Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Virginia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

I am currently editing this page to put in the results and am updating the article to past tense. Jmg5vk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I joined you in your updating the table. Thanks for your work! Gort.maringa (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So we don't want to have these links? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to say when they were first elected, or when they began to serve? We can pretty easily get a list of when they all entered office by going to http://virginiageneralassembly.gov/house/members/members.php?id=H0188 and clicking Lists -> Build Your Own. St. claires fire (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not set up the layout the way it is at Virginia House of Delegates election, 2009? St. claires fire (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers (candidates, uncontested races, etc.) in the 4th paragraphs appear to be inconsistent. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article include a section discussing the issues in the 28th and 88th districts? There were voters in Fredericksburg living in the 28th district (one of the three districts close enough for a recount) who were given ballots for the 88th district (which was not close at all), and the state board of elections hasn't certified the results for either district because of the error.^[1][2]

--Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 20:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that a separate section is warranted, but a mention of the issues seems appropriate. —ADavidB 07:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mention. It may well be important enough for a separate section but that can be worked out later once we see facts. -- econterms (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be counted as a "win" when it was discovered that 147 voters cast their ballots in the wrong election and there is an ongoing legal challenge to this election results, aka a new special election must be held? AHC300 (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should be counted as a win for now – the result was certified and the legal challenge hasn't yet forced a special election. Mélencron (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The results section has too many graphics and tables all saying pretty much the same things. There is a a slider, two pie charts, two bar charts, a results table with bar charts, a graphical hemi-cycle and complete results table. Is all this really needed to convey the information. It comes across as fancy graphics overload. 2.25.207.51 (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]