Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Congressional districts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 This article was a Collaboration of the Week for WikiProject U.S. Congress from Nov. 20-Dec. 31, 2006. |
[edit] Suggestions
- "Military"? Since when does my congressional district have it's own military? :P
- "Evolution of geographic setting". The name of this heading is a bit awkward. What about "Historical boundaries" or "History of district boundaries"? Kaldari 23:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed--G1076 02:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think listing elections from latest to earliest would be more useful, especially if elections go back a long way. The most recent election is the most germane. Sprkee 00:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- "Germane" to what? Some researchers want early history, some want current events. Who's to say? —Markles 00:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am just imagining a district that stretches back to the 1700s, and my thought is that most readers would be more interested in more recent election results. The data is all there, in order, for everyone, but is organized in way that is most accessible. Also, since many districts may not provide results back to the very beginning, it may be more logical to start with one endpoint--the latest results--than to start at a random point where the editor decided to start, or was able to find results. Just my two cents. - Sprkee 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Practically speaking, if editors are able to collect the election data back to the 1700s, then the page will be too big and the election results will have to be split out to a separate article. I would imagine that the the most recent elections would remain on the congressional district article page with a main article link to Foo's 1st congressional district election results article.--G1076 02:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. On the Tennessee's 5th congressional district article we specificly label the section "Recent election results" as I really wouldn't want to list all 32 elections. I could see a sub-article though if someone really felt like listing all of them. Kaldari 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds fine to me. Perhaps we want to title the boilerplate section Recent election results, as you have done in that article. Also, to my original point, that article lists the most recent election first, whereas this boilerplate suggests listing the oldest first. Is there a consensus on the order in which to list the elections? - Sprkee 19:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. On the Tennessee's 5th congressional district article we specificly label the section "Recent election results" as I really wouldn't want to list all 32 elections. I could see a sub-article though if someone really felt like listing all of them. Kaldari 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Practically speaking, if editors are able to collect the election data back to the 1700s, then the page will be too big and the election results will have to be split out to a separate article. I would imagine that the the most recent elections would remain on the congressional district article page with a main article link to Foo's 1st congressional district election results article.--G1076 02:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am just imagining a district that stretches back to the 1700s, and my thought is that most readers would be more interested in more recent election results. The data is all there, in order, for everyone, but is organized in way that is most accessible. Also, since many districts may not provide results back to the very beginning, it may be more logical to start with one endpoint--the latest results--than to start at a random point where the editor decided to start, or was able to find results. Just my two cents. - Sprkee 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- "Germane" to what? Some researchers want early history, some want current events. Who's to say? —Markles 00:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind changing the section title to Recent election results, but I do think that the order of elections should remain oldest to newest. It is consistent with the order of the list of representative that we have in the section above it and how we have generally been ordering tables throughout the project.--G1076 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. Thanks for the discussion. - Sprkee 20:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
