This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On another note, I've noticed noodles boodles that Martis and CNN lists the single representative districts as 1st district vs. At-large, including present single representative congressional districts (i.e. Vermont, Wyoming, Alaska). What are your thoughts about changing to conform? Pvmoutside ( talk) 01:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
For a State whose representative is designated "at large"-- for the 98th-102nd Congresses, this applies to the States of Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming-- for the 103rd Congress, this applies to the State of Montana -- the Congressional District is designated as "00". [1]
I'm game for a broader discussoins, but I'm for sticking with at-large as the official government standard. DCmacnut <> 14:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
While perhaps there is no specific reason to do what the House of Representatives does, there is also no particular reason to do what CNN does. The House uses "At-Large" (see, for example, [2]). I guess the question really is, which is more confusing: a term many people aren't familiar with, "At-Large", or calling a lone district "one" when there is only one. If the former is more confusing, we have to decide whether it is so much more confusing that we should go to the trouble of changing hundreds of pages. I would tend to think "At-Large" isn't that confusing in context and is accurate. I also think the trouble of a change isn't worth it in any event. - Rrius ( talk) 13:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On another note, I've noticed noodles boodles that Martis and CNN lists the single representative districts as 1st district vs. At-large, including present single representative congressional districts (i.e. Vermont, Wyoming, Alaska). What are your thoughts about changing to conform? Pvmoutside ( talk) 01:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
For a State whose representative is designated "at large"-- for the 98th-102nd Congresses, this applies to the States of Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming-- for the 103rd Congress, this applies to the State of Montana -- the Congressional District is designated as "00". [1]
I'm game for a broader discussoins, but I'm for sticking with at-large as the official government standard. DCmacnut <> 14:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
While perhaps there is no specific reason to do what the House of Representatives does, there is also no particular reason to do what CNN does. The House uses "At-Large" (see, for example, [2]). I guess the question really is, which is more confusing: a term many people aren't familiar with, "At-Large", or calling a lone district "one" when there is only one. If the former is more confusing, we have to decide whether it is so much more confusing that we should go to the trouble of changing hundreds of pages. I would tend to think "At-Large" isn't that confusing in context and is accurate. I also think the trouble of a change isn't worth it in any event. - Rrius ( talk) 13:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)