Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
   MAIN        Talk        To do        Mem        Elec        Ord        Dist        Cmtee        Assess        Pop        Bio        Img        WikiList        Cleanup        COTW      
WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

See also:

Tracking recent changes[edit]

Some of the best pages to track are trackable via your favorite RSS or atom reader. See Wikipedia:Syndication.

Recent changes RSS feed atom feed
Recent changes to 110th United States Congress RSS atom
Recent changes to 109th United States Congress RSS atom
Recent changes to United States Congress RSS atom
Recent changes to United States House of Representatives RSS atom
Recent changes to United States Senate RSS atom

If someone runs for Congress as an Independent, is the word "Independent" capitalized in the body text of the article?[edit]

If someone runs for Congress as an Independent, is the word "Independent" capitalized in the body text of the article? See current edit war on Marianne Williamson. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Typically, yes, it is capitalized. —GoldRingChip 11:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it should be. I know some style guides do allow it, but I don't see anywhere under MOS:CAPS that would favor it being capitalized. It's a description not a proper name. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No. "Independent" is simply an adjective or substantive that implies no party affiliation. To be a proper noun there would have to be an "Independent Party" Reywas92Talk 00:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about template "Template:USCongRec"[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:USCongRec#Links not working (GPO reorganization, I think) , which is about a template that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Template no longer working due to change in GPO website Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article[edit]

There is a request for comment on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article. If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act § RfC: Recent additions. — Newslinger talk 06:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

State representative templates[edit]

I've been looking at standardising templates such as {{USCongRep/AL/99}}, which have a variety of formats. Advice would be welcome at Template talk:USCongRep-row#State parameter. Thanks, Certes (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool[edit]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Does rural/urban distribution in the US Congressional District Infobox refer to population or land distribution?[edit]

The census publishes urban/rural percentages for both population and land area [1]. Which should be used? userdude 07:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Population. Land doesn't vote. Reywas92Talk 09:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Lists of living former members[edit]

Please notify as many editors as possible to comment here, by adding {{subst:please see|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Lists of living former members}} to their talk pages.

I seek consensus on keeping, removing, or modifying the lists of former House members or senators who are still living. For example, in the article New York's 1st congressional district, the following section appears:

== Living former members ==
{{As of|2019|12}}, there are four living former members from the district. The most recent to die was [[William Carney (politician)|William Carney]] (who served 1979–1987) on May 23, 2017.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Representative
! Term of office
! Date of birth (and age)

|-
| [[George J. Hochbrueckner]]
| 1987–1995
| {{birth date and age|mf=yes|1938|9|20}}

|-
| [[Michael Forbes]]
| 1995–2001
| {{birth date and age|mf=yes|1952|7|16}}

|-
| [[Felix Grucci]]
| 2001–2003
| {{birth date and age|mf=yes|1951|11|25}}

|-
| [[Tim Bishop]]
| 2003–2015
| {{birth date and age|mf=yes|1950|6|1}}

|}

These lists are on every congressional district article, every article listing senators, and I think every congressional delegation article. These lists need to be updated every month for the "as of" date. My biggest concern, however, is their notability: is this information necessary, relevant, worthy, notable, and/or trivial? Does an article on a district really need to mention that George J. Hochbrueckner isn't dead?

Please discuss and/or vote keep, remove, or modify, below. —GoldRingChip 14:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

These types of lists are good to have when it concerns an executive office. But, they're a headache per sure volume, when it's legislative members. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I absolutely say remove. I was probably responsible for a good portion of them being added, at least for governors, but they are a maintenance hassle and, so far as I can tell, offer absolutely no value. And in the last few years as I remove them from governors lists and people add them back, and I ask for a reason, ANY reason, beyond inertia and "other articles have it," not a single person has managed to respond. I say remove them, entirely. (And I disagree on them being useful for an executive office, too. Why? I see that some people have some trivia thing for how many U.S. presidents are alive at any given time, but unless a shared trivia boner can be demonstrated for governors of Delaware or what not, I see no reason to indulge it) --Golbez (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove Agree that there's not much purpose, it's not hard for those who want to know if someone is alive to click on the names of recent officeholders. Some of these lists include birth/death dates within the table under the name, those can be nice. Reywas92Talk 19:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move the data to the main list. This isn't quite trivia, but nor is it important enough to justify a standalone list. So I support removing the standalone lists, but only when the data is already displayed elsewhere on the page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    @BrownHairedGirl: it took me a moment to figure out which main list you're referring to - is it the list of all former members (New York's 1st congressional district § List of members representing the district in this example), and are you suggesting adding birth and death dates there? Airbornemihir (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Airbornemihir, that's it. The main list of members. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Given that I belong to the more information the better club I think leave it as is. For those who are looking for living former members it is much easier to source the information as it is currently laid out rather than track through the recent reps, many of whom live for many many years and some of whom do not. The regular monthly updates are a bit of a pain admittedly but hardly a huge imposition. The more information about the Districts the better in my view. Benawu2 (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    But why do you need to know who's a living former member? What about all the other useless bits of trivia we could add, like job, birthplace, spouse, etc.? (And I'm not saying that to equate them in some race to the bottom - I'm saying, if you truly find knowing who is a living former member more useful than those other bits of trivia, why? Have you ever had the occasion to need to know which reps of a particular district are still alive? Why? Knowing this will help inform future decisions. --Golbez (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

-- Actually yes I have occasionally wondered and checked. More out of curiosity than anything else. Can't think of anything else I would want to add either. Benawu2 (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Move per BrownHairedGirl. Every so often, especially in states with one or two House seats, there will be no living former members; and that leads to some fairly awkward phrasing in these articles as we try to explain without sounding ominous that everyone who used to do this job is dead. Airbornemihir (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    Look at this for instance - extra spooky because Rep. Begich is only presumed dead. Airbornemihir (talk) 06:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    Spooky indeed and the page captures it well. Benawu2 (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
    But do all three articles: List of United States Representatives from Alaska, United States congressional delegations from Alaska, and Alaska's at-large congressional district need to capture it? Even if these these still-living lists were relevant, then maybe just include them in "List of United States Representatives from Alaska"? —GoldRingChip 20:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    @GoldRingChip: In cases where there is repetition, I'd definitely support moving it all into one place, and maintaining it as part of a table rather than as a list by itself. Further, I'd rather we keep this information in a table on the individual district pages (Alabama's 10th congressional district § Notes, Alaska's at-large congressional district) rather than the pages covering an entire state, where searching can become difficult if the state has something like 53 districts. Airbornemihir (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    There are some states with many districts, where a long-serving member was often redistricted so the info gets duplicated in multiple places. It's easier just to find her/him on the state-wide article. —GoldRingChip 21:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

So here's the plan?[edit]

@Airbornemihir, Benawu2, Golbez, BrownHairedGirl, Reywas92, GoodDay, MallonAllah12, and Redditaddict69:

Is this a good compromise consensus plan?

  1. Consolidate them all on List of United States Representatives from Foo and List of United States senators from Foo.
  2. Remove them from Congressional delegations from Foo
  3. Remove them from Foo's nth congressional district

We can even insert a {{for}}, {{see also}}, or {{further}} note on the district articles directing a reader to the state-wide article for more info about currently living former members. (I'm not wild about this, but it's a compromise.) Is that ok? —GoldRingChip 21:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, this is reasonable. The district articles should already link to those lists so pointing out this information is there is excessive. Reywas92Talk 21:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Go with it. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sure, I see no reason to oppose this compromise. I didn't think this needed to be changed but the change seems beneficial now that it's been brought up. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I still think there's no point to them, but if they're going to be thrown somewhere I guess the general "list of" people is the best place. --Golbez (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I still don't see the need to change them at all (sorry Golbez) but if it has to change then the suggested method is a good one. Benawu2 (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yep, I think that makes sense. I'm convinced by GoldRingChip reasoning that the decennial redistricting causes a lot of information to be duplicated across various pages. I'm neutral at best on the {{for}}/{{see also}}/{{further}} notes suggested by GoldRingChip, although I understand they would probably be valuable to people accustomed to finding that information at a certain place and seeing it's no longer there. Airbornemihir (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Also, while I agree with GoldRingChip that it's settled, I just wanted to mention one more advantage of the proposed scheme - it brings the House and Senate pages into alignment. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, it's settled, then. Please make the changes as/when you are using district articles. Thank for for your input. —GoldRingChip 14:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)