Talk:1788–89 United States House of Representatives elections

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) event(s).

On 19 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from 1788 and 1789 United States House of Representatives elections to 1788–89 United States House of Representatives elections. The result of the discussion was moved.

North Carolina

I see that you have 2 pro-Administration and 3 anti-Administration from NC. But Congress calls John Sevier Pro-Administration, and so were John Steele (North Carolina politician) and Hugh Williamson. John Baptista Ashe and Timothy Bloodworth were both anti. Awbeal 14:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was relying on the party labels used in the 1st United States Congress article. The book I was mostly following labels Ashe and Bloodworth as anti-federalists and Williamson, Steele and Sevier as federalists. I see the difficulty is with Williamson, who is described as a federalist by Dubin and the Congressional Biographical Directory but as anti-Administration in the other article. There is some discussion of parties in the Talk page for the 1st US Congress article. I am not sure where the party information used in that article comes from, but presumably the different articles should agree. --Gary J 20:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubin disagrees quite a few times on the party affiliations in different states. Also, in Virginia 7th. he gives Spencer Roane 46 votes, Merriwether Smith 44 votes, scattering 3 votes, and declares Spencer Roane the winner (based on incomplete returns from Essex, Lancaster and Westmoreland counties only) Rmallett (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut results

Do anyone knows what are the results in Connecticut? If yes, could you put the in the wiki page pls?
Julio974 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. per discussion consensus and MOS:DATERANGE and WP:CONSISTENCY. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– I get that this was when these U.S. congressional elections spanned two calendar years, but we should at least use the standard MOS:DATERANGE two-digit ending years format. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.

Ortizesp (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I'm not sure MOS:DATERANGE applies here because it's not a case of election cycles that span the two years (i.e., primaries in 1902 and general elections in 1903), which would be a range, but a case of the elections for seats in the House and Senate, some of which are held in 1902 and others in 1903, which would be two groups of things that happen to be in sequential years. Beyond that, the default under MOS:DATERANGE is YYYY–YYYY. YYYY–YY is permitted in some instances (including two sequential years), but as an exception, not a requirement. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either some MOS:DATERANGE format like YYYY–YYYY or YYYY–YY, or rename the pages with an ordinal number like 58th United States Senate elections or United States Senate elections to the 58th United States Congress. This was a period when each state decided its own separate date for its congressional elections, whether in the even-numbered year before and in the odd-numbered year when a Congress convened. And since sessions like the 58th United States Congress use to begin in March of the odd-numbered year, it left states plenty of time to wait until January to hold their elections. So it was not really "two groups of things that happen to be in sequential years" per se, but one series of elections that spanned two sequential years to elect a specific meeting of Congress. The modern congressional election cycle with every regular election on a single even-numbered year did not occur for the House until 1880, and did not happen for the Senate until after 1913. Therefore a MOS:DATERANGE format should be appropriate here like 2022–23 NBA season. The ordinal number suggestion popped into my head because I am reminded of the Academy Awards articles, like for example the 94th Academy Awards where the ceremony held in 2022 honors films released in 2021. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support changing the page name to a YYYY–YY format but an ordinal might be preferable. I would add that per your comment, each article should make very clear in the introductory paragraph that they were elections to the XXth Senate or Congress to clarify and avoid confusion. Something like "Elections to the XXth United States Senate were held throughout YYYY and YYYY. Prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution, United States Senators were elected by a resolution of their respective state legislature at a date of their choosing." Especially as we add maps to these articles (kudos to Richard Kickem), it becomes necessary to note that the articles are delineated by the Congress, not quite by year. For example, Hernando Money was elected to the 62nd United States Congress in 1908 due to an early resolution of the Mississippi legislature, but that Congress did not actually happen until 1911; his election is rightly listed with the 1910 and 1911 United States Senate elections. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely support replacing the "and" with an endash and don't really care either way whether it's 1912–13 or 1912–1913. Cheers, Number 5 7 20:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 1788–89 United States House of Representatives elections per nom. I definitely prefer a two-digit second year XXXX–XX where it's a pair of consecutive years, rather than XXXX–XXXX, and the MOS permits it. — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the 1974–75 U.S. Senate elections in New Hampshire. As with the Georgia elections of 2020–21. ApprenticeWiki ^contribs 01:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.