User talk:Rrius/Archive 19

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25

By the way...

...that's "Privy Councillor", not "Privy Counsellor". Each member of the council is a councillor, by virtue of being a member of the Council. These are not individuals rendering counsel to anyone that is somehow "privy" in nature. Thus "Privy Counsellor" is nonsense, suggesting inclusio unius est exclusio alterius that there are, in contrast "non-Privy Counsellors" additionally rendering counsel. --Paul63243 (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It is amazing how you blunder in with grand pronouncements without bothering to research. From Privy Council of the United Kingdom#Composition—

Both "Privy Counsellor" and "Privy Councillor" may be correctly used to refer to a member of the Council. The former, however, is preferred by the Privy Council Office, emphasising English usage of the term "Counsellor" as "one who gives counsel", as opposed to "one who is a member of a council." A Privy Counsellor is said to be "sworn of" the Council when he or she first joins it.

I await your apology. -Rrius (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
It stands to reason that being a member of the Privy Council was always about status, and not altruism or contribution of word or deed. The Privy Council was always about aristocrats putting their imprimatur on the unilateral acts of the monarch after the fact, as a means of collegiality with the monarch. An example would be the various Privy Councils meeting to resolve group approval of royal marriages, for example--as if they were going to disapprove or "counsel against" choices on the part of the monarch--they were not advising anyone. The post-nominal "P.C." means "Privy Council", to denote the individual's membership in the Council. The term "counsellor" is a misnomer in substance--even if, as you say, not in form. --Paul63243 (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
None of that means anything. You came here to make a definitive statement that "Privy Counsellor" is wrong. That statement was wrong; in fact "Privy Counsellor" is preferred. There is no further argument to be had. What you or I wish the reality was is irrelevant. All that matters is what actually is. -Rrius (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Preferred? Nonsense. By whom? In form? Or what is substantially correct ought to be preferred? To whom are these bureaucrats and distinguished citizens comprising these "Committees" (British) or "Secretariats" (Canadian) rendering counsel to, in either Canada or the United Kingdom? All I'm saying is that you're correct in form, but not in substance. --Paul63243 (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you not know what a block quote is? I have already quoted to you that the PCO prefers "Privy Counsellor". How did you miss that? And how the hell can I be right in form but not substance? You said "that's 'Privy Councillor', not 'Privy Counsellor'." You were just flat-out wrong. The term is used, and is the term actually used by the Privy Council itself. The substance of the issue is what terms are actually used. The logic behind the use of one term versus another is completely irrelevant. And why the fuck do you assume I am the great champion of "Privy Counsellor"? If I were king of the world, I would actually force everyone to use "councillor", but as I have already said, what you and I wish were true is irrelevant. In any event, it is very hard to have this discussion with you because you barged in here, apropos of nothing, trying to lecture me about which term is correct. Why did you do that? What prompted you to come here and make the comment you did? Is there some particular article you have some issue with? -Rrius (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Age in years and months

Following from the discussion at User talk:WOSlinker#Template:Age in years and months, I have (I hope) fixed {{Age in years and months}}. Please let me know if you see any problems. Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Pre-election pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2010

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Pre-election pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2010, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://rajcairnsreport.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/how-many-marginal-seats-will-labor-hold-at-the-next-election-post-election-pendulum-for-the-australian-federal-election-2010/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pre-election pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2010, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brendan O'Connor, Catherine King and Chris Pearce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

Your edit of States-General of the Netherlands

I noticed your edit of the lead of States-General of the Netherlands today, and was prompted to reopen the discussion of the etymology of that name on the talk-page of that article, using your name in vain :-) Maybe you are interested in taking part in that discussion? Please respond on that talk-page.--Ereunetes (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

File:John Stuart Williams.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The seating plan of house of commons (Canada)

  • It appears that the sitting plan in the green chamber has changed since Justin Trudeau was elected as the leader of LPC. May you please adjust it?

see this. —An Macanese 04:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • From what I can tell, there was one change that affects File:41st Can House.svg. A liberal seat moved from the fourth row of the last column to the fifth row of the ninth column (i.e., seat 278 to 302 on the official seating plan). I've made that change, but if you've noticed any others, let me know. -Rrius (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Perfect! Thank you so much.—An Macanese 05:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

2014

Howdy Rrius. Just wanna thank you, for the support you've given me, over the years. I hope we'll meet again in April/May 2014 :) GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of special elections to the United States Senate, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Edward D. White and Patrick Walsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

AngieWattsFan on WP:AN/I

Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion at AN/I regarding AngieWattsFan's attitude towards yourself and others (including myself). Your name has cropped up, where AngueWattsFan accused you of abusing him/her. You can find the discussion here. — Richard BB 13:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

Wikipedia:WikiProject British Empire

I saw your name in the project page and it lists you as having interested in colonial government and governance (especially US, Canada, and India). I am working on the page Presidency University, Kolkata which is the first European modelled college in the Indian Subcontinent. In the history section it lists the Principals of Presidency College from 1842 to 2010. Upto 1947 maximum of the Principals are European. Though a good number of them has wikipedia articles yet another good number do not have wikipedia articles. I am willing to add more coverage on the Pre 1947 Principals of Presidency College. Can you help? Solomon7968 (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Not at the moment. I have enough projects going that I am already a bit overwhelmed. To the point that I have been avoiding them all, actually. -Rrius (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem. But can you refer me to another editor who is interested in colonial governors of British India. Solomon7968 (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure who to point you to. I'd suggest either asking at the WikiProject's talk page or checking the histories of some related pages and seeing who has edited there. -Rrius (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

Template:Quebec topics

I reverted your edit to Template:Quebec topics since it wasn't clear what this fixed. checking the code, |country= and |region= do exactly the same thing, so there is no need to provide this information twice. let me know if I am missing something. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I changed it because at one or another article it said Quebec [[Outline of {{{Country}}}|{{{Counry}}}]]. Under the circumstances, it seemed the reasonable thing to do. -Rrius (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

Thankyou

Just wanted to say thankyou for your brilliant work on the polling for the 2013 Aus election! It is really useful to me, and I guess a lot of other people. Keep it up ;-) 129.199.82.143 (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Fifth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies - your very good starting point

Dear Rrius, I would welcome participation in Talk:Fifth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies if you think we should go no further than the very good start you have made and, as you will see, I accept your tense style is fine.

It seemed to me vital to cite and impart more. It is logical to me that anything major and illogical (outwith the remit of the principal rules) should be mentioned under the review's article. In this instance, that of Scotland in time for 2010 contained such a provision. This is a well-known fact in my view among those who know politics, having studied politics, to a lesser degree than your wide, international knowledge of politics and should really be stated. While we may not like the fact that there are four Boundary Commissions, this set-up makes it all the more important to have four sections, if we are going to, sensibly in my view, keep on article for each long period when all of these act together (however they do not act together in public consultation). Adam37 (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to the opportunity to contribute more on the subject, with your expert guidance.Adam37 (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg

Hello, Rrius. You have new messages at File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg.
Message added 20:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

Consensus for Samesex marriage in USA.svɢ should SCOTUS decide H.v Perry on standing

I have made a proposal regarding the stripping of California, should the court reject Perry on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no standing to appeal, in which case, as I understand it, there could be much legal‐wrangling in California courts, and in the halls of Sacramento, over whether Judge Walker’s District Court ruling should apply statewide. I would much appreciate your comments on my proposal on the talkpage of Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg. ― many thanks, Info por favor (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terence Arnold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Collins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

113th Congress

How do you know that Senators elected to replace appointees take office when they take the oath?—GoldRingChip 00:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Because that's what it says in the Constitution. 71.75.58.134 (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It's in the same rules that tell us appointed senators take office at appointment. Specifically, 2 U.S.C. sec 36 says, "Salaries of Senators elected during a session to succeed appointees shall commence on the day they qualify." To "qualify" means, among other things, to take the oath of office. The provision goes on to differentiate what happens if the Senate adjourns sine die before the senator-elect shows up, but that is extremely unlikely to apply here. -Rrius (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't think "qualify" was at all related to the oath. Rather, it's about conflicts (such as Markey has to resign his House seat), and age (Senators must be 30 years old). —GoldRingChip 12:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
As Rrius said, "qualify" includes taking the oath, which Markey can't do until he resigns from the House *and* the Senate is in session. You're not in office until you've been sworn in, even if your seniority date is the date of election or appointment. 71.75.58.134 (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
That's just not true. 2 U.S.C. sec. 36 sets out the rules for when a term begins for someone appointed or elected mid term. For an appointee, it is the date of appointment; when the oath is taken is irrelevant. For an elected replacement, it varies depending on whether there was an appointed senator, and whether and when the Senate has adjourned sine die. Even as a broad principle, your assertion is obviously wrong. Members of both houses who are elected to full terms and get their credentials in on time start their terms at noon on January 3 even if the first session of the new Congress does not begin until sometime after that. The term of a new president or vice president begins at noon on January 20 even if he or she does not take the oath until later. The term as president of a vice president who assumes the presidency begins when the president dies even if the taking of the oath is delayed. The term of a federal officer begins at the time a commission is issued (though Marbury v. Madison also tells us that they are entitled to a commission after being confirmed) even if the oath is delayed. The constitutional requirement to take an oath before entering into the execution of an office is not the same thing as it being required to take the office. This is an old concept that goes back to before there were even British colonies in North America. -Rrius (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Not entirely sure how what I said differed from what you said. The Constitution requires taking the oath before entering the office, which is not necessarily the same as the seniority date for determining date of service. An appointed Senator may get paid starting the day of the appointment, but he can't vote on legislation until he's sworn in. No one can serve in both bodies at once, so Markey can't become a Senator until he resigns from the House, and he isn't a voting Senator until he takes the oath, even if the seniority date is different. Say he resigns from the House on the 1st and takes the Senate oath on the 2nd. He's on the Senate payroll on the 1st, but can't vote on legislation until the 2nd. This disagreement erupts on Wikipedia every single time there's a special election or appointment. I just get tired of reading it over and over and over... 71.75.58.134 (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Forget about seniority dates completely; they are completely irrelevant to this discussion. You said, "You're not in office until you've been sworn in, even if your seniority date is the date of election or appointment." That is not a true statement. The key distinction here is between when one is in office (which is the same as when one's term begins and when one is put on the payroll) as against when one can perform the duties of the office. Federal law states that a person in Markey's position can go on the payroll when he takes the oath. That is exactly the same thing as his term beginning. I am sick and tired of linking to the document "The the Term of a Senator—When does it begin and end?", so you can google it if you need proof. The date he resigns from the House is irrelevant since the statute says he only takes office upon taking the oath. This is different from appointees, who take office upon appointment, but later if they are a representative, judge or executive official. So if Markey resigns from the House on the 8th and takes the oath as a senator on the 9th, he will become a senator on the 9th. If another senator dies today (the 7th), his replacement is appointed on the 8th, and she takes the oath of office on the 9th, then she becomes a senator on the 8th. The only overarching rule is that the Constitution, 2 U.S.C. sec. 36, and Senate Rules and precedent determine when a senator elected or appointed to fill a vacancy takes office. -Rrius (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I said, "You're not in office until you've been sworn in." You said, "Federal law states that a person in Markey's position can go on the payroll when he takes the oath. That is exactly the same thing as his term beginning." Please explain the difference between the two statements. Thanks. 71.75.58.134 (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
You posited a rule applicable in all situations (explicitly to senators elected and appointed), when in fact it only applies in the case of a senator elected to succeed an appointed senator when the Senate is not adjourned sine die and who appears before the Senate to take the oath before the Senate adjourns sine die. When no senator was appointed, the elected senator's term begins the day after the election. When a senator elected to succeed an appointee is elected while the Senate is adjourned sine die, the term begins the day after the election. When a senator is elected to succeed an appointee while the Senate is in session but does not show up to take the oath before the sine die adjournment, the term begins the day after the adjournment. An appointed senator's term begins on the day of appointment. And yes, if the person so elected or appointed is a representative, federal judge or federal officer, the beginning of the term is delayed until resignation from the prior office, though in Markey's case (or any senator elected to succeed an appointee with no relevant sine die adjournment) it probably doesn't matter whether he resigns at all. Generally, taking the oath for a new office vacates the old one. -Rrius (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. It's true in every case I've ever been aware of that a member of either House who leaves mid-Congress for another position (Rep. going to the Senate, Sen. becoming Gov., anyone becoming a Cabinet secretary, for example) resigns from the previous position before taking the oath for the new job. Do you know if there's ever been an exception to that? If Markey took the oath as a Senator without resigning from the House, would his House seat have to be declared vacant by the Speaker, or something? 71.75.58.134 (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
If it has happened with the House at all, it has probably been quite a long time. There are a number of ways the information could be transmitted to the state's governor, but presumably resignation is the easiest method. There have however been examples of senators joining the executive without resigning. I can't remember the examples off hand, but they can be found in Riddick's Senate Procedure. -Rrius (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

Steven Marshall image crop resize

Hi Rrius, In answer to the question about why thumbs. This was pointed out to me https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:No_scaled_down_dupes/en It is wrong to have duplicate images like the SA politics pages have with different resized versions of the main hi-res image. I can't see any examples of how to resize and crop the 2 images side by side - like Weatherill and Marshall. I tried thumb to see if that made them the same standard size, Really some of the duplicate images used on the SA election pages and some others need to be deleted to comply with Template:No scaled down dupes/en.Philiashasspots (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what that's talking about. It says that it is unnecessary to upload multiple iterations of the same image at different sizes because we can display one image at different sizes. In other words, someone might upload File:Steven Marshall 300 x 500px.jpg and File:Steven Marshall 3000 x 5000px.jpg to have multiple sizes available. The template you linked to is saying that only the latter image need be uploaded because it can be scaled down to the smaller size. It is not saying that you have to use the "thumb" parameter to legally resize images. -Rrius (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#Shade_of_blue_used_to_show_marriage

You previously took part in this discussion which resulted in no consensus to change the color blue. Last week User:Fry1989 unilaterally changed the color of the map without consensus. It appears now that this discussion is now reactivated and I invited to you return. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

Page moves

Hi, just wanted to say nice work on the Australian politician page moves I've been seeing on my watchlist. They've been a bit of a mess for a while, which I think I should probably take partial responsibility for, since when I was creating them there was this weird convention that "Australian politician" was what all the redlinks said and I didn't fix them at the time. Anyway, good job. Frickeg (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just been dealing with them as I come across them working on the whip lists. -Rrius (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

Joint meetings

Hi,

I'm not sure I agree with this edit.

I do agree that no business is conducted other than to listen to the speech, but that is also the case when foreign heads of state address such meetings, which you've left untouched. The crux is that the members of both houses do come together for an official purpose, and you can't get much more official than the governor-general, and in some cases the Queen herself, opening a parliament. Thoughts? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  • It is not a joint meeting; the House of Representatives enters the Senate chamber as an audience, not as a participant in an act. There is no call to order, there is no presiding officer. There is not a single source that lumps the two kinds of thing together. And the state opening scenario does not even fit the definition set down in the lead of the article, that a joint meeting is a coming together of both houses as a single body. If listening to foreign heads is similar, it also needs to be struck out, or at least differentiated. It is simply wrong to conflate the scenario where the houses of Parliament come together as one legislative body (i.e., joint sessions after a double dissolution and meetings to discuss state secrets together in private) and scenarios where the two houses (with at least one in recess) happen to be in the same place at the same time. -Rrius (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
OK. I've had a look at what happened on the opening in 2010. The President hands over to the Chief Justice, who pronounces the formal opening, then asks the MHRs to meet him back in their chamber for their swearing in. Then he hands back to the President. I can accept that the MHRs are in the Senate chamber as guests. But are you saying that, during the CJ's short speech, the Senate is holding a meeting even though the chair is occupied by someone other than the President or his deputy? Where is there any authority for that? It seems to me that it - at least, that bit of it when the CJ is in the chair - cannot be considered a formal meeting, even of the Senate, let alone the House of Reps, even though it's recorded in Hansard. Thoughts? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I think part of the way to compare is to look at what happened at the actual double dissolution and compare it to what happens at the state opening. In the former, all parliamentarians were in the room, then elected a presiding officer and voted on rules. They then acted like a single legislative body. Neither the House nor Senate was in session individually. As for the state opening, it is clear that both houses are in session as separate houses in the same place to hear a message from the Crown. The House assembles, receives a message to attend the Deputy, and leaves without adjourning. They return, elect a speaker and receive a message to attend the GG, and again leave without adjourning. After the speech is over, they return and proceed with the rest of their business. So while all members of both houses (and indeed the third branch, the GG) are in the room at the same time, they are there as two separate bodies in actual session. They are not there as a joint body.
It's not clear what happened with the secret meetings, or even if they were formal gatherings. They could have been like what the United States Senate did recently when all senators met together in the Old Senate Chamber and had an off-the-record meeting (a sort of all-party caucus meeting). It would be wrong to say it was a meeting of the Senate in any meaningful way. In the same way, parliamentarians could have agreed to have these briefings in private without them actually being true meetings of either or both houses. The sources may shed light, but I haven't looked.
Similarly, I'm not sure what they do when they listen to a world leader, but I suspect it is more like the state opening than the post-dissolution meeting. In the end, I may have been too hasty in removing the state opening, but I think the current structure, which lumps the actual plenary meeting in with the events where the separate houses are meeting in the same place at the same time to do the same passive thing, is a mistake. Worse still, it just slips that very different thing down in the list somewhere rather than highlighting the one thing that is representative of the subject of the article. Feel free to just revert me. If you choose not to make any changes, I'll try to get to it eventually. -Rrius (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of whips in the Australian House of Representatives, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jack Lang and Peter Fisher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

Whips

Random observations on the whips lists:

The last is the only really glaring one, since the list currently suggests he was whip for over a year after his death. Frickeg (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Whips were elected at caucus meetings, and there was often a delay between a resignation, death or the like and a new appointment of several months because there was often that sort of gap between sessions. Sometimes an acting whip was appointed or volunteered or whatever, and the aren't noted at all because it would have been to difficult, and logistically too complicated in many cases, to include them. For O'Keefe, the election was on 12 December 1906, and the first session began 20 February. Ready resigned on the first of seven sitting days in March, after which Parliament was dissolved. For a large number of whips in both articles, gaps like this exist. I decided against trying to include end dates because they are often unclear.
As for MacDonald, I couldn't find proof there was a replacement. Until approximately MacDonald's death there were three Labor senators. From about the time of his replacement on, there were five, a leader, deputy leader, and three brand new faces. Thus it may be there was no replacement whip (especially likely since there was no salary at the time), but it may be there was one. Hansard and newspapers were unhelpful with the question. I suppose we could put a note saying when he died and explaining the lack of clarity as to what happened next. Perhaps tonight? -Rrius (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I thought there might be a good explanation. With O'Keefe and Ready (and a few others) the time period is short enough that it doesn't matter that much, but I think we probably need a note for MacDonald. Perhaps it was a vacant office? I'm assuming that your three new faces were Cunningham, Ashley and Courtice with Brown and Collings as the other two. I can't find anything in the Biographical Dictionary of the Senate, although I don't have volume 3 (which includes Brown) on me right now. (As an aside - do you have access to the Biographical Dictionary? It doesn't list whips but it does list presidents, chairmen of committees, and party leaders, which I can add pretty easily.) Frickeg (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
It may have been a vacant office, but it may not have been, so we can't really make a definitive claim. You are right about which were which. Collings was the leader and Brown the deputy leader, which I know because Brown (then the President of the Senate) said so on the eve of conservative side being dropped to three in 1947. As I see it, the three main possibilities are that Brown was the whip (the role seems to have doubled with the whip's role from time to time), one of the newbies was the whip (most likely Ashley as he was the next one we know of), or there wasn't one at all). It's very hard to determine a likelihood for the office being empty. On the one hand, MacDonald held the role even though there were only three of them, which suggests it was felt necessary to have one. On the other hand, they may have decided there hadn't been enough work for MacDonald to make it worthwhile to elect a new one. And of course they could have divided up the responsibilities or assigned them ad hoc based on who was responsible for staying in the chamber on a given day (acting as a sort of "duty senator").
I don't have access, so if you could add the party leaders, that would be great. My two next project were to assemble lists of the Senate leaders and add them to the party articles, and then add a list of Leaders of the Government in the Senate (earlier known and Leaders of the Senate) and Leaders of the Opposition in the Senate to the articles I created last week. If you could do the party lists, I could do the other. -Rrius (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I went to check the third volume of the dictionary today and someone else had it out! Senators are apparently a thing at the moment. Anyway, I'll keep an eye out for anything relating to that situation. In the meantime we'd best have a "situation unclear" or something in there.
I'll try to put together a list of party leaders as far as they go some time this week. Frickeg (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I've added the note. Thanks for doing the party leaders. -Rrius (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Rrius/Archive_19"