Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zekenyan (talk | contribs) at 01:44, 28 March 2015 (→Howdy: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page!

• Please use the Reply button to reply to a message, or add topic (+) to start a new section.
• If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, instead, reply there.
  • Mention me using the "Mention a user" button in the Reply box or type out {{ping|IJBall}}.
  • I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• If you prefer to manually edit the page to post:
  • Use an accurate and appropriate heading.
  • Indent your comment by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41

Nanjing Metro Line S1

It's a metro line. Albeit more in tune with BART or the Berlin S-bahn, with its longer stop spacing the large reach out of the city. It is fully grade separated and isolated from the other rail services. It uses B type cars in 6 car formation; the same sizing and loading gauges of the Beijing Subway cars. Ninggao intercity railway (宁高城际轨道交通) seems to be a dated term, the media seems to always refer it as the Airport Line (机场线). The branding is very similar to the S-XX and U-XX dynamic you see in Berlin or the numbered urban lines and the named suburban lines in Beijing.Terramorphous (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I guess I have to accept that, even though the different branding bothers me. Last question - what are the peak headways on it?... --IJBall (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for being such an awesome help for the Ridership Chart! Staglit (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Final Switch

Hello - again.

I've noticed you finished on your ridership reference split, and other small edits, and I'm just wondering what else needs to be done exactly so I'm prepared for the move. Staglit (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Just one last thing: copy over the "Under construction" section to your Sandbox. Then I'll separate those references in to their own section (I think there's only two of them!). Once that is done, I think it is ready to be copy-and-pasted over the the List of metro systems, and then we are done!! :D --IJBall (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, IJBall, from the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ~ Anastasia (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Trams in Rouen

Hello IJBall. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Trams in Rouen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I'm not at all clear why the Old Rouen article should go here, and not the new one, which would seem more sensible to me. The Instanbul article you linked to covers both old and new as far as I can see. Thank you. GedUK  11:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Appreciated that you added map, however...

While it was correct for you to change the map from the Russian version to the English version in the Timeline of the war in Donbass article, the article is a WP:LIST and it had already been established that it does not belong in a timeline article as it already exists in the main article (being War in Donbass). Please see the relevant section on the talk page if you feel that there are policy or guideline rationales for duplicating it on the timeline. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sao Paulo State elections & Sao Paulo Metro

Sorry, but what in God's name do the Sao Paulo State elections have to do with the new line 15 of the Sao Paulo subway, which had been inaugurated yesterday? I really didn't understand. And what kind of reference do you "approve"? Thank you. MarcosPassos (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The primary website for the Sao Paulo Metro is this one: – lately, when one tries to access it, there's a message about the bulk of the website getting shut down for the state elections this year (today, I can't seem to access this website at all). Anyway, that website is where you used to be able to get a primary reference for total system length and total number of stations for the Sao Paulo Metro, but it's apparently down until after the elections are over this fall. To answer your question, you need a reference that quotes the new total system length and new total number of stations to be usable – a reference that simply says that two stations opened, without quoting that there are 67 stations in the system won't do, as that would represent a WP:SYNTH situation. But my general point is this – there is no pressing need for the List of metro systems to be up-to-the-minute accurate with its figures – if you can't find a reference like I outlined above, I wouldn't worry as one will likely became available with the new correct figures in just a couple of months. This Sao Paulo situation, and the lack of easy references for the new figures, is not unique and has happened at the List of metro systems before (and will surely happen again, down the road). --IJBall (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

One more thing – it would seem that Line 15 is a monorail. If so, it won't be included in the List of metro system article's figures anyway: we don't count monorails in with our figures there (see, for example: Kuala Lumpur Rapid Rail entry). --IJBall (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your well-detailed answer. All points taken. I just disagree that we wouldn't "need for the list to be 'up-to-the-minute' accurate with its figures". We are in the internet age, so we do need very fast updates, hehe. Cheers! MarcosPassos (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency (2011–present)

I haven't blocked FutureTrillionaire this time but I have reminded him of the 1RR per 24 hours restriction and thought you might have forgotten it also. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good point. --IJBall (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.uitp.org

Hello ! I have put http://www.uitp.org to the noteboard https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:RSN. I don't think such membership associations can be used as reliable sources. And I thought we had established S-Bahn in Berlin, Hamburg and Copenhagen as metro. Please respond at the noteboard. Boeing720 (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Cook Partisan Voting Index

With all due respect, my last edits removing the “Party of Governor” and “House balance” columns were perfectly consistent with your very own argument to me: that all information in each of these columns was already available at-a-glance in the Political party strength in U.S. states page, which I had not previously visited. Never mind, though, because I won’t be wasting any more time editing this page. For the record, a mere handful of people opposing my actions does not amount to “consensus strongly disagree” with me. Derekgts (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that wasn't the argument at all. The point was that readers at the Cook Partisan Voting Index want simple information – namely: based on the state's CPVI, what party does the governor of that state belong to, are both Senators from that state from the same party or is the Senate delegation "split", and what is the make up that state's Congressional delegation? Your edit to split the Senate column in to two to show the "Senior" and "Junior" Senator actually made it harder to pick out the details about a particular state's Senate delegation, which is why two editors (myself included) reverted it. So, the overall point was that your particular edit made the table harder to read AND also that that level of detail basically wasn't appropriate to an article like Cook Partisan Voting Index and was redundant information with information that could already be found at the Political party strength in U.S. states article where the level of detail that you wanted was appropriate.

The thing to remember when editing Misplaced Pages is that some of your edits, no matter how much effort you put in to them, may not get consensus support, no matter how much you personally think they improve an article, and not to take it personally when that happens, as you seemed to here. But I appreciate you taking the time to post here, as that was all I really wanted in the first place when you reverted the second time was a discussion about why these edits probably weren't the best way to go here... --IJBall (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Louroujina

1. WP:INFOBOXFLAG quite clearly states that flag icons are permitted in settlement infoboxes for the country and top-level administrative division.
2. See here.

213.7.22.7 (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a question into the Talk page of WP:INFOBOXFLAG about this – the first two paragraphs make of INFOBOXFLAG it quite clear that flags should pretty much never be used in Infoboxes. Paragraphs #3 & #4 delineate a few exceptions to when they can be used. The first sentence of Paragraph #5, which you are quoting, appears to completely contradict the first two paragraphs of the policy. In general, many city articles on en Misplaced Pages do not use flags in the Infobox, so I'd like more clarification on this. Let's see if there's any response at MOS:ICONS Talk page... --IJBall (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but the flags are used across all of these articles. Would it not be better to keep them until that point is clarified? 213.7.22.7 (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that the flags as they were used at the Louroujina article Infobox "add value" (and they were used there in such a way that I've seen reverted at other similar articles), so I really don't think they're necessary there. But whatever is said at the MOS:ICONS Talk page will hopefully clarify the issue... --IJBall (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say they help in (re)cognition. I don't know if that's a good argument for having them there. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I've seen flag icons used all over the place, e.g. in language infoboxes (list of countries where the language is official), see e.g. German language. It seems this guideline is followed rather loosely or selectively. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion please...

A year and a half ago, you mentioned the possibility of nominating Politics of light rail in North America for deletion (well redirection back to main article). Since then you have made some small additions to the article. Still, I think merge, redirection or deletion are in order. Do you still agree with redirecting this back to Light rail in North America? Geo Swan (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd still support a merge (of the referenced material at Politics of light rail in North America – the unreferenced material should just be cut). But now that the Politics of light rail in North America article has been substantially trimmed, I'd no longer have an objection to merging it back to Light rail in North America . So I think it's time to start a new Talk page topic on the merge proposal (I guess that would require updating the 'date' parameter on the 'merge' tag....) – this time, I'd support such a merge. --IJBall (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello IJBall, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Istanbul Metro stations, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Topkapı, Menderes and Maltepe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Chicago 'L'

this is the official website of cta http://www.transitchicago.com/riding_cta/service_overview.aspx Jasstew January 17, 2015‎

Hello, system and check the links are totally different there's a track length of 224.1 mi.² for the Chicago CTA and is the second largest transit system in the nation please refer to your own sources and you will see! If you have any other questions please feel free to contact me or to do further research Jasstew February 15, 2015‎

Flag icons

Hi. I put a draft together, and I'd like to get your opinion on it before I go further with it. It's on my sandbox. Also, I'm not sure what the next step is, should I post it on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)? Please give any feedback on my sandbox talk page, that way I can keep all the discussions in one place. Thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly where is this consensus for the massive alterations to flags in articles? Chillum 21:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I found it on my own: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Icons#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes. It would help to mention that link in your edit summary. Chillum 22:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

From the discussions I saw at various locations (e.g. Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Icons was one), there were about a half a dozen editors from the Canadian city articles (though most may have been from Edmonton, I don't know...) who opposed the use of flag icons, and only two that supported them. The bigger issue to me is the inconsistency at Canada city articles where, as of approx. a month ago, many had them, and many did not – as of now, Edmonton and a few others still don't have them. My suggestion is that this should get hashed out, once and for all, at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Canadian communities so that a consensus solution is applied across all Canadian city articles, regardless of the outcome reached.

Regardless, though, fights like these will continue thanks to the utter wretcheness of the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG policy which thanks to opposition to reforming it should now instead just be utterly eliminated, as it is a worthless guideline/policy in its present form IMO. --IJBall (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate the need for consistency and know just how contentious finding a single way of doing something can be. Good luck. Chillum 22:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Feb 2015

Having done a 3RR since two hours is still doing a 3RR! Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know you have. I, OTOH, did one edit (to restore the previous pre-January 30 consensus at Kitchener, Ontario), and one revert (which is not in the same ballpark as your 3RR). Regardless, you have already gotten blocked once for behavior like this. It would behoove you to dial it down before if gets you in to trouble. Consider this my last bit of constructive advice on this topic to you. --IJBall (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I advise you both equally to head warnings of edit warring violation. I am personally involved in the content dispute to some degree and will not be taking any action. However another admin will not hesitate to block either of you if this continues. I am leaving this message on both of your talk pages. Chillum 22:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm done on this, don't worry. --IJBall (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Los Angeles Metro --> "Placard View" is the point of the pictures_"Placard_View"_is_the_point_of_the_pictures-2015-02-18T00:37:00.000Z">

It may seem unusual of course to call the pictures I put up as "Placard View", but take note: The pictures were not meant to show anything based of the platform. The pictures main point is the placard. As a result, naming them as "Platform View" may seem compatible, but if you take a look into Gold Line sections of Pico/Aliso Station and the region from Atlantic Station to Maravilla Station, the signs I put them up as (which is the ONLY sign they actually have) is not Platform View; they are signs standing out of a pole located in a reachable distance; they are nothing to do with the platform. But putting this as an issue, if we do not uniformly name the main placard images the same for all the stations, there would be issues of disorganization (even if you may disagree, I'd agree). As a user, I believe uniformity is a must for metro station pages. Naming them all as platform view wouldn't be correct because certain sections clearly has placard images only. If we name "Placard View" for all the LA Metro pages instead, it would work because all the images would signify what it actually represent of: Placards, not platforms. Therefore, I believe the word "Platform View" is illegitimate. I strongly recommend to revert the names back, or rename the station images with a legit name such as "Placard Sign of the Station". HanSangYoon (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)_"Placard_View"_is_the_point_of_the_pictures"> _"Placard_View"_is_the_point_of_the_pictures">

Two things – first, Secondarywaltz is correct: these aren't called "placards"; second, my advice would be to make all of the Infobox images uniform across all of the L.A. Metro station articles so that they all are actually "platform views" (that include the station's signage) images. But the point remains: "Placard view" is an incorrect caption for these images, as the station signs aren't called "placards". --IJBall (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You have ignored my point completely. I repeat my stance that platform view is an illegitamate way to describe these photos. SecondaryWaltz is actually (and for now, I'll add that's its my opinion) that it is false. What does placard mean? "A sign of notice, as one posted Ina public place OR carried by a demonstrater or picketer." (YBM SISA Dictionary). Now what does a platform mean? "A horizontal surface, or a structure of a horizontal surface squally raised above the level of a surrounding area." (YBM SISA Dictionary) Then you add this fact: What was the point of the pictures with the placards in the middle? Placards, not platforms. Therefore, I hereby say Platform View is the wrong way to describe these photos. It's logic. HanSangYoon (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

All I can tell you is that Misplaced Pages is governed by Consensus, and you now have two editors that disagree with your interpretation. You can continue ignore what we're saying, and continue to go down the path your on, but I don't think it'll go well for you.

On my end, I reiterate that my preference would be for these Infobox station images for the L.A. Metro station articles to all be platform views that include the station signage in the images. --IJBall (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So you think that going in a favorable reason is superior to a reasonable and a logical reason...that really questions me of how you edit these Misplaced Pages articles by going with favorism. It does not matter if you personally like it or not. It does not matter if pluralistic forms of people like it or not. What matters is rules. What matters is logic. In Misplaced Pages, nothing goes by favorism, particularly an article in public exhibition. If you believe there is reason that could properly counter my logic of the definition of placards and platforms, go ahead and write it out. But it seems you don't have one. I will wait for a reasonable response, and if it fails, I will revert the edits all as a defense to logical terms of placard views. If this issue severes, I do not care if this is going to get any worse for you or me, but I am willing to take this to the next level by bringing in officials of Misplaced Pages. HanSangYoon (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. My discussions with you on this are done. --IJBall (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Busan Metro Line 1

Due to circumstances that you are aware of I can't help fix the problems with Template:Busan Subway Line 1, that HanSangYoon recently created. Since you have an interest in rapid transit, I thought you might have a look at it. I understand if you would no touch it either. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

First, an admission: I'm "OK" with templates (I can usually "fiddle" with them...), but I'm certainly no expert! – so it's possible I won't know "how" to do what you need. But, with that said - what exactly is wrong with the Busan Line template, and what needs to be done (I'm pretty sure I know...) to fix it? With your instructions, I can try to fix it!... --IJBall (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

OK I will leave this alone. I don't want to muddy the waters. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I have removed the route map in question from Busan Metro Line 1 as it was taking up too much of the page's area. --IJBall (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Swarm 21:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI Closure

Closure looks fine to me from one non-admin closer to another. Amortias (T)(C) 22:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! I appreciate the comforting note! --IJBall (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Minor changes in legislature diagrams

Hi. Thanks for keeping the info box up to date. Please when there is a small change to a legislature don't hide the diagram right away but contact the person who made it or the last person who edited it so they can make a new one and wait a few days before hiding it. It is impossible to keep track of 99 different pages and these diagrams and it is easier to tweak the file than have to make manual edits and then look up the right data and then enter it all over again in the info box. You can also update the diagram yourself using this tool if you are interested. Thanks Shabidoo | Talk 05:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Which article is this in reference to? I remember hiding one or two of those, but I thought I quickly unhid them... But, then again, at one of the state legislature pages, I did see one of those was just plain incorrect, so I think I did hide that one as comment code. Good point about contacting the author... I probably should have done that, but I think I didn't think of it. --IJBall (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no policy or even rough guideline so what you did was totally correct. It's just if there is only one or two seat changes (often a vacancy) it's not imperative that it is immediately hidden and those who upload the diagrams aren't able to constantly monitor all changes so a contact certainly helps. Cheers! Shabidoo | Talk 05:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My recollection is that the one I hid wasn't just missing a vacancy or something – IIRC, it actually had the wrong total number of seats of that state legislature!! But this must have happened a month or two back, and I'm having trouble remembering exactly which article it was, so I can't be sure of the details. I'll keep looking though, to figure out exactly what I did (and why...). --IJBall (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Found it!! (diff) It was at the Missouri House of Representatives article, and the problem was that the diagram listed "161 seats" when there are actually 163 seats in the Missouri House. I will remember to look for the author (in this case, you!) next time, and contact them directly if I find something like this again! Sorry about that! And thanks for contacting me! --IJBall (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. That is a very big error and it definitely should have been hidden. Thanks for catching that! Shabidoo | Talk 05:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Level crossing accidents CFD

As the last participant in the Category:Level crossing accidents in the United States CFD, I suggested that it be renamed to Category:Railroad crossing accidents in the United States instead of the proposed Category:Grade crossing accidents in the United States. An admin closed the proposal as "move to Grade crossing...", but he also noted that another CFD regarding my proposal would be a valid option, so I've nominated Grade crossing accidents in the USA for renaming to Railroad crossing accidents in the USA. Please visit Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 5 and offer your opinion, if you have one. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for closure

Hi, many thanks for this. I didn't know if I would have been allowed to perform that task (and I don't know the shortcuts/templates anyway) for two reasons, one was that I am not an admin but I believe you have cleared this up and I now know that non-admins can close discussions; the other thing was that I was party to the discussion and still technically in line to be questioned. Not to worry, all water off a duck's back now! --!BSGT! (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

!BSGT! – yes, in general, it is considered "bad form" to close topics you've started or have significantly commented on. But you can certainly request that other editors close for such topics for you, and even non-Admin editors would certainly be willing to comply with that request most of the time! --IJBall (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you take a look at a suggestion of mine?

I think you have good informed opinions on how we should cover rapid transit. Can I ask you to take a look at this comment of mine?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Geo Swan, I'm not sure I can offer much help on this – I think my preference would be to defer to editors who are more familiar with the Toronto system (like Secondarywaltz) and their suggestions for improving that article. My one comment would be that I definitely think two articles may be in order here: one article for the current Scarborough RT, and (a spinoff?) article for the planned extension of the Toronto Subway that is the planned replacement for it. But I don't think I can't offer much help on your other suggestions there. --IJBall (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your prompt reply. Geo Swan (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Please explain

• Exactly why you added my signature here? I did not close that thread. User:TheMagikCow did. Please be more careful in future. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Luke, I apologize – I checked the page history, and I could have sworn that I thought you closed that one when I checked (I must have looked at the wrong diff). Please feel free to make whatever changes there are necessary. --IJBall (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• I did close a similar thread lower down - but it was definitely a different one. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for fixing that. I guess the moral of the story is that all of us need to make sure that we include our signatures when we close these threads down, so there's no confusion! --IJBall (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I've left a message on TheMagikCow's Talk page about this, in case TheMagikCow wants to follow up on this on their end. Again, sorry about this!! --IJBall (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Pleasure...

...working with you. Cheers, and enjoy exploring the Archive and its possibilities!  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And a big "Thank you!" to you too, Mr.choppers! (And I did check the Archive for that Buick China page, but I thought that I found no archive entries for it! Oh well...) --IJBall (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It was weird - I had the same situation, but then I tried a different path and one appeared. Some kind of glitch, methinks. Once I went to one of the bad (2014) pages, other dates which had hitherto been unavailable we're shown in the little grid display at the top of the page. Cheers again,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

U.S. House Election Edits

I wish to contest the edits, but at the same time I don't want to go against Misplaced Pages policy should that be the case; following that track of thought, I was curious if you knew where such a discussion could be held about possible revisions to the policy, as for me nothing comes to mind other than possibly putting out a call for people to congregate on the talk page of one of the election articles randomly. --Ariostos (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ariostos, this is a really good question. There are a couple of ways to have a discussion about this. One approach would be to, as you say, pick the U.S. House elections article that's the first one that had the edits you're interested in, go to that Talk page, and then leave Talk page notice messages at the Talk pages of some of the people who should probably be involved in this discussion (off the top of my head, I'd suggest at least the following: GoldRingChip, Deturtlemon1, Themane2, and anyone else who you can think of who is relevant) and letting them know that this discussion is happening at "U.S. House elections XXXX" Talk page. The other approach would be to go the "WikiProject" route – e.g. Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress (there's no WikiProject for U.S. Elections, unfortunately...), and post your message there (while still leaving Talk page notices with the same people I mentioned above).

On my end, I have two concerns on this issue: 1) I feel like including the "seats_before" in the Infobox is throwing too much information at people in the Infobox, and I feel that the "election" numbers and "seats_before" numbers would go better in table form (and perhaps better at the corresponding "Congress" article – e.g. 42nd United States Congress – than at the actual election pages (and, indeed, it looks like such information is often already contained at these XXxx United States Congress articles)); and, 2) sourcing is going to be needed for these "seats_before" figures, and sourcing all of these figures could end up being a real chore... But, in any case, it's certainly worth it to try and encourage a discussion on this issue, so please feel free to start one! --IJBall (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Howdy

Why did you close my thread on ANI? just because i was blocked doesnt mean the issues disappear. Zekenyan (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)