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 articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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.
It needs to be noted somewhere in the competitive districts section that NC's 13th Congressional district may be considered competitive. North Carolina redrew its congressional map earlier this year and the new district has not be assigned a Cook PVI yet, but from the new map makes it appear to be one of the most competitive districts in North Carolina. For reference, it contains the cities of Salisbury, Statesville and Winston Salem; all Democratic areas which will moderate the otherwise Republican tint of the district. Additionally, there is no incumbency advantage because no current Congressmen live in the district. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.178.167.197 (
talk)
04:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)reply
It was pretty clear to me that down arrow in front of the 30 meant that Republicans would lose the majority if they lost 30 or more seats.
Orser67 (
talk)
18:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Removing Real Clear Politics ratings?
After visiting Real Clear Politics's homepage following a revamp, it no longer has any sort links to ratings for elections, thus strongly implying that they will no longer be doing any sort of prognostication for future elections. Should RCP's section on ratings table be removed based on this?
Fuelsaver (
talk)
16:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Does this map take into account third party and independent candidates? What about write-in candidates? I don't expect any of those three categories of candidates to win a race in 2016, but I think the description of this map should clarify whether or not these kinds of candidates have been taken into account. I asked this question on the map's talk page question as well.
Orser67 (
talk)
19:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)reply
This map doesn't make sense to add right now. With all races having the opportunity to be contested with Write-In candidates, or independents, which are on different filing deadlines often, this could be false information and thus it should be removed. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TenderBlur (
talk •
contribs)
17:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Bad links and disambig pages
I want to ensure that we're not muddling the page with 'redlinks' since many of these candidates will not be relevant after the primary. However, there are many bad links on this page, it would be great to fix them together.
TenderBlur —Preceding
undated comment added
16:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Speaker is elected by full House, in January 2017.
I placed the term (Presumed) at the bottom of the infobox, above Paul Ryan's name. The Speaker isn't elected (or re-elected) until the full House votes, in January 2017.
GoodDay (
talk)
17:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)reply
map issue
a disjoint cartogram should be used: in the map you use, the tens of millions of people in LA NY etc are barely visible
this sort of map psychologically gives an edge to the party that holds the sparsely populated western states, which this year is the GOP — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
50.245.17.105 (
talk)
17:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)reply
But I understand the point raised here, but if a user wants this information, they can look further on in The California results for example
Macraesam17 (
talk)
08:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)reply
New member elected
Is it necessary to include this note for districts with new members? None of the other pages fore previous elections include it and the fact that the section already notes that the incumbents for this districts are retiring/defeated for reelection/not renominated already indicates that winner is a new member. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
147.126.81.6 (
talk)
19:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, suggest it is necessary to state the new member was elected. Otherwise the only statements are the Incumbent's action and the party change/hold in the seat. We're doing that in Senate articles and we should do it for house ones. Furthermore, if a specific article is every developed on that race, a link can be put there.—
GoldRingChip19:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)reply
MAP
What has happened to the colours of the map, why aren't they the same as the 2014, 2012, 2010 elections and before. They used to be and why have they changed?
Macraesam17 (
talk)
08:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
United States House of Representatives elections, 2016. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
Where do the numbers in the full results table come from?
The full results table varies significantly from the source (the current link is broken, but you can find it here:
[1]). See page 84 of the 2016 PDF. Even the figures for the minor parties are off. What gives? If we're presenting the results in a different way than the source, this needs to be explained. The only explanation given, "does not include blank and over/under votes", does not explain the discrepancies. --
J. E. C. E. (
talk)
15:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)reply
For a reference that's used multiple times, you can define it as <ref name="name">Content</ref> for the first time around and <ref name="name"/> for subsequent uses. For multiple consecutive refs, such as <ref name="1"/><ref name="2"/><ref name="3"/>, I believe you can use
Template:R instead, like so:
We've actually been fairly aggressive in reusing references (at least we were a couple years ago, I haven't checked back recently). I'll check with
WP:MINREF, but I'm not optimistic. And I'm not wild about splitting up an article which is, in itself, a summary of over-400 races. —
GoldRingChip01:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Even removing half of the references would still leave this article being very large. As far as I'm aware, it's only the US House of Representatives elections that list the individual results in the main article for each election.
Onetwothreeip (
talk)
02:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Looks good, given that the single edit removed more than three quarters of the article's size. You're welcome to try to reduce it further, but I think it's fine as it is now, and most list articles tend to be about as large. Thanks! –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs)
18:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Onetwothreeip: - You redirected another editor to the talk page to start a discussion revolving around the inclusion of the election results on the page. Personally, I think that not including them is absolutely ridiculous, and your "summary" format is inadequate, but you seem to think otherwise. Also, literally every other elections page includes it in the format, and so if you want to remove the results, you should do so for all of the other articles, instead of just this one. --
Politicsfan4 (
talk)
02:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)reply
This was a format developed in 2019 from a previous discussion on this talk page, with most of the work not being done by myself. My edits have only restored it to that format. It's certainly not true that every other election article includes the results of each legislative election of that year in the article, and that's very much unusual. This is something that is particular to the series of US House of Representatives election. I would support the other House of Representatives election articles to follow a similar format. It's important to note that the election results in total are still on this article, and the individual results are found in the sub-articles, which is typical of election articles on Wikipedia.
Onetwothreeip (
talk)
02:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Those articles are unusual in that they list the results on the same page. I can't think of any other national legislative election where this is standard for us. I do support changing the format of the articles you've linked.
Onetwothreeip (
talk)
21:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Okay I am little late to this conservation and it's kinda died but it is pretty informal to just put "TBA re-elected." Yes, it does shorten the page but can't we make it so we can at least see the losing candidates and or margins since if someone wants to quickly find a result for a district they will need to go to their respective pages. It might sound a little lazy but it is more quickly to just make this page go back to what it was before. All that I want is to just see margins and all the candidates instead of the informal and frankly boring "TBA re-elected" or "TBA retired, TBA elected".
Justarandomnamejake (
talk)
01:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)reply
As I said at the wikiproject talk, I often use these articles as a useful reference and I do not wish to always have to use the state-specific pages. Much of the length is formatting and citations that can be consolidated, and there was never any need to completely chop out the table formatting. I agree with Jake that this page should retain the candidates and results. While these are on the state pages, they also have details on votes, candidates, and primaries, and merely limiting this to who the incumbent is and who won is far too limited.
Reywas92Talk00:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Saving space...in the least efficient way possible
Not to dig up the past debate on whether the tables should've been kept or not, but dear lord the new formatting was written in the least efficient way possible. I've tried to restore some order by properly formatting the hatnotes (which saves data space) and using the USHR templates for districts (which again saves space), but honestly I'm not sure it's even worth it.--
Woko Sapien (
talk)
20:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Alabama section ("skinny" tables)
Okay, since there's been a fair bit of edit warring going on here, I've deciding to show everyone what it would look like if "skinny" tables were restored. These tables use less data because they:
Would only cite one main, reliable source per state rather than one source per each candidate
Take advantage of the USCongressElectionTableHead template, among other data-saving templates
Wouldn't include write-in votes, or very minor candidates.