User Talk: Nathaniel Greene

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

'''Welcome!'''

Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and welcome ↗ to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

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 '''New contributors' help page ↗''', where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type '''<code>{{tl|help me}}</code>''' on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

Your first article ↗

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 (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question ↗ or ask me on {{#if:|User talk:{{{2}}}{{!}}my talk page|my talk page}}.  Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Source required

Please add a source for the election result at New York gubernatorial election, 1780 ↗. Kraxler (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For your commitment to figuring out & fixing references to the ambiguous "Unionist Party" in various articles across Wikipedia. <span style="color: #FF9079">Star</span><span style="color: purple">action</span> (<span style="color: #FF9079">talk</span> ↗ | <span style="color: purple">contribs</span> ↗) 04:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
|}

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Nathaniel Greene. Thank you for your work on Union Party (Kansas) ↗. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol ↗ and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Nice work}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>North8000<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. <small>(Message delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)</small>

<b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1816 United States presidential election ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Second Fiddle ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

1856 election

I saw you switched the name of the National Liberty Party to the Radical Abolitionist Party. I'm having trouble finding sources for either, but our article on the candidate, Gerrit Smith, still has that election listed as the Liberty Party. Maybe that article needs updating too? Thanks! Sock-the-guy (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Sock-the-guy}} Yes, the so-called National Liberty Party renamed itself the Radical Abolitionist Party in 1855. (See Liberty Party (United States, 1840) #Decline, 1849–60 ↗ for sources.) Dubin (p. 135) also confirms Smith ran as the Radical Abolitionist candidate in 1856. Good catch! There is some ambiguity around the party names for these early elections, (especially when it comes to smaller parties like the National Liberty/Radical Abolitionists,) and this has created significant confusion on Wikipedia. I will correct the Smith article. Nathaniel Greene (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Recent removal

This edit ↗ removed what appears to be sourced information, without providing a reason in an edit summary ↗, the edit was also marked as minor ↗ when it wasn't. Was this an accident? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four ↗ (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
: I apologize if my edit was inappropriate. The text in question consisted of (a) a note disambiguating Union Party (United States, 1850) ↗ from Constitutional Union Party (United States) ↗ which appears at the top of the former page before the lede; followed by (b) a summary of information included elsewhere in the article. I therefore considered it redundant (1840 United States presidential election ↗ does not include a note in the infobox clarifying that the Whig Party (United States) ↗ was not the Whig Party (United Kingdom) ↗, for instance) and deleted it. Nathaniel Greene (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
::Makes sense to me! Feel free to revert my revert and leave a brief rationale in the edit summary. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four ↗ (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Your recent edits to 1862–63 United States House of Representatives elections ↗

On June 26th you added <nowiki>{{sfn|Dubin|2014|p=190}}</nowiki> with this edit ↗. That same day you added <nowiki>{{sfn|Dubin|2014|p=196}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{sfn|Dubin|2014|p=195}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{sfn|Dubin|2014|p=197}}</nowiki>, and on June 27th <nowiki>{{sfn|Dubin|2014|p=193}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{sfn|Dubin|1998|pp=193–94}}</nowiki>, etc. The problem is that Dubin 2014 does not exist as a target reference for these Sfn cites. Could you please fix whatever is wrong? I'm not sure if a Dubin 2014 work exists or not. Right now there are 4 Harv errors & 2 Harv warnings. There are also 2 Harv warnings in the article's Bibliography/Primary sources: the "Evening Journal Almanac (1863). The Evening Journal Almanac: 1863. Albany" and "Greeley, Horace, ed. (1864). The Tribune Almanac and Political Register for 1864". I am unsure if those are supposed to be used as cite references or not... - Shearonink (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:Apologies! References to Dubin 2014 are typos; I thought I had fixed them all. They should be fixed now. I also added missing publisher information for the Evening Journal Almanac and Tribune Almanac, which I believe was the cause of the error messages. Let me know if I missed anything that still needs fixing! Thanks, Nathaniel Greene (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
::All the Dubin 2014 errors have been fixed - thanks! There were still 2 Harv warnings. Onefor "Evening Journal Almanac (1863). The Evening Journal Almanac: 1863. Albany: n.p." with the message "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFEvening_Journal_Almanac1863.", the other is "Greeley, Horace, ed. (1864). The Tribune Almanac and Political Register for 1864" which has the following message "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGreeley1864." Since these two references are unused I adjusted their cites to say "ref=none". If you can't see Harv errors & warnings, look up User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors, there's a script you can install on your common.js page. The HarvErrors page has all the instructions.
::I also added the publisher/printer for the Evening Journal cites. - Shearonink (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Much appreciated! I've added sfn citations for Evening Journal Almanac 1863 and Greeley 1864, so this should be cleared up now. Thanks again! Nathaniel Greene (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure I did the fixes at all...I think I had too many tabs open last night & forgot to hit Save... oh well. - Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Nathaniel Greene. Thank you for your work on Emancipation Party (Missouri) ↗. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol ↗ and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=not mentioned in target page}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>MPGuy2824<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. <small>(Message delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)</small>

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

: {{Re|MPGuy2824}} Thanks for the feedback! I have added the Emancipation Party to the list of unionist political parties in the "Name" section, with the corresponding citation. Nathaniel Greene (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Just a question

Are you a descendent of the general Nathanael Greene ↗? 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:1131:7890:76D0:8D0F ↗ (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

New message from Shearonink

25px|link=|alt= ↗ You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:1862–63 United States Senate elections § Lead section issues ↗. Shearonink (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Sfn cite issue at 1865 Tennessee gubernatorial election ↗

Today you added ↗ a sfn cite - <nowiki>{{sfn|Foner|2014|p=35}}</nowiki> - to 1865 Tennessee gubernatorial election ↗. This cite does not have a complete reference to target, so the article is presently in :Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors ↗. Please add the complete "Foner 2014" reference to the article so Ref #7 will stop throwing a Harv error. If you do not have a HarvError script installed see User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors & Template:Sfn#Possible issues ↗. - Shearonink (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for discussion of :Template:Party shading/National Union/Hold ↗

30px|link= ↗:Template:Party shading/National Union/Hold ↗ has been nominated for discussion ↗. You are invited to comment on the discussion at '''the entry on the Templates for discussion page''' ↗. Gonnym (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for discussion of :Template:Party shading/Unconditional Unionist/Hold ↗

30px|link= ↗:Template:Party shading/Unconditional Unionist/Hold ↗ has been nominated for discussion ↗. You are invited to comment on the discussion at '''the entry on the Templates for discussion page''' ↗. Gonnym (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Sfn cite issues at 1854–55 United States House of Representatives elections ↗

I fixed almost all of them, just wanted you to know since you had recently edited the article. A Harv warning remains because of the Template:CongressBio, am posting about it at WP:Village pump(technical). - Shearonink (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

1816 US presidential election articles

Alright Nathaniel Greene, I just wanted to let you know that I received and responded to the comment you left over on my talk page. JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

For creating 1826 Virginia gubernatorial election ↗

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Article creator Award'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for creating an article that preserves our history and expands the knowledge available on Wikipedia. Jcgaylor (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
|}

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1842 Virginia gubernatorial election ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Ritchie ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Indiana Gubernatorial Election 1928

I saw you changed the color of the box of Henry O. Shaw to green. I understand this is a small change but is there a reason? I do understand the party later become the greenbacks but not at that point. Do you have any knowledge on this party or the color, or was it just an aesthetic change? AnonRed96 (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

:I'm not sure if ''anyone'' knows what color(s) the 1900s National/Greenback Party used, if any. (The same could be said for the 1800s Greenback Party.) My understanding is that this party used both names interchangeably during its existence; Darcy Richardson, for instance, says the party was called the "Greenback Party" in 1918 and "claimed [to be] an outgrowth of John Spargo's short-lived National Party ↗" (Richardson, 2008, 235 ↗). You may have more specialized knowledge about this party, however. I don't have a problem with using a different color if someone thinks it is appropriate. Nathaniel Greene (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
::Honestly I was partially just wondering if there are any sources for that party at all. I had to look at many old newspapers to find anything. I'm trying to find anyone with knowledge on this subject really. AnonRed96 (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Massachusetts 1788-1789 presidential election

I am proposing a more pragmatic, middle ground approach to candidate party affiliations. That is to blank out the affiliations of candidates that have a ''most likely'' note attached, but leave the ''most likely'' notes in-tact.

For the record, any candidate with no ''most likely'' note, has clear, direct, primary evidence of a affiliation or an alignment during the time of this election. Which the header sources I listed at the top of the table support. But I still think there should be some exceptions to this for the more stronger, secondary supported candidates like Samuel Savage and James Athearn. What do you think about this approach going forward? TheFallenBaron (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

:This seems like a good solution to me. Where there is a reliable, secondary source for the claim that <candidate> was a "federalist"/"antifederalist" in 1788–89 or supported/opposed ratification of the Constitution, I think it is unproblematic to include their party affiliation in the infobox. Otherwise, leaving the party field blank and including any relevant information about future political activity in a footnote is the best approach. This gives readers context for unlabeled candidates without running afoul of WP:SYNTH ↗.
:We should probably avoid stating that <candidate> "was most likely" a federalist/antifederalist unless their is a specific source which makes that explicit claim. But a note that simply states <candidate> was a Federalist/Democratic-Republican in <year> should be fine.
:As for sources themselves, I would suggest avoiding personal blogs and sites like encyclopedia.com since they have a generally low standard for verifiability. Where these sources include citations, it is better to cite the original work where possible. The Congressional Biographical Directory is a good source and meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability, but should be used with caution as it sometimes contains errors. In terms of published secondary sources, I would suggest giving Oscar Handlin's book ↗ on the Democratic-Republicans in Massachusetts a look. I recently added some citations to secondary works on Massachusetts politics during the First Party System here ↗ that may also be useful.
:Thanks for your help and hard work on this topic! It is greatly appreciated.
:Nathaniel Greene (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
::You're absolutely right about always leaving the presumptions up to the readers. We are just here to simply provide the raw data and facts. I appreciate the advice, and for helping me become a better editor in the process. Am still learning as I go! TheFallenBaron (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

1788-89 election results box templates

Does the template you used for election result boxes in the Massachusetts 1788-89 presidential election, apply to elections post 1788-89? Post 1824 even? Or is it whether or not the state election was a winner takes all electoral votes race? (Like Maryland and Pennsylvania in 1788-89 presidential election). Because eventually, there is a set consensus for a different preferred style for results boxes featured in later elections.

I can start using the templates used in the Massachusetts 1788-89 presidential election for the remaining work I have to do in 1792 and beyond. Especially if that'll save on any repetitive future work done to the pages. TheFallenBaron (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

:Do you mean the boxes themselves or the subtitles? As you probably know, block voting ↗ was not used in U.S. presidential elections until the 20th century. (Alabama still required voters to elect the electors individually in 1960 ↗!) So any popular vote result before that point is really just a rough estimate. Technically, the results by elector are the ''actual'' election results, the ones that were officially certified and reported in newspapers.
:One of my goals for this series of articles is to represent the early electoral process more accurately, which is why I call the statewide table a "summary." The election results weren't tabulated this way historically, but it's helpful for people to get a rough idea of how the election went in each state. Hopefully this also helps readers understand why there are so many different estimates by different experts who all cite the same sources.
:If you mean the summary box itself, I based it off this example ↗ and other NY election articles. I based the county and district tables on the ones from the main (national) election articles.
:I hope this helps! Sorry if I misunderstood your question. Nathaniel Greene (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
::There was a different visual presentation of the election results boxes, that I was using on page beforehand, that was seemingly the preferred style, and looked very closely, if not identical to the tables/styles being used in post-first party system presidential election races (1828-present). Which I understand now, that previous format/presentation was probably less approrpriate for the select (or all?) races during this first party system era. But I'm not sure if the reason for using two different presentation formats like this, is actually editor dependent, election dependent, or if a general consensus has actually been set regarding this. Thanks for all your help! TheFallenBaron (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
:::I'm honestly not sure if there is a consensus regarding the layout of the state election articles. Until recently, most of these articles were stubs. This article ↗ is a good example of how I normally format the general election results.
:::I think this format is broadly applicable for elections in which the electors were chosen individually, rather than by block voting. That would obviously include the Early Republic (1788–1860), but also potentially later elections in some states. Of course, others may feel there are good reasons to do things differently, which is fine.
:::Please let me know if there is a specific choice you would like me to elaborate on, or if you have any ideas for how to improve the formatting of these articles! Thanks! 05:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC) Nathaniel Greene (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
::::The results boxes you made are great, and definitely an improvement over the previous. I was just wondering why there was different preference later on. Although to be honest, I think it just mainly comes down to adding percentage symbols on the percentage numbers, as the reason behind the different preference later on. With that reason probably being because it's easier for general viewers to read and digest with a symbol next to each number, as the percentage numbers with no symbol next to it may seem confusing at first or at a first glance. TheFallenBaron (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

County Data for 1828-1860

Hello, I have noticed that you are updating early presidential elections with loads of information (County Results, Electors, Other General Information, etc). Seeing as I'm very interested in political history, I think this is really cool! As a result, I think I can help you out. I have sources for county data for many states from 1828 to 1860. If you want, I could give this information to you for you to use! What do you think? ~2026-25939-00 ↗ (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Nathaniel Greene}} I am going to give this to you anyway, so that it may get put to use. Either you can make use of this, or you could give this to people who will use it to make Wikipedia U.S. Election Pages a better place. Note: There could be other places where county data can be found, but this is where I found them.
:1828: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hx2wl6&seq=5
:1832: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hx2wl5&seq=5
:1836: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044100179019&seq=5 (There might be a Democrat Almanac too I don't remember at the moment)
:1840: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101072312448&seq=58
:https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101072312455&seq=5
:1844: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044100178425&seq=9
:1848: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044024222341&seq=6
:1852: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3726573&seq=5
:(As a matter of fact this whole bunch could be helpful. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007871773)
:1856 AND 1860 and more: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007871774
:Also one last source. For some reason, if you look at the 1844 Maryland Presidential Election, and look at the references, you can find this guy's GIGA Sheets File which has county results for basically everything you could ask for. I'll link it here.
:GIGA Sheets File: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qW_PF3ONwrR0pp6tZpxvcin0GN5O2VOZfBrtJNhjv3Y/edit?gid=292016466#gid=292016466
:So yeah, that's all. I hope you enjoy this, and have a nice day! ~2026-26792-16 ↗ (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

1861 Minnesota Gubernatorial Election changes

Hello! I saw that you made a few big changes to the 1861 Minnesota gubernatorial election ↗ page, and while a lot of the changes are welcome, you completely deleted all of the text of the article besides the introduction, and replaced it with a different paragraph. While the information you added is valuable, I though I ask why you deleted so such information. You also removed every citation except the ones you added. Perhaps a mistake while writing your section? I want to assume good faith and ask you, since the good work you've done otherwise is good. Thank you. Minnastronomer (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

:I believe I was in a bit of a hurry when I made those edits, so my apologies if I removed information that should not have been deleted. I've gone ahead and added back the text relating to the Democratic State Convention, slightly revised, with the accompanying citation.
:I removed the text relating to the "No Party" convention because it summarized the primary source in a way I thought was misleading. For instance, the second and third sentences imply that the Democratic State Convention and the "No Party" convention were the same function, but according to Blegen these were different meetings. Additionally, the first sentence made a series of claims about the political situation in Minnesota at the time of the election that ran afoul of WP:PRIMARY ↗. ("Due to the ongoing civil war, the Democrats found themselves unpopular in the state" is an interpretation, not a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts.") Rewriting the paragraph based on reliable secondary sources seemed the best solution, although I'm open to suggestions.
:OurCampaigns is not a reliable source, which is why I removed that particular citation. The other references were WP:OVERCITE ↗. (The same information appears in Dubin.)
:Thanks for taking the time to double-check my edits! Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to address.
:Nathaniel Greene (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
::There are a few minor details and formatting changes I might put back the way it was (for example your rewrite of the intro paragraph and the link to the Minnesota Historical Election Archive website, which are standardized (or should be) across all Minnesota election articles), but thank you for addressing by concerns. You did also change the photo of Ramsey in the infobox to a more non-contemporary photo. I do wonder why you did that.
::I think that having two contradictory sources regarding the 'no party' convention is an issue further research will resolve. For the moment, I raise no disputes with your conclusions about the text you added.
::Thank you for your courtesy. Minnastronomer (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Regarding the "No Party" convention, Christopher Dell ↗ (1975) confirms Blegen's account of the short-lived People's Union Party (114). The primary source is a pro-Ramsey Republican editorial; according to both Dell and Blegen, Ramsey's allies attempted to discredit the "No Party" convention by claiming it originated with the Minnesota Democratic Party, so it's not surprising that a partisan Republican paper would take this view. This is the danger of taking primary sources at face value, as often authorial bias will obscure or misrepresent the facts.
:::The photo of Ramsey is from circa 1855–65 according to Wikimedia Commons, so I did not realize it was not contemporaneous to the election. I don't mind if someone prefers a different image.
:::MHEA is indeed a good resource that should not have been deleted. I added it back and revised the lede to match the other MN gubernatorial election articles.
:::Thanks again!
:::Nathaniel Greene (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Thank you, This addresses everything. Thank you for your cooperation! Minnastronomer (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matthias H. Nichols ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

House Election Maps Suggestion

Hello, I noticed your work on U.S. House of Representative Elections, particularly adding maps and the races themselves to the article. I think this is really good work, and I thank you for it. However, I have a suggestion for how to make things better, if you'll hear me out. I noticed on the maps of the 1862 U.S. Governor Elections article, that you added a way to switch between U.S. Governor Races and Confederate Elections. Perhaps something like this could be added to the Civil War years of the House Elections? Granted, nearly all of the races have unknown party affiliation, but it would let us know the districts as well as which states bothered having elections. Lastly, this is the suggestion I most want to bring up. I think it could be an awesome idea to include Territorial Elections in the Maps! Obviously it would be it's own section, similar to the 1862 Gov Article I mentioned. It would include things like the New Mexico Territory, Idaho Territory, etc, etc. After all, the territorial delegates got to serve in the House too, so they have reason to be included. What do you think? ~2026-35351-42 ↗ (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

:Mapping the results in the states undergoing reconstruction would be difficult, as these shapefiles are missing from the ''Digital Boundary Definitions of United States Congressional Districts ↗'' database. Adding territorial maps should be possible, and is something I planned to do eventually. Thanks for your feedback! Nathaniel Greene (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)