User talk:NoSeptember/archives/politics (American)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Return to the NoSeptember: |
Topical archives index | Talk page |
[edit] Re: Links to previous and next Senate elections.
You know, I think the links to next and previous elections were there before the template was created, and I never took them out when I cut-and-pasted to create more articles.
I would agree that they are duplicative; I think the template is far easier to navigate with, so the duplicate lines can probably go. (although the cross-links to House and Presidential elections should probably stay) Willhsmit 19:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Related talk: here
[edit] Political composition of courts
On my talk page you wrote:
- I am putting together something on the "political composition" of circuit courts since there seems to be some interest in that. User:NoSeptember/Federal judge appointment history Before I get too far, I would appreciate any comments or suggestions you may have. NoSeptember (talk) 14:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My comments: I like the concept, but I worry that our circuit court pages are too cluttered, especially since we started putting in the succession histories. Further, the number of justices appointed by each president, while necessary for a complete historical record, is frankly not that relevant to the history of the court and the current political and legal composition of the court. For instance, you'd be hard pressed to guess, if you didn't know already, that John Paul Stevens was a Ford appointee. There have been some good attempts at consolidating the succession charts into a 2-dimensional diagram that could let the reader see how the court was aligned in any given year. But this would be a mammoth use of space, especially for the 9th Circuit and other big courts, and I'm not sure how we could pull such a thing off without losing the reader entirely. If there is such a solution, your data points would fit in nicely. I don't see a place for it in the current scheme, however. --Saucy Intruder 19:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Re Federal judicial appointment history: Here's what I would suggest. Consolidate the "appointed by each president" chart with the "appointed by Democrats/Republicans" chart, in order to save space. Remove the chart with percentages, as it is redundant (discrete values that are this low can be adequately illustrated without using percentages). Include the Supreme Court chart on the Supreme Court of the United States page (consolidated as above). Include the "United States Court of Appeals Summary" charts (consolidated, as above) on the United States Courts of Appeals page. I don't think it's necessary or informative to have charts for the individual circuits, unless there is a discussion of political biases or controversies within a particular circuit court (i.e. 4th or 9th). The political makeup of each court can be easily deduced from the chart containing the current and former judges on a particular court. --Saucy Intruder 20:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] R.e.: Constitution in exile
Thanks for the heads-up. I hadn't seen this article; I don't think that it needs to be merged, as I think it bears having its own page. However, it could probably do with some polish and some back-and-forth linkage to related topics (e.g. Originalism, The Living Constitution, Randy Barnett, Cass Sunstein, etc.Simon Dodd 18:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Related talk: here
[edit] Robert C. Smith
Do you mean Robert C. Smith? I can't find any evidence that he ran for president in 2000. Do you know if he did? Someone added him (or another Bob Smith) to U.S. presidential election, 2000 but I couldn't find any evidence. - Tεxτurε 22:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have updated U.S. presidential election, 2000 to reflect this information. - Tεxτurε 14:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Related talk: here
[edit] Lists (Potuslists)
Better? Template:Potuslists jengod 19:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Related talk: here
[edit] The battle for confirmation to the Supreme Court
[edit] U.S. presidential elections PV
Hi:
I've started a discussion topic on Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2004#PV Standards about the standards for the results tables in the various U.S. presidential elections, yyyy articles and I'm looking for any intelligent feedback I can get. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind taking a look?
Thanks for any help you can give,
— DLJessup (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Per NoSeptember Appreciation Month <g>, I just wanted to say thanks for your contributions to the above discussion topic and also for all your work on the U.S. Court of Appeals articles.
[edit] Template:US house elections
Thank you for your correction regarding Template:US house elections. You are right, the notice boxes do belong only on the talk page. I'm glad you caught my mistake. Cheers!! --Markles 21:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Related talk: here
[edit] U.S. presidential election, 2000
Related talk: here
[edit] William R. King
[edit] 109th United States Congress
I'm not sure about the changes you've made today. The article on the 109th Congress, although the current congress, is meant to be a historical article. Thus, I think it ought to be in ascending chronological order. This is a very small picky point, however, so it's okay with me if nobody else minds. Cheers!! —Mark Adler (markles) 02:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- discussion moved to Talk:109th United States Congress
[edit] presidents
Wow, ok. I didn't realize it had been made into an article. I just saw your name and read on of your subpages on a whim. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:29, Jan. 7, 2006
[edit] Thanks and discussion
Hello, thanks for your words of encouragement. My attempts to add what I consider relevant, useful information to the Template:Infobox Senator has been met with opposition. I have put forth my argument at Template talk:Infobox Senator. Perhaps you would like to contribute to the discussion? Potatoe 03:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Related talk: here
[edit] map (Partisan mix of congressional delegations)
(reply to commons comment) thanks but doesnt Partisan mix of congressional delegations already have a map? -- Astrokey44|talk 01:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- ok Ive had a go with it - Image:109th US congress house of reps.PNG. tell me if thats ok because this is all very confusing to me! -- Astrokey44|talk 10:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- thanks alot!, its something fun to do :) I'll keep a lookout at the featured article candidates. -- Astrokey44|talk 23:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
