Talk:List of Republican National Conventions

Keynote speakers
Please add the list of keynote speakers, similar to one in the List of Democratic National Conventions article. Ideally, it should be another column in the main table for ease of reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.192.26 (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Colors in the table
Can someone change the color in the Table? It is (supposedly) a light red or pink. I can barely see it at all. Do others have the same problem? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Easily enough, just change all the occurrences of "#fff8f8" to "#ffe0e0", or something similar. Unfortunately actually being able to see the color just shows this to be a mess, since there are a number of entries with rowspans greater than one that are then badly colored.  This seems to be mainly with the "location" and "permanent chairmen" columns, although I might have missed something (ed: at least one instance for "temporary chairman" too).  For example, the location of the 1904-1920 conventions is the same - and formatted as a single rowspanned box.  It gets colored based on the row it starts in, so the entire location box is red from 1904-1920, even though the Republicans dis not win 1912 and 1916.  If you want to see the problem just make the changes and do a "preview" without saving it.
 * I'm at something of a loss as how to fix this, though. An indication of a won election seems like a good thing, the indication of continuity for location and chairman seems useful as well, but we can't really do both at the same time, AFAIK, at least while applying the color to the whole row.  We could apply the color to just some of the fields (date and the nominees?), although then we'd have to specify the color on a cell-by-cell basis.  Alternatively, we could eliminate the rowspans, and just replicate entries as needed, but then you lose the indication of continuity for those (note, this appears to be what was done on List of Democratic National Conventions).  Or we could add another column and and a won/lost indication - perhaps Template:Check mark.  Perhaps we should just follow the Democratic list as precedent (although the (very) light blue used there has the same problem as the (very) light red here).  Rwessel (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not an article with which I have ever had any involvement, so I don't want to go in and start fiddling with it. (I just happened to stumble upon this page.)   So, my two quick thoughts are as follows.  (1) I have never been a fan of row-spans and col-spans.  I always prefer to see a table that simply has each cell listed separately.  (2) The colors here are very imperceptible.  I was not sure if it was my computer (or what) that was causing that issue.  If we keep the color, it needs to be darkened or distinguished.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Rowspans and colspans when used correctly can be very informative, by explicitly showing some types of relationships in tables. That being said, they're certainly not appropriate everywhere.
 * As to the colors (and as I noted, the Democratic version of this table has the same issue), I'm going to wait a couple of days to see if anyone else comments, and then make a change - probably darken the colors and eliminate the rowspans, unless consensus is for something else.
 * The following is a duplicate of the first few lines of the actual table from the article, with different shades of red for highlighting in each row. The actual color used is at the end of the date field.  I personally think #ffc0c0 or #ffa0a0 are about right.


 * Comments? Rwessel (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. These are my comments.  First: Row-spans and col-spans are not appropriate in this chart, for the reasons you had mentioned above.  The "coloring" gets screwed up when one row should get one color and another row should get a different color; but the "row-span" (or col-span?) forces all the rows to be the same color.  That maintains the purpose of the row-span (since it shows a continuous relationship over many rows), but it defeats the purpose of the color shading (since it -- supposedly -- shows who won versus who lost).  As such, it is giving inaccurate information when, for example, it lists a candidate as red (a "winner") when he really did not win.  Or vice versa.  So, the ultimate goal of the chart is to give accurate information.  Even if aesthetics have to take a back seat.  So, I would nix the row-spans altogether.  Second:  In the various color shades that you offer, they start out too light and end up too dark.  So, I would select a "medium" tone.  Probably the fourth one down, from your revised chart.  (It says: May 20–21, 18682 (#ffc0c0).)  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way, since you are revamping the chart, why don't you make it sortable? Or, at least, make sortable the column that is labelled "Number of Ballots".  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, why is the "Keynote speaker" in its own section? Can't that just be a column within the chart?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump
Donald Trump is the presidential presumptive nominee of the Republican Party in 2016.

Ryan
Is Ryan to be temporary chair or permanent chair? I ask because the permanent chair at virtually every Republican convention for the past 75 years has been the Republican house leader. That would suggest Ryan is to be the permanent chair, wouldn't it? john k (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Red shading
Can someone fix the red shading and the "row spans" and "col spans"? As noted in the discussion above, the "row span" function sometimes makes the shading red, when it should be white or vice versa. This gives misleading information to the reader. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

New colors
Now someone added a third new color? This is not helping. It's making things more confusing. And, there is no legend to "explain" the new color? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Please comment. Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I invited comments in my edit summaries, so thanks for your feedback. The lighter shade of pink was intended as a possible solution for boxes crossing Republican and Democratic years, so I hoped it would answer one of your problems.


 * Once I saw the results, I thought that merged boxes would also work for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. For one thing, they clearly shows presidential re-nominations and the keeping or replacing of running-mates — which I think far more notable than continuity of temporary and permanent chairmen. It also minimizes a problem when you try to sort by name: an incumbent Pres. or VP has his new title in front of his name, thus destroying alphabetical order. (I similarly broke years off from months and days so that chronological sorts would work.)


 * But as another editor wrote earlier on this talk page, there are trade-offs when you gain something at the expense of something else, and there is no one best way. For examples of other solutions, see List of Democratic National Conventions, United States presidential nominating conventions, Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives and List of mayors of New York City.


 * —— Shakescene (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Here are my thoughts.  These pretty much reiterate what I have said above in the other discussions on this page.  (1) The "rowspan" and the "colspan" make things more confusing, not less confusing.  (2)  The use of "rowspan" and "colspan" make the chart (and the information)  aesthetically less appealing.  (3)  The "rowspan" and the "colspan" only serve to confuse the color coding.  Some items are listed red when they should be white.  Some items are listed white when they should be red.  And so forth.  (4)  Adding a new ("third") color does not make things more clear.  It makes things less clear and more confusing.  (5)  Plus, there is no indication as to what that new color reflects (there is no legend, no key, etc.).  I think with all of these problems, we should have one chart, with all of the rows (and all of the columns) separate and independent.  That is, there should be no use of "rowspans" and/or "colspans".  Those functions are only serving to confuse -- not clarify -- what is pretty straight-forward information.  We should just have a list of rows, with each row either being red or white.  None of this other "fancy" confusion.  In short, this chart on this page (List of Republican National Conventions) should look more like this chart: List of Democratic National Conventions.  Thoughts?  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * At the end of the day, this is a chart above the conventions. So, one of the most important things in a convention is the color coding (in other words, did the candidate eventually win or lose the election?).  Whether the convention hall or the temporary chairman crosses over from one year to the next (that is, the use of "rowspans" and "colspans") is far less important.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * At least as a starting point or status quo ante scriptum, I've unmerged all the rows and columns I could spot (whew!). Please check for any errors or possible improvements (e.g. adding or removing Wiki-linking as appropriate) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

¶ Sorry I haven't responded (or acted) sooner, but I've been occupied with other things. What really needs to be done (perhaps with the drastic temporary solution of putting the most vital information in one table and everything else in a second one) is to come to some kind of consensus about what is important enough to include in the primary list of conventions, what can be listed (as now with Keynote Speakers) in a second list or table, and what should be covered only by a general link to the convention's specific article (e.g. roll calls ballot by ballot, candidate by candidate, state by state).

I think that the four absolutely essential elements on which almost all could agree for this list and for the one of Democratic conventions are:
 * A. The year of the convention and/or the year of the election
 * B. The city where the convention was held
 * C. The Presidential nominee
 * D. The Vice-presidential nominee

There is legitimate room for discussion for discussion and thought, I also think, about whether, where and how to include any and all these elements:
 * 1) A link to the Wikipedia article specific to this particular convention
 * 2) The days or dates on which the convention met
 * 3) The facility which housed the convention
 * 4) The temporary chairman
 * 5) The permanent chairman
 * 6) A link to any opening address (not yet gathered)
 * 7) The keynote speaker
 * 8) A link to the keynote speech (not yet gathered)
 * 9) A link to the platform
 * 10) A link to the presidential nominee's acceptance speech
 * 11) A link to the vice-presidential nominee's acceptance speech (not yet gathered)
 * 12) The number of convention ballots cast on nominating the presidential candidate
 * 13) Results of the first and/or the final convention ballots
 * 14) Results of the general election

I've no doubt left out something that another reader or editor would consider important, but those are the ones that come to mind.

Once we have a good idea of what readers and editors would most like to see, then we can plan out a new table or table more intelligently.

Regards, —— Shakescene (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it might be best to move temporary chairs, permanent chairs and keynote speakers into their own table; that would leave width to add links to platforms and acceptance speeches. What do you think? —— Shakescene (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The chart looks much better now.  Two quick comments:  (1) I will be removing the commas from the first column (the dates).  I don't see a need to end each date with a comma.  Also, (2) the last row is shaded in yellow.  That color is not explained anywhere.  I assume it means "no election results to report as of yet", but the article (or the Chart) should have some legend indicating what the yellow shading means.  (Unless it's there and I missed it.)  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, temporary and permanent chairmen are objective facts that are true for all conventions. I don't really care if they're in the main table or a secondary table, but they seem distinct to me from keynote speakers, which are not an actual formal thing, but just a PR designation of certain speeches. Those who give nominating and seconding speeches seem to me more significant, as that's a formal role reflected in convention rules. john k (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)