This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 |
Folks, I am involved in improving the Jim Inhofe article. I notice that this article has a section on Campaign Contributions. In reviewing other senators' articles, the only one I've seen with a similar section is Joseph Lieberman. The other senators' articles have a link to OpenSecrets.org in the External links section instead of an explicit article section. I'm thinking of editing both the Inhfoe and Lieberman articles (and any other I find) to conform to the typical senators' article.
Your thoughts? Madman ( talk) 16:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal to move the article "Christopher Dodd" to "Chris Dodd", which may be of interest to project participants: Talk:Christopher Dodd#Requested move. - Rrius ( talk) 10:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to let this group know that I am launching the The Great Pennsylvania Congressional Image Scrape of 2010, which is something I think you all would be interested in. ---- Blargh29 ( talk) 06:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Illinois's 3rd congressional district/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
In the list of Senators from Arkansas, Dale Bumpers is listed as
"Arkansas Attorney General (1893–1895)."
Since this is many years before he was born, this is an obvious error. Perhaps it refers to a different Dale Bumpers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.14.51.180 ( talk) 17:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I think it's unfortunate that we have to manually paste the same external links onto all the member-of-Congress pages. What if we move these sources into navboxes that go onto all those pages?
I've attempted this on one article (see Henry_Waxman#External_links) and I'd like your feedback. The diffs are here, the navbox is here, and I am trying to promote its use by associating it with Category:Legislative branch of the United States government.
Please share your feedback. Do you think navboxes like this will permit us to consolidate external links that relate to similar articles? Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 17:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is under way at Filibuster (United States Senate)#Page name as to the appropriate name of that article. - Rrius ( talk) 02:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
A new article was created this morning called Self-executing rule by User:James Kidd. I've cleaned it up some to remove obvious POV and recentism. The article was created, apparently, because of all of the health care bill related discussions and, specifically, the view by some that Pelosi wants to "pass the bill without a vote." Health care reform debate in the United States is probably the best place, but perhaps it does need its own article. This "procedure" is apparently quite common, but has never been used to pass controversial legislation before, hence its sudden notability. Have its own article is better than adding it to United States House of Representatives, as suggested by some editors. The issue is likely to generate a great deal of POV, so I wanted to make this group aware so the article can be monitored. DCmacnut <> 16:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
We should keep an eye out for POV edits related to the health care vote. I've already found one IP editor who's started adding "X rep voted no on health care reform" or some variation to a few articles. He or she is doing it exclusively to Democrats who voted no on the bill. Even though the vote is notable and probably something that could be added, I believe the intent of the edit violates WP:NPOV unless the vote is added to all member articles regardless of vote position. Thoughts? DCmacnut <> 14:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
This bill passed, 220-211 on March 21, 2010. Article should be edited to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvgomez2 ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Archives/2010/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you.
I believe it would be most helpful and more accurate to define the specific denomination a Member of Congress belongs to.
For example Baptist - SBC; Baptist - ABC; Lutheran - ELCA; Lutheran - LCMS. I picked those four examples because the Southern Baptist Convention has sometimes starkly differing views from the American Baptist Churches. The same applies for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America compared to the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
It will also help to compile more accurate religious affiliation statistics for the current Congress. 24.3.220.206 ( talk) 01:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I have attempted to add as many honorific prefixes to infoboxes as I can, but 435 members is a large number of pages to edit. If anyone is interested, please work to add "|honorific-prefix =
The Honorable
". I have completed many of the smaller state delegations. California and Texas will obviously take the most time.
Additionally, I recommend that all honorific suffixes be removed from infoboxes. There should be no reason for physicians or clergy to receive suffixes when attorneys and those with non-medical doctoral degrees do not. Therefore, if anyone notices an honorific suffix in an infobox for a Member of Congress, please remove it. 24.3.220.206 ( talk) 19:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The following delegations require honorifics or verification, thereof: California, Florida, New York, Texas, and non-voting members. (recommended gateway: 111th House of Representatives) 24.3.220.206 ( talk) 00:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Should we really be adding "the honorable" to the infobox of every member of congress? I apologize for removing it from a few of them, as I thought it was just vandalism. ~ BLM Platinum ( talk) 04:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Therefore, I contend the Governor of West Virginia should be extended the title in his/her infobox. 24.3.220.206 ( talk) 15:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Pursuant to the Proclamation of His Excellency, the Governor, issued the eighteenth day of January, 2005, and hereinafter set forth, convening the Legislature in Extraordinary Session on the twenty-fourth day of January, 2005, the House of Delegates assembled in its Chamber in the Capitol Building in the City of Charleston, and at 11:00 A.M. , was called to order by the Speaker, the Honorable Robert S. Kiss. [1]
I am also including a couple of United States Department of State documents in regard to entitlement to the title: http://web.archive.org/web/20080414012452/http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/05fah01/05fah010420.pdf (Bush era document, relevant details on page 10) http://www.state.gov/s/cpr/what/c18027.htm (Chief of Protocol FAQ)
Count me as against adding these. Americans rarely use this term in connection with members of Congress. "Senator John McCain" has 595,000 google hits. "The Honorable Senator John McCain" has 3,000. That's a 200:1 ratio, and a good indication it shouldn't be at the top of the infobox. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I oppose the addition merely because it clutters the infobox. I agree that these members are entitled to "The Honorable" per protocol, but that's mainly in formal protocol settings or in correspondence. Wikipedia is neither. WP:COMMONNAME probably should apply here. Having worked for a Senator, though, I can tell you the average constituent never uses "The Honorable" at all. In fact, some of the titles used to address my former boss are far to vulgar to be repeated. Moreover, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states that just because other articles do it that way, isn't sufficient to justify changes elsewhere. If the claim can't be used to prevent an article from being deleted, the claim is irrelevant when it comes to edits such as these. It simply does not matter that some editors have chosen to include the honorifcs on British infoboxes. Having said that, I'll let other editors fight the battle. It's not hurting anything, other than my own personal opposition to infobox clutter. This debate is more appropriate at WP:USC. DCmacnut <> 04:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Whenever the Senate or House communicate to each other about a specific member, the term "the honorable" is included with the member's name. Also consider Wikipedia's own entry --- The Honourable#United States. Furthermore, if you search the phrase "the honorable" on the United States Senate website, you will see over 26,000 occurances of the title used in official reporting which is even extended to Members of the Cabinet and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. As such, the simple, non-cluttering, appropriate inclusion of "The Honorable" in aforementioned infoboxes should be made standard. 24.3.220.206 ( talk) 15:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)The Clerk is in receipt of a letter of resignation from the Honorable Rahm Emanuel from the State of Illinois. [2]
I see my original thoughts were copied to here, above. Just to further clarify, I agree with most of the above that honorific titles should not be used in infoboxes or in the lede of articles on United States governors, senators, or members of Congress. It's not in common usage, there isn't consensus for its inclusion, and it ought not have been done in batch and in clear contradiction to our specific style guidelines on the matter. The batch edits that have not been individually reverted should be reverted en masse. (I should be clear that I am not expressing an opinion here on countries where these titles are more in common usage.) jæs (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) as the editor who brought this up here, I should probably weigh in. A healthy debate is always good, and guidelines can and should evolve. We all agree that the honorific is accurate and verifiable. The question is where do you draw the line? And I think a line should be drawn, but I'm unsure of where that should be after reading the arguments for and against. I favor a cleaner info box, it's true, but the edits aren't "hurting" anything. But taken to the logical conclusion, shouldn't all ambassador articles then see their info boxes expanded to include "Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary" which is the appropriate honorific per protocol? I think we'd all agree that such a term is excessive in an info box, nor is it unique in that all ambassadors to the US (or a significant majority) are styled in that fashion. One could argue that Congress is no different. If 535 people (plus every former and future congressman) share the same honorific, then we need to ask ourselves if the inclusion adds to or improves the article, or whether its deletion detracts from or reduces the article's quality. Is the readers experience enhanced or diminished? In my opinion the answer on both counts is "no." DCmacnut <> 04:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It would seem to me that if it is appropriate to have the "The honorable" listed in the infobox on every current or former member of Congress, that would be best accomplished by building it into the infobox template rather than changing hundreds or thousands of articles en masse. That's what templates are for, and I would suggest that when the outcome of this debate is sorted out, that the change (if any) be made that way. Janus303 ( talk) 23:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The following AfD may be of interest to editors here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sessions of the United States Supreme Court - Rrius ( talk) 01:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
At Diane Wood, part of this project, a discussion is occurring as to the of necessity of including 13 references in the lead for the proposition that a person has been mentioned as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court. - Rrius ( talk) 01:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
A move request has been made at Talk:State Attorney General#Requested move that may be of interest to participants here. - Rrius ( talk) 00:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
As the above debate indicates, there is some disagreement about whether or not infobox templates, either through the template or manually in each article, should indicate members of congress with the honorific title "The Honorable." Arguments in favor indicate that the title is used by the State Department as well as it being consistent with other honorifics. They also suggest that while use of honorifics in text may be prohibited, but use in infoboxes is not.
Arguments against include the lack of common usage, contentious debates about this sort of issue in the past, unnecessary cluttering of the infobox, and the unofficial status of the title (state department usage as unofficial).
Because the debate here has not found much common ground, and the MOS:HONORIFIC#Honorific prefixes guideline is at issue, a wider segment of the community's invited to weigh in. Shadowjams ( talk) 23:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to add height as an optional field under personal data at Template talk:Infobox officeholder. Your comments are welcome on said proposal Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 05:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
See Template talk:Project Congress#Requested move. – xeno talk 13:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I have read that Joseph Weldon Bailey was Minority leader during a part of the 1890's. Does anyone have an objection to me adding him as the first minority leader? or can someone provide a source for richardson as the first? I know it's unclear when the position even began but is their a certain source being used for this template?.-- Profitoftruth85 ( talk) 22:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC) ^ Caro, Robert A. (1990). The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The path to power. Vintage Books. p. 47. ISBN 9780679729457. Retrieved 17 June 2010.
Hi everyone! I want to invite anyone who's active here and has an interest in public policy to join WikiProject United States Public Policy, which is just starting up. We've got some cool things planned, including working with students and their professors for several public policy courses.-- Sross (Public Policy) ( talk) 13:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
An editor has proposed deleting all "Congressional districts of X" categories that currently have just one entry. This is mainly the territorial districts, but also includes Category:Congressional districts of Delaware. I'm posting this given this projects potential interest in the matter. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 24. DCmacnut <> 20:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed Leo Ryan for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib)
It may be that the article on Willis Green ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Green) suffers from confusion between Willis Green and his son of the same name. I believe that Willis Green the Congressman is the son of Willis Green the Kentucky pioneer. Following is the information I have on Willis Green, the elder:
Willis Green, who was born and grew up in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, explored beyond the Blue Ridge in what was called the Kentucky territory. After the Revolutionary War, with his two brothers, Henry and William, he located land warrants in Kentucky, the oldest half-brother, John, having inherited most of his father's estate in Virginia under the law of primogeniture. Willis was elected a delegate from Kentucky to the Virginia Legislature in 1783, and he was a member of the conventions that framed the first and second Constitutions of Kentucky. He was Register of the Land Office and Clerk of the Lincoln County Court from 1783 to 1816.
Willis was the son of Duff Green and Ann Willis (who was the daughter of Col. Henry Willis, the founder of Fredericksburg, Virginia). Willis Green married Sarah Reed. Willis and Sarah, of Scotch-Irish descent, were born and reared in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, and were married near Danville, Kentucky, in 1783. This is said to have been the first Christian marriage in Kentucky.
Willis had come to Kentucky in a surveying party, and had located for himself a tract of several thousand acres that struck his fancy a mile or two from the Danville settlement. Here he built, between 1797 and 1800, the fine large brick house for years called Waveland. The Willis Greens had an even dozen children, born and raised at Waveland.
Willis Green represented Kentucky County in the Virginia Legislature, and later served also in Kentucky's own Legislature. He held office, too, as clerk of the court of Lincoln County, which then included Danville and what is now Boyle County. History books note that he held other various important trusts and was one of the early valuable men of the Kentucky country. Pops ( talk) 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Opinions are requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings, which affects this project to the extent that it deals with Congressional naming legislation, and buildings relating to this project (for example, if "U.S." is adopted for federal buildings, United States Capitol would be moved to U.S. Capitol. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling. — GoldRingChip 10:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Should we use roman numerals for Senate classes? It seems archaic (or is it pretentious?) to use them for class 1, class 2, class 3 (class I, class II, class III). See, e.g., List of United States Senators from Massachusetts — GoldRingChip 19:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The picture of Bob Filner is gone i just wanted to tell you so you can download a new one. Spongie555 ( talk) 04:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
AFD discussion, is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Miller (South Carolina politician) (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 22:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The United States Congress article, along with the United States Supreme Court and President of the United States articles, have been undergoing a fair amount of controversy lately about a Critcism section added to all three articles in 2009 after some extended discussion. More recently, an editor removed the sections from all three articles. The sections were restored to the court and president articles, and they remain restored and under discussion (again). The congress article though has seen a more aggressive battle. Another editor (not the one who initially removed the section) has been repeatedly removing the section despite other editor's attempts to retain it and discuss it. I personally reported the editor to WP:AN3 today.
I'm asking for two things here. First, it would be great if some project editors would comment on the ongoing disussion on the Talk page of the congress article. We have a few editors contributing, but not a great many. Although I take an interest in the discussion, my main interest is in the court article. Second, if appropriate, comments on the admin noticeboard would be helpful, too.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the U.S. Congress articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
There is discussion at Talk:United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010#The rule regarding the convention that only candidates who poll above 5% are included in the infobox before the election. Despite links to the discussion where the convention took shape, some editors question its existence because it is not stated on a Wikiproject page. Please weigh in. - Rrius ( talk) 19:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking for people to have a good look at a proposed revamp of United States Congress in the sandbox here at User:Tomwsulcer/United States Congress. I was spurred to fix it after one editor kept repeatedly removing a criticism section; the initial focus was trying to incorporate the criticisms within the body of the article, but then I got involved in expanding, revamping the article. It's grown to about 160K, has nice pictures. References are double. The big difference is that many more academic-type viewpoints have been added -- academics who study & teach about the Congress. So I hope it's a huge improvement but I would like others to weigh in on the proposed changes, since the article is important and heavily trafficked. There are also new spinoff subsidiary articles created to handle some of the overflow.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 21:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I have started a proposal to merge three United States related Noticeboards into one due to all three having no, or extremely limited activity, in the last year. I believe this will invigorate the noticeboard if we keep any of them at all. I propose merging:
into
Please provide comments here (including support or oppose). Comments are necessary to ensure that this does not intefere with ongoing efforts. If no comments are received in 7 days I will assume there is no problem and proceed with the merger. -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that Rep. Blunt mentioned his ideas about creating jobs and to go to his web site for details - Roy Blunt.Com. - I did that and no where can I find any reference to a program iniated or proposed by him that would create jobs. Also I watched a polital ad that mentioned Robin Carnahan's support of President Obama's position on an energy plan and would cost Missouri 32,000 jobs. How did Rep. Blunt's staff arrive at this figure as I have not read anything about this in any newspaper or articles in magazines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.6.135 ( talk) 00:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
All WikiProject project pages should have sections detailing the project's scope and goals. This project seems to lack these staple items. __ meco ( talk) 12:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject U.S. Congress/Archives/2010! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject United States, an outreach effort which aims to support development of United States related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!! |
-- Kumioko ( talk) 15:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
This article is in poor shape and needs to be reviewed by knowledgeable editors. Veriss ( talk) 11:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 20:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Change democratic to democrat for correct party identification. 71.105.162.213 ( talk) 04:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
They create the impression that one is 'elected' Speaker, in the same manner as one is elected President. One is only elected Speaker at the beginning of the new Congress & by the full membership of the House. GoodDay ( talk) 16:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
They create the impression that one is 'elected' majority leader, in the same manner as one is elected President. One isn't elected majority leader, but rather elected Senate leader of his party & then known as majority leader, merely cuz his party will be the majority party in the Senate of the next Congress. GoodDay ( talk) 16:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
At the bottom of the infobox, instead of Speaker before election & Elected Speaker, howabout Outgoing Speaker & Incoming Speaker. GoodDay ( talk) 22:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{ WikiProject United States}}. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.
I'm posting across WikiProjects to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in
Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities
here.
Please visit the
Contribution Team page and the
Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. --
THE FOUNDERS INTENT
PRAISE 13:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I have submitted a proposal at the Village pump regarding tagging non article items in Wikipedia. Please take a moment and let me know what you think. -- Kumioko ( talk) 02:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 5#Utah Territory's At-large congressional district. — GoldRingChip 11:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Adam John Glossbrenner was A clerk IN the US House of Representatives 1843-47, not Clerk OF the House. Benjamin Brown French was Clerk Of the House. Check http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000242 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerk_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#List_of_Clerks for corroboration.
The two men were friends, but French was Clerk and Glossbrenner was a subordinate.
-Freelance Historian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.147.114 ( talk) 19:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
A point of information and word of caution for editors of congressional committee articles as we approach the start of the 112th Congress. Please make sure you move articles if the committee is renamed rather than starting over from scratch with a new article. This will ensure edit histories remain intact. Subcommittees often experience renamings and jurisdiction shifts every two years, particularly if there is a change in party control (like in the House), or a change in committee leadership. Already, some incoming Republican chairmen have annouced changes they intend to make to subcommittee structured. However, a simple name change does not justify the creation of a brand new article.
An example of this will be the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee. It is being split into two subcommittees, [3] going back to its previous incarnation in 2007. Therefore, the Energy and Environment Subcommittee should be moved to its new name, Energy and Power, while the former Environment and Hazardous Materials subcommittee is being restored and renamed Environment and Economy.
I have also started a sandbox to make start work on updating committee memberships if anyone would like to contribute. DCmacnut <> 16:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I have gotten this article started. Please let me know if I've missed anyone, and particularly if I've missed any "near misses", such as people who served in the executive and judiciary branches who ran unsuccessfully for Congress. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I have not formerly been part of this or any other WikiProject, but this seems a good place to report my idea. I have long been bothered by the fact that all the congressional district pages give a long list of the representatives from that district without mentioning how the district's boundaries have changed, often drastically. As a pilot project, I have edited AZ-1 and AZ-2 to give this information. Extending this to all such pages would, of course, be a huge project, which I don't necessarily have time for. For now, I am interested in any feedback as to the importance of this project, and whether the information might be better represented. Thanks, -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 20:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This redirect is up for deletion. I hope I'm posting on the right project page. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 22. Simply south ( talk) and their tree 21:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Ordinal congresses#Senate elections. — GoldRingChip 15:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
I have nominated 109th United States Congress for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 |
Folks, I am involved in improving the Jim Inhofe article. I notice that this article has a section on Campaign Contributions. In reviewing other senators' articles, the only one I've seen with a similar section is Joseph Lieberman. The other senators' articles have a link to OpenSecrets.org in the External links section instead of an explicit article section. I'm thinking of editing both the Inhfoe and Lieberman articles (and any other I find) to conform to the typical senators' article.
Your thoughts? Madman ( talk) 16:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal to move the article "Christopher Dodd" to "Chris Dodd", which may be of interest to project participants: Talk:Christopher Dodd#Requested move. - Rrius ( talk) 10:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to let this group know that I am launching the The Great Pennsylvania Congressional Image Scrape of 2010, which is something I think you all would be interested in. ---- Blargh29 ( talk) 06:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Illinois's 3rd congressional district/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
In the list of Senators from Arkansas, Dale Bumpers is listed as
"Arkansas Attorney General (1893–1895)."
Since this is many years before he was born, this is an obvious error. Perhaps it refers to a different Dale Bumpers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.14.51.180 ( talk) 17:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I think it's unfortunate that we have to manually paste the same external links onto all the member-of-Congress pages. What if we move these sources into navboxes that go onto all those pages?
I've attempted this on one article (see Henry_Waxman#External_links) and I'd like your feedback. The diffs are here, the navbox is here, and I am trying to promote its use by associating it with Category:Legislative branch of the United States government.
Please share your feedback. Do you think navboxes like this will permit us to consolidate external links that relate to similar articles? Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 17:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is under way at Filibuster (United States Senate)#Page name as to the appropriate name of that article. - Rrius ( talk) 02:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
A new article was created this morning called Self-executing rule by User:James Kidd. I've cleaned it up some to remove obvious POV and recentism. The article was created, apparently, because of all of the health care bill related discussions and, specifically, the view by some that Pelosi wants to "pass the bill without a vote." Health care reform debate in the United States is probably the best place, but perhaps it does need its own article. This "procedure" is apparently quite common, but has never been used to pass controversial legislation before, hence its sudden notability. Have its own article is better than adding it to United States House of Representatives, as suggested by some editors. The issue is likely to generate a great deal of POV, so I wanted to make this group aware so the article can be monitored. DCmacnut <> 16:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
We should keep an eye out for POV edits related to the health care vote. I've already found one IP editor who's started adding "X rep voted no on health care reform" or some variation to a few articles. He or she is doing it exclusively to Democrats who voted no on the bill. Even though the vote is notable and probably something that could be added, I believe the intent of the edit violates WP:NPOV unless the vote is added to all member articles regardless of vote position. Thoughts? DCmacnut <> 14:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
This bill passed, 220-211 on March 21, 2010. Article should be edited to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvgomez2 ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Archives/2010/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you.
I believe it would be most helpful and more accurate to define the specific denomination a Member of Congress belongs to.
For example Baptist - SBC; Baptist - ABC; Lutheran - ELCA; Lutheran - LCMS. I picked those four examples because the Southern Baptist Convention has sometimes starkly differing views from the American Baptist Churches. The same applies for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America compared to the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
It will also help to compile more accurate religious affiliation statistics for the current Congress. 24.3.220.206 ( talk) 01:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I have attempted to add as many honorific prefixes to infoboxes as I can, but 435 members is a large number of pages to edit. If anyone is interested, please work to add "|honorific-prefix =
The Honorable
". I have completed many of the smaller state delegations. California and Texas will obviously take the most time.
Additionally, I recommend that all honorific suffixes be removed from infoboxes. There should be no reason for physicians or clergy to receive suffixes when attorneys and those with non-medical doctoral degrees do not. Therefore, if anyone notices an honorific suffix in an infobox for a Member of Congress, please remove it. 24.3.220.206 ( talk) 19:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The following delegations require honorifics or verification, thereof: California, Florida, New York, Texas, and non-voting members. (recommended gateway: 111th House of Representatives) 24.3.220.206 ( talk) 00:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Should we really be adding "the honorable" to the infobox of every member of congress? I apologize for removing it from a few of them, as I thought it was just vandalism. ~ BLM Platinum ( talk) 04:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Therefore, I contend the Governor of West Virginia should be extended the title in his/her infobox. 24.3.220.206 ( talk) 15:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Pursuant to the Proclamation of His Excellency, the Governor, issued the eighteenth day of January, 2005, and hereinafter set forth, convening the Legislature in Extraordinary Session on the twenty-fourth day of January, 2005, the House of Delegates assembled in its Chamber in the Capitol Building in the City of Charleston, and at 11:00 A.M. , was called to order by the Speaker, the Honorable Robert S. Kiss. [1]
I am also including a couple of United States Department of State documents in regard to entitlement to the title: http://web.archive.org/web/20080414012452/http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/05fah01/05fah010420.pdf (Bush era document, relevant details on page 10) http://www.state.gov/s/cpr/what/c18027.htm (Chief of Protocol FAQ)
Count me as against adding these. Americans rarely use this term in connection with members of Congress. "Senator John McCain" has 595,000 google hits. "The Honorable Senator John McCain" has 3,000. That's a 200:1 ratio, and a good indication it shouldn't be at the top of the infobox. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I oppose the addition merely because it clutters the infobox. I agree that these members are entitled to "The Honorable" per protocol, but that's mainly in formal protocol settings or in correspondence. Wikipedia is neither. WP:COMMONNAME probably should apply here. Having worked for a Senator, though, I can tell you the average constituent never uses "The Honorable" at all. In fact, some of the titles used to address my former boss are far to vulgar to be repeated. Moreover, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states that just because other articles do it that way, isn't sufficient to justify changes elsewhere. If the claim can't be used to prevent an article from being deleted, the claim is irrelevant when it comes to edits such as these. It simply does not matter that some editors have chosen to include the honorifcs on British infoboxes. Having said that, I'll let other editors fight the battle. It's not hurting anything, other than my own personal opposition to infobox clutter. This debate is more appropriate at WP:USC. DCmacnut <> 04:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Whenever the Senate or House communicate to each other about a specific member, the term "the honorable" is included with the member's name. Also consider Wikipedia's own entry --- The Honourable#United States. Furthermore, if you search the phrase "the honorable" on the United States Senate website, you will see over 26,000 occurances of the title used in official reporting which is even extended to Members of the Cabinet and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. As such, the simple, non-cluttering, appropriate inclusion of "The Honorable" in aforementioned infoboxes should be made standard. 24.3.220.206 ( talk) 15:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)The Clerk is in receipt of a letter of resignation from the Honorable Rahm Emanuel from the State of Illinois. [2]
I see my original thoughts were copied to here, above. Just to further clarify, I agree with most of the above that honorific titles should not be used in infoboxes or in the lede of articles on United States governors, senators, or members of Congress. It's not in common usage, there isn't consensus for its inclusion, and it ought not have been done in batch and in clear contradiction to our specific style guidelines on the matter. The batch edits that have not been individually reverted should be reverted en masse. (I should be clear that I am not expressing an opinion here on countries where these titles are more in common usage.) jæs (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) as the editor who brought this up here, I should probably weigh in. A healthy debate is always good, and guidelines can and should evolve. We all agree that the honorific is accurate and verifiable. The question is where do you draw the line? And I think a line should be drawn, but I'm unsure of where that should be after reading the arguments for and against. I favor a cleaner info box, it's true, but the edits aren't "hurting" anything. But taken to the logical conclusion, shouldn't all ambassador articles then see their info boxes expanded to include "Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary" which is the appropriate honorific per protocol? I think we'd all agree that such a term is excessive in an info box, nor is it unique in that all ambassadors to the US (or a significant majority) are styled in that fashion. One could argue that Congress is no different. If 535 people (plus every former and future congressman) share the same honorific, then we need to ask ourselves if the inclusion adds to or improves the article, or whether its deletion detracts from or reduces the article's quality. Is the readers experience enhanced or diminished? In my opinion the answer on both counts is "no." DCmacnut <> 04:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It would seem to me that if it is appropriate to have the "The honorable" listed in the infobox on every current or former member of Congress, that would be best accomplished by building it into the infobox template rather than changing hundreds or thousands of articles en masse. That's what templates are for, and I would suggest that when the outcome of this debate is sorted out, that the change (if any) be made that way. Janus303 ( talk) 23:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The following AfD may be of interest to editors here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sessions of the United States Supreme Court - Rrius ( talk) 01:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
At Diane Wood, part of this project, a discussion is occurring as to the of necessity of including 13 references in the lead for the proposition that a person has been mentioned as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court. - Rrius ( talk) 01:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
A move request has been made at Talk:State Attorney General#Requested move that may be of interest to participants here. - Rrius ( talk) 00:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
As the above debate indicates, there is some disagreement about whether or not infobox templates, either through the template or manually in each article, should indicate members of congress with the honorific title "The Honorable." Arguments in favor indicate that the title is used by the State Department as well as it being consistent with other honorifics. They also suggest that while use of honorifics in text may be prohibited, but use in infoboxes is not.
Arguments against include the lack of common usage, contentious debates about this sort of issue in the past, unnecessary cluttering of the infobox, and the unofficial status of the title (state department usage as unofficial).
Because the debate here has not found much common ground, and the MOS:HONORIFIC#Honorific prefixes guideline is at issue, a wider segment of the community's invited to weigh in. Shadowjams ( talk) 23:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to add height as an optional field under personal data at Template talk:Infobox officeholder. Your comments are welcome on said proposal Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 05:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
See Template talk:Project Congress#Requested move. – xeno talk 13:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I have read that Joseph Weldon Bailey was Minority leader during a part of the 1890's. Does anyone have an objection to me adding him as the first minority leader? or can someone provide a source for richardson as the first? I know it's unclear when the position even began but is their a certain source being used for this template?.-- Profitoftruth85 ( talk) 22:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC) ^ Caro, Robert A. (1990). The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The path to power. Vintage Books. p. 47. ISBN 9780679729457. Retrieved 17 June 2010.
Hi everyone! I want to invite anyone who's active here and has an interest in public policy to join WikiProject United States Public Policy, which is just starting up. We've got some cool things planned, including working with students and their professors for several public policy courses.-- Sross (Public Policy) ( talk) 13:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
An editor has proposed deleting all "Congressional districts of X" categories that currently have just one entry. This is mainly the territorial districts, but also includes Category:Congressional districts of Delaware. I'm posting this given this projects potential interest in the matter. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 24. DCmacnut <> 20:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed Leo Ryan for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib)
It may be that the article on Willis Green ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Green) suffers from confusion between Willis Green and his son of the same name. I believe that Willis Green the Congressman is the son of Willis Green the Kentucky pioneer. Following is the information I have on Willis Green, the elder:
Willis Green, who was born and grew up in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, explored beyond the Blue Ridge in what was called the Kentucky territory. After the Revolutionary War, with his two brothers, Henry and William, he located land warrants in Kentucky, the oldest half-brother, John, having inherited most of his father's estate in Virginia under the law of primogeniture. Willis was elected a delegate from Kentucky to the Virginia Legislature in 1783, and he was a member of the conventions that framed the first and second Constitutions of Kentucky. He was Register of the Land Office and Clerk of the Lincoln County Court from 1783 to 1816.
Willis was the son of Duff Green and Ann Willis (who was the daughter of Col. Henry Willis, the founder of Fredericksburg, Virginia). Willis Green married Sarah Reed. Willis and Sarah, of Scotch-Irish descent, were born and reared in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, and were married near Danville, Kentucky, in 1783. This is said to have been the first Christian marriage in Kentucky.
Willis had come to Kentucky in a surveying party, and had located for himself a tract of several thousand acres that struck his fancy a mile or two from the Danville settlement. Here he built, between 1797 and 1800, the fine large brick house for years called Waveland. The Willis Greens had an even dozen children, born and raised at Waveland.
Willis Green represented Kentucky County in the Virginia Legislature, and later served also in Kentucky's own Legislature. He held office, too, as clerk of the court of Lincoln County, which then included Danville and what is now Boyle County. History books note that he held other various important trusts and was one of the early valuable men of the Kentucky country. Pops ( talk) 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Opinions are requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings, which affects this project to the extent that it deals with Congressional naming legislation, and buildings relating to this project (for example, if "U.S." is adopted for federal buildings, United States Capitol would be moved to U.S. Capitol. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling. — GoldRingChip 10:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Should we use roman numerals for Senate classes? It seems archaic (or is it pretentious?) to use them for class 1, class 2, class 3 (class I, class II, class III). See, e.g., List of United States Senators from Massachusetts — GoldRingChip 19:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The picture of Bob Filner is gone i just wanted to tell you so you can download a new one. Spongie555 ( talk) 04:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
AFD discussion, is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Miller (South Carolina politician) (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 22:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The United States Congress article, along with the United States Supreme Court and President of the United States articles, have been undergoing a fair amount of controversy lately about a Critcism section added to all three articles in 2009 after some extended discussion. More recently, an editor removed the sections from all three articles. The sections were restored to the court and president articles, and they remain restored and under discussion (again). The congress article though has seen a more aggressive battle. Another editor (not the one who initially removed the section) has been repeatedly removing the section despite other editor's attempts to retain it and discuss it. I personally reported the editor to WP:AN3 today.
I'm asking for two things here. First, it would be great if some project editors would comment on the ongoing disussion on the Talk page of the congress article. We have a few editors contributing, but not a great many. Although I take an interest in the discussion, my main interest is in the court article. Second, if appropriate, comments on the admin noticeboard would be helpful, too.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the U.S. Congress articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
There is discussion at Talk:United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010#The rule regarding the convention that only candidates who poll above 5% are included in the infobox before the election. Despite links to the discussion where the convention took shape, some editors question its existence because it is not stated on a Wikiproject page. Please weigh in. - Rrius ( talk) 19:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking for people to have a good look at a proposed revamp of United States Congress in the sandbox here at User:Tomwsulcer/United States Congress. I was spurred to fix it after one editor kept repeatedly removing a criticism section; the initial focus was trying to incorporate the criticisms within the body of the article, but then I got involved in expanding, revamping the article. It's grown to about 160K, has nice pictures. References are double. The big difference is that many more academic-type viewpoints have been added -- academics who study & teach about the Congress. So I hope it's a huge improvement but I would like others to weigh in on the proposed changes, since the article is important and heavily trafficked. There are also new spinoff subsidiary articles created to handle some of the overflow.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 21:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I have started a proposal to merge three United States related Noticeboards into one due to all three having no, or extremely limited activity, in the last year. I believe this will invigorate the noticeboard if we keep any of them at all. I propose merging:
into
Please provide comments here (including support or oppose). Comments are necessary to ensure that this does not intefere with ongoing efforts. If no comments are received in 7 days I will assume there is no problem and proceed with the merger. -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that Rep. Blunt mentioned his ideas about creating jobs and to go to his web site for details - Roy Blunt.Com. - I did that and no where can I find any reference to a program iniated or proposed by him that would create jobs. Also I watched a polital ad that mentioned Robin Carnahan's support of President Obama's position on an energy plan and would cost Missouri 32,000 jobs. How did Rep. Blunt's staff arrive at this figure as I have not read anything about this in any newspaper or articles in magazines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.6.135 ( talk) 00:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
All WikiProject project pages should have sections detailing the project's scope and goals. This project seems to lack these staple items. __ meco ( talk) 12:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject U.S. Congress/Archives/2010! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject United States, an outreach effort which aims to support development of United States related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!! |
-- Kumioko ( talk) 15:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
This article is in poor shape and needs to be reviewed by knowledgeable editors. Veriss ( talk) 11:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 20:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Change democratic to democrat for correct party identification. 71.105.162.213 ( talk) 04:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
They create the impression that one is 'elected' Speaker, in the same manner as one is elected President. One is only elected Speaker at the beginning of the new Congress & by the full membership of the House. GoodDay ( talk) 16:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
They create the impression that one is 'elected' majority leader, in the same manner as one is elected President. One isn't elected majority leader, but rather elected Senate leader of his party & then known as majority leader, merely cuz his party will be the majority party in the Senate of the next Congress. GoodDay ( talk) 16:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
At the bottom of the infobox, instead of Speaker before election & Elected Speaker, howabout Outgoing Speaker & Incoming Speaker. GoodDay ( talk) 22:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{ WikiProject United States}}. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.
I'm posting across WikiProjects to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in
Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities
here.
Please visit the
Contribution Team page and the
Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. --
THE FOUNDERS INTENT
PRAISE 13:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I have submitted a proposal at the Village pump regarding tagging non article items in Wikipedia. Please take a moment and let me know what you think. -- Kumioko ( talk) 02:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 5#Utah Territory's At-large congressional district. — GoldRingChip 11:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Adam John Glossbrenner was A clerk IN the US House of Representatives 1843-47, not Clerk OF the House. Benjamin Brown French was Clerk Of the House. Check http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000242 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerk_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#List_of_Clerks for corroboration.
The two men were friends, but French was Clerk and Glossbrenner was a subordinate.
-Freelance Historian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.147.114 ( talk) 19:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
A point of information and word of caution for editors of congressional committee articles as we approach the start of the 112th Congress. Please make sure you move articles if the committee is renamed rather than starting over from scratch with a new article. This will ensure edit histories remain intact. Subcommittees often experience renamings and jurisdiction shifts every two years, particularly if there is a change in party control (like in the House), or a change in committee leadership. Already, some incoming Republican chairmen have annouced changes they intend to make to subcommittee structured. However, a simple name change does not justify the creation of a brand new article.
An example of this will be the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee. It is being split into two subcommittees, [3] going back to its previous incarnation in 2007. Therefore, the Energy and Environment Subcommittee should be moved to its new name, Energy and Power, while the former Environment and Hazardous Materials subcommittee is being restored and renamed Environment and Economy.
I have also started a sandbox to make start work on updating committee memberships if anyone would like to contribute. DCmacnut <> 16:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I have gotten this article started. Please let me know if I've missed anyone, and particularly if I've missed any "near misses", such as people who served in the executive and judiciary branches who ran unsuccessfully for Congress. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I have not formerly been part of this or any other WikiProject, but this seems a good place to report my idea. I have long been bothered by the fact that all the congressional district pages give a long list of the representatives from that district without mentioning how the district's boundaries have changed, often drastically. As a pilot project, I have edited AZ-1 and AZ-2 to give this information. Extending this to all such pages would, of course, be a huge project, which I don't necessarily have time for. For now, I am interested in any feedback as to the importance of this project, and whether the information might be better represented. Thanks, -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 20:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This redirect is up for deletion. I hope I'm posting on the right project page. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 22. Simply south ( talk) and their tree 21:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Ordinal congresses#Senate elections. — GoldRingChip 15:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
I have nominated 109th United States Congress for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.