User talk:BenDavis72

Hello, Benawu2, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Cardiganshire by-election, 1893, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. In answer to your question regarding the revert of your edit, the Wikipedia Manual of Style generally recommends avoiding capitalisation except in circumstances like proper nouns and titles of works. Specifically, WP:HEADERS which advises using sentence case for table captions and headers, and MOS:HEADCAPS which says similar for section headings and article titles. The main reason though is that there are thousands of election result tables which use these conventions for capitalisation and linking, and to change one makes it inconsistent with the others. Hope that suffices as an explanation... --Canley (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, so they do! I haven't done a lot of UK election work, so I never noticed that. They don't do it in the US either. Just one of these regional quirks I suppose... as long they're consistent I guess. Thanks for understanding! --Canley (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I love what you're doing with the congressional districts! Thanks for, among many other things, putting election results in chronological order. I've made some formatting additions here… what do you think?

Ok so let me go through them one by one.

• My responses follow each. I suggest you look at some other district articles I've tweaked for comparison. —GoldRingChip 12:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) Should be representative at top of member table not member.

• It's a debatable point if the person is a representative or a member. Could go either way, I guess. I like "member" (meaning member of the House of Representatives), but on Wikipedia it seems to fluctuate both ways, as it does in real life. —GRC

2) Removing 165px from counties column - looks better your way so that's a tick.

• On some articles, however, the column is just "location" not "county" and they get unweildy. Perhaps that's a good argument for putting in some width limit. —GRC
• OK - Benawu2 (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3) Removing some spaces and adding some full stops - yep all good

• OK —GRC

4) Barry Goldwater picture - yeh it looks better sized as per the others

• OK —GRC

5) Barry Goldwater electoral history column. I can see what you were trying to do but it leaves it a bit vague as to when the boundaries changed so my way is better i think.

• Yeah, I can go either way. Your way does clarify the vagueness. I was worried, when I did this in other articles, that it was just too much, however. But your way is fine. —GRC
• OK - Benawu2 (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6) Change to incumbent designation - yours makes sense, much more sense tbh.

• OK —GRC

7) Running for Senate vs running for Senator - I just prefer it my way as it is the office not the person.

• The office is "Senator." The chamber is "Senate." As in "run for Governor" or "run for President." —GRC
• OK - Benawu2 (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

8) Elected to finish Reinecke's term vs elected in special election - prefer special election as it is more consistent with other years elections.

• Elected to finish XX's term is always a special election, right? Therefore "in a special election" is kind of redundant. Maybe we need to flesh this out more, though, I'm not sure. —GRC
• Have edited to include both.

9) addition of "in california" to each election box. I like your way much better.

• OK —GRC

11) removal of turnout row from election boxes. - yep i likee your changee :)

• Well, I'm loathe to remove blank data because it discourages others from adding/correcting. —GRC
• Can see how you have done it (exclude not delete). * OK - Benawu2 (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12) election year at start not end i.e. 1960 United States House of Representatives elections in California vs United States House of Representatives elections, 1960 - I like your way better honestly I do but the election box template is my way. Alas.

• Election year at start is a relatively recent standard changed Wikipedia-wide (changed circa December 2018). However, it doesn't need to look like that in the election boxes, so you can put in a piped link if that's what you're thinking. —GRC
• Will change to election year at start.

So I won't revert your edit but will re-edit with most of but not all your changes left intact. Before I do let me know your thoughts please. Oh and my latest edit was a typo i found (my typo not yours.)

• Do as you will. —GoldRingChip 12:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Benawu2 (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at what I have done at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_27th_congressional_district. Think it sorts it all out. Benawu2 (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What I see is:

1. Reduced image size to 75px from 100px

# Left it as you edited it.

1. Added nowrap to members but retained the line-break

# Left it as you edited it.

1. Retained the old link style of "Election, Year" instead of "Year, Election"

# No it is Year, Election in California as per your edits.

1. Split terms and Congresses at redistricting points; and

# Yes

1. Changed "[[XXX|run for office]]" to "run for [[XXX|office]]"

# Yes

• Right? —GoldRingChip 14:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No lol. The better comparison is : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California%27s_27th_congressional_district&type=revision&diff=893245330&oldid=890908554

which is the edit immediately before your first to the most recent one of mine. Picks up the unlinking of "Incumbent", the new style of year; election in California, running for US Senator not Senate,hides turnout change box etc. Have a look at the page itself (not the edit history) and let me know your thoughts. Alternatively this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California%27s_48th_congressional_district&type=revision&diff=893371529&oldid=891960050 sets out the changes as per our discussions. Benawu2 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks great! I just made small formatting changes. (Next time, just use {{ping}} to get my attention to your talk page.) —GoldRingChip 13:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check out these minor changes I made to California's 32nd congressional district here. You can see what I did in the edit summary. But I forgot to mention there that I also replaced hyphens in dates with n-dashes; sorry. Keep up the fantastic job!!!!!!!!! —GoldRingChip 12:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldRingChip:

• 1) Representative to member is fine.
• 2) Special election in electoral history column - prefer my way - i.e. "Elected in 2001 Special Election to finish Dixon's term."
• 3) Unbolding redistricted is fine.

The rest is fine. Benawu2 (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 2) Then you have the link twice. There's no reason to put it in the vacancy unless the vacancy itself is caused by an election that was, maybe, disqualified? And you don't need to say when the special election was because it's plain from the member's start date… unless somehow they didn't get to start until a different date (maybe because of qualification).

So, for example, in Delaware's at-large congressional district#List of members representing the district, in 1805 Broom was elected October 1, 1805 to finish Bayard's term and seated December 2, 1805. In that case, we need to write it all out.

To keep tables lean and legible, include only what is needed and avoid excessive information. Greater discussions can be included in the narrative or a footnote.

What do you think? —GoldRingChip 14:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldRingChip: Ok will change it. Please no more changes :) Benawu2 (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC) And done. So all districts from 27-53 should be up to date and completed. When I get time I will keep working down. Roll on CA-26. Benawu2 (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Lists of living former members. —GoldRingChip 14:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:CAPFRAG prior to reverting edits following the guidelines. Ponydepression (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pony. So I am a bit confused, Not sure how whether a title in an info box is bolded offends the CAPFRAG guidelines? Before i reverted your second edit (first is ok, pattern should be discussed) I should have contacted you. Apologies. It looks better IMHO bolded and all of the other US Congressional District pages i checked (only a few) are the same way. So what am I missing or mistaken in? I assume you don't use your talk page? Benawu2 (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the vandalized entry at California's 28th congressional district really have been deleted? Shouldn't it be merely reverted? —GoldRingChip 14:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh I agree with you but I only reverted it. Benawu2 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh! Someone deleted it, and I thought it was you. I'll fix it, then. —GoldRingChip 20:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake, then. It was User:El C. —GoldRingChip 20:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I don’t have those super powers. Benawu2 (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my edit of your work. —GoldRingChip 22:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC) That's fine Benawu2 (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Benawu2

Thank you for creating 1979 Cardiff City Council election.

User:Elliot321, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Please consider adding an elections infobox.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Elliot321}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 12th district NY doesn't have up to date election results from 2012 Todd4069 (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh I noticed that. I haven't done any editing on NY Congressional Districts other than chasing the occasional troll. Benawu2 (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at other seats (Richmond Park as an example), and found that there is a statement of a change - Richmond Park had a by-election in 2016, and flipped from Con to LD, and then at the 2017 General Election went from LD to Con. This is indicated on the page for the constituency. Fundamentally, if the policy on Wikipedia is to ignore the results of by-elections, then that is confusing and provides bad information. Hammersfan (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benawu2! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Newham London Borough Council that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. This has consequences, as we see here. In changing only some factual information, you left discrepancies. The infobox now shows Administration (58) comprising Labour (59), and Other (2) comprising Independent (1), and the graphic shows 58:1:1. Anyone checking recent changes or reviewing a watchlist by ignoring minor edits or otherwise trusting your marking of edits as minor would miss that. NebY (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• fair point will circle back Benawu2 (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you circled back, you made one factual change, left two discrepancies as above, and once again marked that factual change as a minor edit.[1] NebY (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not my best circle work. Fixed now although I wish I knew how to edit or replace the image i had to remove. Benawu2 (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Recently, clicking on other such images, I found one had been generated and uploaded too using this tool. Maybe they all are. I haven't tried it yet. It may be more use to you than me, as you do more edits concerning elections and suchlike, so would you like to try it out there? NebY (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooohhhh thanks for the steer. Will have a play.Benawu2 (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And done! Benawu2 (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good - hoped you'd like that! NebY (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Benawu2. Thank you for creating 1897 East Denbighshire by-election. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 20:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Benawu2. Thank you for creating 1886 Flintshire by-election. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 20:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Benawu2. Thank you for creating 1880 Caernarvonshire by-election. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benawu2

Why did you do this edit[2]? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a marker to remind myself to edit the page when i have time. Benawu2 (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you mentioned UK constituencies, here's an example of an imo excellent section from such a seat "The boundaries of the constituency correspond broadly with the ancient counties of Brecknockshire and Radnorshire. Radnorshire is included in full, and the only significantly populated area from Brecknockshire not in this constituency is Brynmawr, which is in Blaenau Gwent. This is the largest constituency in England and Wales by area. No town in the constituency exceeds a population of 10,000, the largest being Ystradgynlais at roughly 9,000. Other towns in the constituency are Brecon, Knighton, Crickhowell and Llandrindod Wells. The remainder of the constituency is largely made up of small villages and land used for farming sheep: sheep outnumber humans in Powys as a whole by around ten to one." (Seat of Brecon and Radnorshire, DID not edit it myself) I will emphasize the word "broadly", in UK seats, we never put such excruciatingly detailed lists of boundaries, if someone really cares, they can use the sources to retrieve that information (even better, put a link to the reference for the boundary in the "further reading" section or leave it in the sources). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example "The seat covers central Sheffield and extends as far as Nether Edge and the Manor. It covers a similar area to the former Sheffield Park seat. It borders Sheffield Hallam, Sheffield Heeley, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough and Sheffield South East."(Seat of Sheffield central, DID not edit it myself)

Here's another example, this one closer to home, "The riding, north of the city of Sherbrooke, straddles the Quebec regions of Centre-du-Québec and Estrie. It consists of the Regional County Municipalities (RCM) of Les Sources and Arthabaska and the centre of the RCM of Le Val-Saint-François. It includes in particular the towns of Victoriaville and Val-des-Sources. The neighbouring ridings are Drummond, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, Mégantic—L'Érable, Compton—Stanstead, Sherbrooke, Brome—Missisquoi, and Shefford."(Seat of Richmond-Athabaska, Canada ,DID not edit it myself)

Note that in all of these instances, towns that make up the seat are all detailed (in Canada we go a wee step above and include a compact list of every census subdivision, but thats because we're cooler than 'em Americans). In all instances, neighbouring seats are detailed, but exact boundaries, street by street, are never given. Now this principle is followed for every UK parliamentary seat (650), every Canadian seat (338) and every provincial and devolved parliament for those two countries (hundreds of additional seats). In other words we have over a thousand seats following one precedent vs SOME (but not all) of 435 us seats using that weird street by street format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.33.254 (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am Australian. Them Mericans are cray cray when it comes to redistricting even in states like California where there is an independent redistricting commission. Out of all the countries where boundaries are periodically redrawn it makes more sense to put more detail in the US pages given how redistricting is weaponised. Benawu2 (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll admit US seats DO have a tendency to be needlessly strange, but I still feel like this kind of information doesn't speak to the reader. If by comparison we were to tell them "CA-47 is composed of x, y and z neighbourhoods", they would have a better sense of what it means than "CA-47's boundaries are defined by a street, b street, c avenue, d airfield, f avenue, highway # 2.7182818284...". One of these descriptions gives you maybe half a dozen places you can look up so as to get a sense of scale and shape and location, the other gives you an endless list of Google maps searches. I don't know which you would prefer, but I know which one I prefer. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, while I will agree that gerrymandering makes strange shapes, I'll have you know that even in fair mapmaking, the shapes are sometimes odd (see Churchill-Kewatinook-Aski in Canada for an example). In addition, city-based constituencies/ridings will often be just as unusual as US seats (take a look at the UK map and look at York or Sheffield, they have some unusual shapes). What I'm trying to say is that despite the weirdness of US seats, we shouldn't be including the exact list of EVERY SINGLE DAMN STREET that borders the districts, or else we'll end up with very long, pointless lists. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point to a point. The problem is that in the US constituency boundaries are sometimes as narrow as an alleyway or over open water etc hence the relevance of the granular detail. Benawu2 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Walking Dead (franchise), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thorpe.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Benawu2. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Australian Workers Union, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 22:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mako,

Thanks for pointing this out. I should have realised that it was a potential conflict of interest. I am not paid to edit by the way but yes I am an elected official of the union. So I will refrain from editing the page until I am no longer an employee/elected official.

Appreciate the heads up.

Benawu2 (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can I suggest you not make edits such as this one? Such edits only serve to clutter the page history without making any sort of improvement whatsoever. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

replied on the noticeboard Benawu2 (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links do not belong in the body of an article except as refs. I've moved the two that you restored to the article's External links section. Please do not place them back in the body again. See WP:EL. Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok fair point.

Benawu2 (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, I don't think any of the other election articles should have these large images either. They don't actually convey any information or clarify anything. I'd rather just remove them on every article. And I don't see why this is something that absolutely has to be consistent across every article of this type.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 01:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i think this falls into the category of if it ain't broke don't fix it to be honest.

Having them there does no harm.

Benawu2 (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a good philosophy. Wikipedia isn't just a collection of things, everything should have some benefit to the article. The large text doesn't add any information or make the article clearer or easier to navigate. Why should you be the one to decide it has to stay when other people remove it?  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 22:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 - I believe that the logos are better than nothing there. Thus they add to the article.

2 - I am defending the approach taken on previous election pages, i.e. consistency.

3 - Why do you have any more right to determine what should be there than me? At least i am advocating for what was already there?

Benawu2 (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have that right either of course, which is why i'm discussing it with you now and not re-removing it myself. But can you explain to me why and how it's better than nothing?  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that visually having something in the election summary box is better than nothing. Maybe i should and find a photo of Darren Rodwell to put in there instead. That would resolve it?

It is completely a matter of individual taste i know. Benawu2 (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2006 California's 50th congressional district special election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Turner.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]