Talk:List of current United States Senators
| WikiProject United States | (Rated List-class, Low-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject U.S. Congress | (Rated List-class, Low-importance) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Turn off HTML
Would you please turn off the HTML table? It ruins the article in AmigaOS 4.0 browser. —Anonymous
- This is the standard Wikipedia table and is used in hundreds of articles. You need a new browser. Adam 04:59, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] 110th Congress
Here's a new table with the new Senators. I plan to move it to article space after Jan 3 2005:
Candidates elected on November 2 are not yet Senators and should not be added to the article until January. Adam 08:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Class?
Sorry to bug, but what does class 1 and class 3 mean on certain Senator's pages? I assume it has something to do with election rotation, but I haven't found anything certain. Should this info (if it doesn't already exist) be added to the Senate page? Atrivedi
- Your guess is correct. On the U.S. Senate's website, we read:
-
class - Article I, section 3 of the Constitution requires the Senate to be divided into three classes for purposes of elections. Senators are elected to six-year terms, and every two years the members of one class—approximately one-third of the Senators—face election or reelection. Terms for Senators in Class I expire in 2007, Class II in 2009, and Class III in 2011. [1]
- On the Senate site, that definition is linked to from this page, which gives the full Senate roster with each Senator's class. Go ahead and add the information wherever you think appropriate. JamesMLane 08:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Corzine
Should Corzine be listed as leaving? If he loses his gubernatorial race this year, he'd presumably still be able to run for reelection in 06, wouldn't he? john k 05:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Translation in German WP
Hi!
I (de:Benutzer:Klever) translated this version into German: de:Liste der gegenwärtigen Mitglieder im US-Senat.
Are changes in this article planned??
CU,
Marco(de:Benutzer:Klever)
- There will be several important changes in January when the new group of Senators take office. Same goes for any United States House of Representatives articles. --Tim4christ17 talk 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:FLC
It strikes me that this list could easily become a featured list. It would need a slightly longer lead, ideally a graphic, and some references (perhaps this list from the Senate website?) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lieberman Party Status
I noticed that Lieberman's party status changed to his independent party that he is using to run on for the November General elections. I changed it back to the Democractic Party because he was elected a Democrat and is still listed as a member on the Senate Democrat's page. Any comments, shoot my way. And if you know that I'm wrong, let me know too because this sort of thing hasn't happened in quite sometime.
- Lieberman is a Democrat. At least for the current Congress (109th). —Markles 02:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Lieberman is a Democrat for his current term, but an independent for his campaign. Usually you campaign with the same affiliation you're serving with, but Lieberman seems to have created an exception to that rule. --Tim4christ17 talk 19:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Now the question is, once the new year rolls around and he resumes his seat, what party should he be put under? General "Independent" or should we actually go with his "party's" name?
- Go with whatever he says he is. And I have a hunch he will be back in the Democratic fold by then. But you'll have to wait and see. Wahkeenah 22:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Lieberman himself used Independent Democrat "Capital I, Capital D" on Meet the Press, and we have updated the Joseph Lieberman and Connecticut pages accordingly. Please see Talk:Joseph Lieberman#Joe_Lieberman_is_NOT_an_Independent to read how consensus was formed. The quote is sourced in the Joseph Lieberman lead. Now, what color goes with Independent Democrat? I'd rather leave the changes to editors who regularly work on this page. Jd2718 17:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see the discussions at Talk:Joe_Lieberman and Talk:110th_United_States_Congress. He was officially an ID yesterday, today he's an I. [2] Simon12 03:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of current Senators (as from January 3, 2007)
I don't know who made that, but it seems to be incorrect. Thomas Carper (DE) was re-elected in the 2006 midterms. Jack Daw 17:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, Lieberman is officially a Democrat for the term he is finishing (see the Senate website). What party he will have for his upcoming term is yet to be decided...he would normally default into "Connecticut for Lieberman" (because that's how he was elected) but there is virtually no chance he would use that as his official affiliation for his next term. --Tim4christ17 talk 07:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the list to extend the term of office for all of the Class 1 Senators to 2012. It should be ready for cut-and-paste to the mainpage on January 3, 2007. -- Robster2001 02:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lieberman is ID (according to senate.gov); color is same as Independent (grey). That should satisfy everyone.
According to senate.gov, Lieberman is an Independent Democrat. However, since there is no official party called "Independent Democrat", the color is the same as other "independents", grey. user:mnw2000 00:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have requested from senate.gov the OFFICIAL listing for Joe Lieberman. One web site (a PDF dated 1/3) says it is I-CT and another web site (an dynamic page) says it is ID-CT. Let's wait for the response. user:mnw2000 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have received the following reply:
Senator Lieberman's official listing is ID-CT (Independent Democrat). The pdf you list below only allowed for one letter parties. This problem is being corrected, and when the new phone list is generated in about a week Senator Lieberman's party will be listed as ID. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
Best Wishes, Liz Horrell, On behalf of the Senate Webmaster
I guess the case is closed on this one for now. user:mnw2000 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Great job! Can you please post this on Talk:110th United States Congress and Talk:Joe Lieberman? Simon12 03:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
This page is rather redundant. Just H 01:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Images
There is a problem with the images at the top of the page. Two of them overlap, and the whole thing looks pretty messy and disorganized. I don't know how to fix it, so I'd appreciate it if someone who does know how could do so. Thanks.Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- What browser and OS are you using? -Rrius (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am currently looking at the article with IE 7.0 on Windows Vista, and the image on the upper left overlaps with the top table, causing part of it to be unreadable. Jonathunder (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Just to let you know...
This article was mentioned by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in KERRIGAN v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 289 Conn. 135. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Graphics overlapping
The diagram of the Senate seats is overlapping the chart at the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.236.198 (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Religion?
Why is there a column for each Senator's religion? How is it relevant? I mean, I understand that it is relevant to them personally, and to some of their constituents, and for some of them it may strongly affect their behavior in the Senate, but it is not relevant to Senators qua Senators. We might as well have a column for their ethnic background, or their sexual preference. -68.196.8.50 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree that this is somewhat strange. It has an obvious place in each senators article. One might conceivably imagine an article which lists current U.S. Senators by religion. But I see no reason for religion to be addressed in this article. john k (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I also found it striking and odd that religion had a column. I can think of other aspects that are equally irrelevant or arguably more relevant. Military Service, perhaps. Gender? 24.193.42.103 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just wanted to chime in that I agree the religion column isn't relevant for this column. I'd strike it myself but I'll wait to see if there's a bit more consensus. ThomasAndrewNimmo (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is not relevant to 'List of current United States Senators'. I don't think education or prior experience is relevant to this list either.148.9.131.44 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with most of the above: thought it was very strange. Don't usually participate in discussions, but had to chime in here. It is about as relevant as race and certainly LESS relevant than education and perhaps prior experience (though that seemed awkward, as well). --134.67.6.14 (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
-
- I agree too that religion isn't relevant in this list however I'd be sorry to see it go after having read such an eclectic list of religions. I have no idea what religions like Lutheran and Presb... are (being from Europe) nor the other churches like Church of God but it is interesting to see how many Senate members are in the LDS or Jewish and how not a single person is listed as not being religious. Again, coming from Europe it is shocking to see that all US Senators are religious - very few European politicians would admit to being religious except in places like Poland, Italy, Spain and Greece.--109.228.87.230 (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
-
- It is an encyclopedic entry; encyclopedias include such because thousands of students are tasked each year with reports which cover multiple politicians. Rather than expecting students to wade through 100 pages of senators, or 435 representatives, consolidation is preferred and appreciated. 75.202.34.229 (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
-
-
- This is true, but an encyclopedia entry should only contain information which is directly relevant to the subject at hand. If it is desired to have a compilation of the religions and other details of sitting Senators, then a different entry should be created for that information (perhaps a listing of the religions of all members of Congress, or something like that). As previously observed, we could also have a column with each sitting member's military service; this would most definitely be useful to someone doing a report on the subject of military experience and how it affects politicians. It is better to only have the bare essentials in a table like this because there is no non-arbitrary way to determine what other information is included. 129.161.35.60 (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
-
Can we reopen this conversation? It seems like most people were okay with getting rid of the 'religion' column...--Rishidesai (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Religion is irrelevant to this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.164.157 (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Sorting by last name
Is there a way to make this possible? Sorting by name currently sorts it by first name, putting Al Franken on top instead of Daniel Akaka. @harej 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have now made sorting by last name possible through {{fns}}. Now I can live my dream of being the Clerk of the Senate. @harej 01:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Jumping the Gun
Brown isn't MA senator yet. He is the presumed senator elect. The current senator will hold the seat and cast the vote, until Brown is certified and then seated by the senate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.160.199.100 (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Top Template error
The Democrats party-colour isn't showing. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Percent of vote?
Sorry. I don't really know how to use this discussion page. Would it be possible to include the percentage of the vote that each senator received in their last election? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.73.250 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- New sections should be added at the bottom, and you should sign your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end. To your point, it is possible, but I'm not sure I see why that is important enough to add here. Moreover, the table is already crowded with information, and I think we need to be very careful about adding more. -Rrius (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Political party color coded list?
Should the list be color coded that corresponds to the Senators respective party? You know many lists of politicians in the U.S. have this formula and design. Why not this? I know you can easily read it in the column, but I think it's best if it were color coded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.65.165.173 (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- It seems inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry. One reason this is the case is because there aren't really particular colors that are formally associated with parties that aren't the Democrats or Republicans. 129.161.35.60 (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
A guy named CreatureKawa done a series of vandalisms in many of the former senatos lists such as Illinois, Indiana and Louisiana. I fixed Indiana and Louisiana and a user fixed Illinois. Can someone find other vandalisms and fix them and also find CreatureKawa and prevent him of doing other strange things? (If someone find out that he was not a vandal but he was experimenting, tell him about the sandbox)
77.49.58.110 (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] File:BarbaraBoxer.png Nominated for Deletion
 |
An image used in this article, File:BarbaraBoxer.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
|
| A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
[edit] No Lead Section
The top of this article notes that it has no lead section (among other things it has been flagged for). Somebody could simply type that there are 100 senators, two from each state, but I would think that most people visiting the page know that already. In my opinion a lead section is not that important considering the page title says it is a list, but it should still have at least a small lead section if that is required of all Wikipedia pages. EvanJ35 (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
