Talk:List of members of the United States House of Representatives in the 110th Congress by seniority

message: There were two conflicting ideas on this page. This relates to seniority, looking at Senators who were first inauguratedon on the same day, senirotiy within that class (after sorting previously served congresspeople on top) it is unclear if it is based either on the relative size of the congressional district (at the time of oath taking) or the last name of the Congressman in alphabet order. Both can not be true, I beleive the former is the actual case but the list itself is oragnized according to the latter. Does anyone have any expertise on this?--Dr who1975 16:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this too confusing... ok it comes down to this... population vs last name. If my dealings with Senate seniority is any indication... it should be by population... but the page has it by last name... can somebody help me or at least tell me where to go look or ask?--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The clerk's office website has a list that shows congressmen sworn in on the same day subsequently listed by last name. Population cannot possibly be a factor in seniority rankings because every congressional district is supposed to have approximately the same population (hence the gaining and losing of seats per state and the reshaping of districts as states gain or lose people). Katagelophobia (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well this debate was about the house so glad that'ssettled... one correction... if you examine the official list of Senators by seniority (cited on that wikipage); state population is still a factor after previous service, VP/POTUS service, cabinet members, and governors.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I think the order is incorrect

message: Leading zeros are necessary only for Representatives from states with ten or more seats.—Markles 22:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Leading zeros

message: You're gonna hate this, folks.  If we want to make the Seniority Date column to be sortable, shouldn't it be in YYYY-MM-DD format instead of MMMM DD, YYYY format?  Otherwise, it is sorted alphabetically first: April through September.—Markles 22:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a software developer... this makes sense to me.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *So much sense that you can make the changes? —Markles 18:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given time. I've got a lot of small changes I want to get out of my head first.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Managed to find a (relatively) quick way to do it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Now that you've found a way to do it, it doesn't work the way I thought/hoped it would.  I had hoped we could code it as YYYY-MM-DD and that it would allow sorting on the column but would appear the way a user's preferences were set up (in my case, MMMM DD, YYYY.  However, since Dr who1975 didn't put the brackets "[[" in, it won't translate to those preferences.  Furthermore, if the brackets were put in, then it would still sort alphabetically by what the preferences dictate — which again looks as lousy as it did when this all started.  Therefore, I suggest that we (i.e. you, Dr who1975, who knows how to do it (relatively) quickly) restore the old style of date formats.—Markles 11:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: **That's fine... you just revert it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: ** I didn't put in brackets because it didn;t seem like 1955-12-13 linked anywhere relevent (although i see now it does so maybe we should reconsider doing it with the links on, let me know this week before Jindall steps down). I already knew that displaying it any other way would not allow for the sort so doing it without the link became my only option.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: ***Thanks. —Markles 16:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorting by date

message: When this article is updated for the 111th Congress, it would be nice to preserve the current form of the article as an archive of seniority in the 110th Congress. Qqqqqq (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a new article for the 111th Congress: List of United States Representatives in the 111th Congress by seniority. Once the 111th begins, that article should be merged into this article, and I propose to then preserve this article's current form as List of United States Representatives in the 110th Congress by seniority. Any thoughts? Qqqqqq (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 111th Congress