funston | Republican | 1884 | Re-elected | Edward H. Funston | Republican | 22,900 | 49.38% |
Horace Ladd Moore | Democratic (Endorsed by People's Party) |
22,817 | 49.20% | |||||
D. W. Houston | Prohibition | 656 | 1.42% | |||||
Kansas 3 | Benjamin H. Clover | People's | 1890 | Incumbent retired. People's hold. |
Thomas Jefferson Hudson | People's (Endorsed by Democratic Party) |
23,998 | 52.20% |
Lyman U. Humphrey | Republican | 21,594 | 46.97% | |||||
M.V. Bennett | Prohibition | 382 | 0.83% | |||||
Kansas 4 | John G. Otis | People's | 1890 | Incumbent lost renomination. Republican gain. |
Charles Curtis | Republican | 25,327 | 52.03% |
E. V. Wharton | Democratic (Endorsed by People's Party) |
22,603 | 46.43% | |||||
J. R. Silver | Prohibition | 749 | 1.54% | |||||
Kansas 5 | Benjamin H. Clover | People's | 1890 | Re-elected | John Davis | People's | 20,162 | 50.35% |
Joseph R. Burton | Republican | 18,842 | 47.05% | |||||
Sidney G. Cooke | Democratic | 568 | 1.42% | |||||
Horace Hurley | Prohibition | 471 | 1.18% | |||||
Kansas 6 | William Baker | People's | 1890 | Re-elected | William Baker | People's | 19,398 | 49.85% |
H. L. Pestana | Republican | 17,887 | 45.96% | |||||
Duane Freeman | Democratic | 1,301 | 3.34% | |||||
Benjamin Brewer | Prohibition | 330 | 0.85% | |||||
Kansas 7 | Jerry Simpson | People's | 1890 | Re-elected | Jerry Simpson | People's (Endorsed by Democratic Party) |
33,812 | 50.89% |
Chester I. Long | Republican | 32,053 | 48.24% | |||||
W.E. Woodward | Prohibition | 583 | 0.88% | |||||
Kansas At-large | None (District created) | New seat. People's gain. |
William Alexander Harris | People's (Endorsed by Democratic Party) |
164,624 | 50.72% | ||
George T. Anthony | Republican | 155,791 | 48.00% | |||||
J. M. Monroe | Prohibition | 4,162 | 1.28% |
District | Incumbent | Party | First elected |
Result | Candidates |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kansas 1 | Case Broderick | Republican | 1890 | Re-elected | Case Broderick (Republican) 19,401 54.47% Fred J. Close (People's) 15,782 44.31% T. J. McCormick (Prohibition) 276 0.78% Ed Carroll (Democratic) 161 0.45% |
This is a test of auto-archiving, using a falsified date (7 September 2018) 179 days before the correct date (5 March 2019). —GoldRingChip 13:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)