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.
Agreed. There has been lots of prior discussion of this, because a couple of references say that Congresses ended on March 3, but there are a good number of references confirming that before the Twentieth Amendment, congressional (and presidential) terms ended at noon on March 4th. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
PS- Can you imagine? Every two years, for twelve hours (until 1933), the US Government had no legislatvie branch? That would be unconstitutional. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Because, that's when the new represenatives and senators began their terms (and the reelected began their new terms). GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed the dates to 'March 4 to March 4' on the articles 1st United Congressto72nd United States Congress. This has been my 'third attempt' in a year. Hopefully (this time) those correct changes won't be reverted. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I really hate to be a stick in the mud once again, but I'm sitting here with all sorts of published congressional records and a copy of all Professor Kenneth Martis' exhaustive comprehensive documentation of all this stuff, and never once do any of them say the earlier congresses ended on March 4. I remember our earlier discussion, and once again don't dispute that some actually did end after midnight, but the point is we are not experts and are directed by WP policy not to contradict clearly unimpeachable sources. Nor is it our place to question the logic of the 12 hour lag between sessions. I really think the only way this would even possibly be acceptable would be if there was a specific footnote every time March 4 was used, indicating the source of the information and the reason you are right and Martis and all the experts in the Congress had it wrong. stilltim (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Beggin on my hands & knees with tears in my eyes. Would somebody please show me in the US Constitution, where it says a representative's full term in 2 yrs less a day long & a senator's full term in 6 yrs less a day long? GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
For those new to this debate, see Talk:List of Presidents of the United States, where I cite a number of sources. I actually figured out why there are no meetings shown for legislative days of March 4th: in the early Congresses, the mornings were used for committee meetings, and the House and Senate convened at 12:00 noon. Since the session adjourned at noon, there was no legislative day of March 4th in the outgoing Congress, though there sometimes was in the incoming Congress. But there is no question that if you walked into the House or Senate Chamber at 10:00 a.m. on March 4 and the body was in session, it was the old House, not the new one. I think the historical record is quite clear, despite the misleading dates used in the otherwise reliable Biographical Directory. If the dispute continues I suggest mediation on this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm also flabergasted that Prof Martis is suggesting that for 12hrs every two years, the US Government had no legislative branch. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
We're all aware of the many omissions and ambiguities of the U.S. Constitution and surely aren't about using WP as a means to clean them up. Certainly, Professor Martis and the authors of the Biographical Guide were similarly aware of them, and using their many years of scholarly research and reflection, reached conclusions that we should honor and respect. The subject of this discussion is clearly one of them. Newyorkbrad has done a terrific job of researching this issue, and I have not the slightest doubt that his information is correct. However, the results of the research can hardly have been unknown to congressional scholars and yet they persist in using the March 3 date. Obviously, there is another piece of information we are not appropriately considering. Perhaps it is the "legislative day" concept, perhaps something else. We are not the experts, are specifically charged by WP policy not to present ourselves as such, and clearly are doing so by rejecting the conclusions of the congressional scholars on this issue in favor of our own. While I feel most strongly that our presentation of information must be consistent with our expertly developed sources, I think it entirely appropriate to add notes to further explain the information as long as the notes are specific and properly cited. All this was discussed and suggested previously, and it still seems to me like a reasonable middle approach. stilltim (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I fear mediation as means to resolve this, unless the mediator was a respected Congressional authority. Alas, I doubt that would be the case, leaving a large risk of such a decision being made by someone without the necessary perspective. Indeed, based on our previous communications, I have a great deal of respect for the knowledge and understanding of the parties to this discussion and am hopeful that we can continue to thoughtfully consider each others points and reach a satisfactory approach. stilltim (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The US Congress doesn't have to be in session to exsist, the Constitution's Article #1 is very clear - represenative have a term of 2yrs and senators 6yrs. Before 1933, their terms didn't expire 12hrs before their successor was sworn in or if reelected they didn't leave their seat, then 12hrs later reclaim it. My apologies people for my frustrations, but the idea of having my edits erroneously reversed 'again', is almost unbearable. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Stilltim on this one. The Biographical Directory, Martis, and the Library of Congress all use dates other than March 4 for the end of the early congresses. Those dates coincide with when the congress adjourned sine die. Moreover, the noon to noon terms of senators and represenatatives did not exist until ratification of the 20th Amendment in 1933. The constitution only required congress to assemble once per year "on the first Monday in December, unless they by law shall appoint a different day." Therefore, I believe we should follow the official documents of the period, rather than adding our own interpretations. The constitution never specifically stated March 4 for congress or the President. We would need to find the original text of the election law for that purpose. The ambiguity caused by the apparent lack of a legislative branch for 12 hours, and the lame duck sessions of congress, it precisely the reason the 20th Amendment was adopted. Congress wanted to be more precise.
Now, it may be that this was technically the "legislative day" of March 3, which happened to coincide with "calendar day" of March 4. But the fact remains that there was ambiguity, and scholars more learned in these matters than us have already made this determination that March 3 (or March 2, or whatever date) was the end of the early congresses. We cannot simply say "hey, that doesn't seem right" and alter the dates as we please. We are bound by Wikipedia policy not to try to divine meaning from or reinterpret reliable sources. If a more definitive source can be found, I'm all ears. As far as mediation, this is above our expertise. The only person qualified I can think of is Richard Baker, Senate Historian. But it will take more than our rag-tag band of editors to reach out to him.Dcmacnut (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Stilltim and Dcmacnut. Until recognized authorities (the reliable sources which contributors use to as references) shift to use March 4, wikipedia should reflect these sources and not change the dates based on what is undoubtedly very good investigative work, but is nonetheless original research. older ≠ wiser16:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
So you're all arguing that Senator & Represenatives terms had 12hr gaps between them? I've lost my patients with this topic (thus it's best I depart), good luck in figuring this all out folks. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that there was a 12 hour gap in terms. All I'm saying is that the recorded documents indicate the date the congress terminated. Based on the House and Senate Journals, that is the date they adjourned sine die. Modern congresses adjourn sine die in November and December of even numbered years, and the next congress doesn't begin until the following January 3. However, due to the 20th Amendment, we know that terms of senators and representatives run until noon January 3, and that is how the terms are now delineated. The simple point is that we do not know how terms were counted 200 years ago. What we have are historians who have determined when a congress ended. And if that is how the House and Senate are recording the terms in modern documents, like the Congressional Directory, who are we to question that, even if the numbers don't seem add up or fit a neat time table? To try to devise an alternative timeline that fits some predetermined format violates WP:NOR, even when using the Congressional Record.Dcmacnut (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous editor changed the succession from Andrew Jacobs, Jr.toJohn T. Myers. While it is true that Myers was the last previous person to represent the district called the 7th, it is not the same district. Indiana lost a seat in 2002, and the districts were re-numbered. Carson succeeded Jacobs as the 10th district rep in 1996, and the district boundaries were re-drawn, with the new 7th being substantially the same as the old 10th. The district known as the 7th prior to 2002 was in a different part of the state and had no common territory with the new 7th. --rogerd 10:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I am going to renew my objection here. The article now lists Brian Kerns as her predecessor. Kern's 7th and Carson's 7th did not have a single constituent in common. She was originally elected to the 10th, which was represented by Jacobs, which became the 7th upon redistricting. Jacobs was here predecessor. --rogerd (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
A good example is Nancy Pelosi's succession boxes. She didn't move, but her district did. It's correct the way it is right now, although I would be more specific about the dates.
The succession is for the seat (in this case Indiana's 7th congressional district. Lines are re-drawn all the time; for the purposes of congressional succession, ignore the fact that no constituents stayed the same from one congress to the next. We have something like 12,000 U.S. Representatives, and they are all done that way (or should be). Otherwise, we would get into problems where 1/3 or 2/3 of a district changed population (or some unknown number), or in a growing area, two people might succeed one.--Appraiser (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Legistorm.com has been blacklisted because it was initially spammed onto most of the sitting members of congress. I think the blacklist is an error, however, because the site is meritorious; it contains neutrally-presented staff expenditures and financial disclosure forms for each sitting politician. I think it should be a standard link on each biography as with the Washington Post, opensecrets, and votesmart (see Template talk:CongLinks. Thoughts? See the de-blacklisting request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#legistorm.com. Cool HandLuke01:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think simply adding the external link without any context into the representatives' articles is spam-like. Perhaps you should add something like "Pelosi's staff budget in the 110th congress averaged $20,000 per month, which is 37% above the average for the congress"1 into each article. Of course, that would require much more work on your part - but it would give the reader information and a sense of what the information represents. I would support using your source as a reference for such a statement.--Appraiser (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm ambivilent about whether Legistorm should be included in these articles. I personally don't think what a Member of Congress pays his or her staff members has no bearing on their performance as a senator or congressman and is irrelevant to the purpose of the article, which focuses primarily on the member and his or her biography/record. On the otherhand, the information at Legistorm is non-partisan. If we are to adopt a standard of exclucing links without any related context in the article, why do we have links to OpenSecrets.org (campaign financing) in the majority of the articles, when only a few articles make specific mention of campaign receipts by specific senators or congressmen? VoteSmart is also included, and it appears to simply be a shortened biographical summary, duplicating information found elsewhere. The external links are not only meant to reference something already in the article, but to provide more information. Then again, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, so we need to be selective. I think the blacklisting warrants more discussion among the broader WikiProject community. See the rest of the debate Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abusive_identification_of_Legistorm.com_as_.22spam.22.Dcmacnut (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
No. Carson & Hastert did represent their districts in the 110th Congress. Currently their seats are vacant. The 110th Congress is an historical event while the current reps are a single current slice in time. Therefore:
Was he elected or appointed to the U.S. Senate? His own page says he was appointed, but the page on John McKinley, whom he succeeded, says he was elected. If he was appointed, who appointed him? My understanding is that such appointments are usually made by the governor, so it'd be quite shoddy of him to appoint himself. Can someone who knows about this clear this up? Pstinchcombe (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Although, prior to the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, states had various procedures for selecting Senators, especially mid-term replacements. In any case, he was not elected by popular vote. At most he was elected by the legislature, or more likely, he was selected by the governor and the selection confirmed by the legislature. But that is only a best guess, any specific details would <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">need a verifiable source. For example, this biography at the Alabama Dept. of Archives & History states that he was appointed. Although – in his case, it doesn't indicate who appointed him – since he was governor at the time, did he appoint himself?! Certainly not inconceivable for the ethical standards of that time period. This shorter article from the same department only indicates that he was "named" to the Senate. older ≠ wiser15:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Election results tables, take 2.
Well, the Clerk's office has finally got around to posting the 2006 election results in (easily machine interpretable) HTML form. I noted my first stab at this above at #Results tables for districts and representatives, but didn't really push things too aggressively due to not wanting to have to replicate work when the 2006 results were posted. Anyway, there are now script-generated election history tables from 1992-2006 for both the House and Senate at User:SnowFire/USCongressResults, which I hope can be useful in various Congressperson/election/district articles. SnowFire (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the way these tables were automatically populated - sure saves a lot of typing. However, there are already several election templates in place that are in use in several articles (international elections in addition to U.S. elections). You may want to compare your tables to Template:Election table and the various election boxes at Template:Election box to see how they compare. I would recommend taking your tables to see if you could mirror the existing formats. Also, using the election templates allows for smaller file sizes and ease of use for any edits. Just a suggestion.Dcmacnut (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen that template in use, and I suppose I could generate results in that format... but I'm not sure it's a good stylistic choice. For a single election, I agree that it's fine (say, as used in the United States Senate election in New Jersey, 2006#Election results article). However, I don't think that those are a good choice for displaying multiple elections. I did base these tables off other versions I've seen elsewhere in Wikipedia; the Robert Byrd article, whose table far predates my own efforts, would require 12 separate election tables, which would occupy considerably more space than one unified table and generally be clunky. District articles like New Jersey's 2nd congressional district would be unimaginably huge. Furthermore, one unified election table generally presents the information better, in my view - rather than having to have seemingly "extra" fields such as the percentage change in vote since the previous election, you can simply look down a column and see the rises and falls in percentage, as well as the different bolding showing changes of control. Seems to me as if it shows the same information, but better.
I suppose there are arguments either way, but that seem reasonable? I suppose if there's interest I could generate them in the Template:Election table style, though I wouldn't really be a fan except in articles like the 2006-specific election articles.
(And oh yes. Side rant. These tables would be MUCH shorter if MediaWiki supported column attributes. Instead of being able to easily color an entire column with the Democratic party shading or say all votes should be align-righted, that has to be repeated on a cell-by-cell basis. Ugh.) SnowFire (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you're right about the Election table templates not fitting you results 100%, particularly when listing multiple years. Take a look at United States House elections, 1824 where I've attempted to use Template:Election box inline to display each state's elections for that year with the individual candidates. I created the inline template to avoid separate tables for each district and to allow for multiple candidates. Also, the the templates make it easier to create the tables from scratch and for other editors to update as needed. Since your tables are created automatically, perhaps a template isn't necessary, and your info can just be copied over. I'm open to any suggestions you might have on a better way to display the House election data, though. The early at-large elections are particularly difficult with dozens of candidates vying for multiple seats.Dcmacnut (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
proposal for renaming reprepresenatives with common names
We currently have a lack of consistency with regard to article names of non-uniquely-named representatives. Some examples:
rename (move) these articles following a guideline that we set here. My suggestion: First, attempt to add a middle initial, middle name, or II, to distinguish between two or more people. If those options aren't available or appropriate, use the format: Jane Doe (representative) (small r). If that name is not unique, then use Jane Doe (1776-1850) (which should always work).
If a representative has other titles, make a judgement about which office the person was best known for. Some examples may include:
Rename to (or maintain) those descriptors if their time in one of the other offices is more significant. If not, rename following the convention above in part 1.
Suggestions and comments are welcome. This will be a substantial effort, including fixing double redirects, so volunteers, perhaps divided by state or range of ordinal congresses will be needed too. Let us know if you think the effort has merit.--Appraiser (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Good overall concept... you still may have living people with similar names who were both reprsentatives (for instance) in those cases... would you use the state?--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm game, too. My suggestions would be for living individuals that we try to stick with the name they are best known for, rather than adding middle initials just to make the names unique. For example Tim Johnson (politician) rather than Timothy P. Johnson. Also, would it be appropriate to continue using (politician) when there is no other individual with that name that serves in politics, or would you always use their position? I see that as a problem, particularly if a representative is later elected senator, governor, president, what have you. You be constantly renaming the article based on their new position. For state representatives and state senators, you'd might still have to add the qualifier (state X representative/senator) to ensure unique names. I've encountered several state legislators who have the same name across several states. For deceased legislators, I like the idea of using (17xx-18xx) as the modifier, and reserving politician, representative, judge, etc. for living persons. Just my few thoughts.Dcmacnut (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm mostly OK with the first part of point one, although I agree with Dcmacnut about preferring parenthetical disambiguation over middle names/middle initials when the politician is well known without the middle name/initial. For example, Willie Brown (politician) is much better per Use Common Names than Willie Lewis Brown, Jr.. But that restriction should really only apply to fairly well-known persons. Many of the long-dead representatives that need disambiguation are relatively equally unknown under any form of their names.
Finally, I suggest that the first parenthetical disambiguation to try should be "(politician)" – it is relatively uncommon for a U.S. Representative to have not held other political offices (either elected or appointed). If that is not unique, then I suggest including the state name – assuming the politician has a primary state association – such as "(California politician)". I don't think simply using the state name alone is very helpful.
In cases where the person does not have a strong association with a single state – then I think "(U.S. politician)" should be just fine.
In cases where there is a need to disambiguate multiple politicians from the same state, then the particular offices might be considered, such as "(California governor}". older ≠ wiser13:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
My impression was that this proposal is for people who have identical names (often without a middle name). I disagree with Dcmacnut's suggestion about using "the name that is best known" with a modifier in those cases where there is an easy to use middle name or initial that can make it unique, the disambiguation page for Tim Johnson will point to him in either case so it is not as necessary.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That appears to apply to point #2, but #1 does not begin with that assumption. I think that when a politician is very well-known without any middle initial or name the article title should reflect common usage. That is pretty clearly indicated in Use Common Names and is reinforced in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names and abbreviated names: "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (that is: if this format of the name is not the commonly used one to refer to this person) is not advised." older ≠ wiser02:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose. I don't see why consistency is necessary here. There is no reason why, for example, John Crowell (Alabama) and David Trimble (congressman) have to have the same parenthetical. It's not like Google or other search engines care. In all these cases, the point of consistency is for the user to find the correct article. In the end, the article will be found via a disambiguation page and/or a correct piped link. My concern is that this would be a whole lot of work for no strong reason. In short, why bother? —GoldRingChip11:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This may be a little presumptious of me. But there are going to be 4 new U.S. congressmen elected in the next 2-3 months. I am going to go out on a limb and say they are likely to be Jackie Speier, Steve Scalise, Woody Jenkins, & Greg Davis (Mississippi politician). Speier is extremely likely and her article is in pretty good shape but Scalise, Davis and especially Woody Jenkins need work. It'd be cool if wikipedia could get ahead of the game on these pages. I'm not sure what else I can add (or remove) to them. We may also want to work on Don Cazayoux (which is actually in pretty good shape thanks to User:Billy Hathorn) and Travis Childers in case I'm wrong.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, such speculative lists of undeclared candidates are inappropriate. At most the individuals can be mentioned in body text with appropriate context. older ≠ wiser12:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The names are in the body, not in the lists. I didn't say anything about lists vs. the body in my request. I simply need two people to verify the citations. --Dr who1975 (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
What is the best place to find New York State Congressional District primary results for Jack Kemp (1970-1986 elections)? Is there an online source? P.S. Respond at my talk page because I don't check here very often.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Committees
I wrote a large number of subcommittee pages for both the House and the Senate a while back, and I noticed that it's still on the WikiProject's to-do list. Is there a reason, or has it just not been edited? Nevermore27 (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
How much info on embarassing associates should be in a presidential candidate's biography?
This is a request for editors who know something about politics to look at an important discussion now going on at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details. The Barack Obama article is part of this wikiproject, and the debate there could provide a precedent that may be used to change a number of other articles connected with this project. If you have an interest, go there soon, because some participants want to close the current discussion right now.
Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Examples:
Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles that cover campaign issues adequately should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles. Noroton (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at the Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin'. I promise not to do it again (onthis page). Noroton (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Women
Category:Female members of the United States House of Representatives currently has 218 women in it, even though its head article Women in the United States House of Representatives states that only 217 women have served in the House. (And no, I'm not being fooled by the inclusion of the head article in the category – the category contains a total of 219 articles including the list.) Could somebody review the category to see whether there's a woman in it who shouldn't be (or duplicate articles about the same woman?), or whether the list needs to have a woman added to it? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
States with two Senate races
Simple decision to be made – please help!
There are two states in which both Senate seats will be up for election this November, due to death or retirement. There has been a merge/split debate on each talk page for a couple months, but it's just a few of us going around in circles. Should there be a single article for each state (like we have for House races), or a separate article for each individual Senate race? It would be nice to have a decision either way so we can move forward, as I feel this issue is absorbing creative energy that would be better spent on the articles themselves.
Please join the existing discussions, rather than forking the conversation onto this page.
Hi all. Is there a good template or table that can be used to track the various versions of a bill as it passed though congress to the president. I'm looking for something that has the date, bill number, official bill name and main sponsor. I've been looking for one, but so far no luck. Thanks for your help. Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi GoldRingChip, no it's not exactly what I'm looking for but I didn't know this template existed and it will be quite useful. I was thinking about something like this but better. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 596 of the articles assigned to this project, or 12.3%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable)21:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Lists of former members
It looks like there are two sets of alphabetical lists of House members. There's one set with a list for each letter of the alphabet, reflected in Template:FormerUSReps. But there's also a set where multiple letters are grouped together:
I appreciate the heads-up... nah, I have no reason to want them around, I just was trying to break up a really huge page. Feel free to get them deleted. Matt Yeager♫(Talk?)00:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have posted a question on the Patrick Moynihan talk page that I was hoping someone could answer. Under the article's in the Senate heading (last paragraph), it says that Moynihan voted against the flag desecration ammendment. The problem with this is the ammendment wasn't voted on until 2006 and Monynihan died in 2003 - not to mention the fact that he retired from politics in 2001. Could someone please check on this fact and clarify it if I'm missing something? Thanks. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The flag constitutional amendment has been introduced in several previous congresses. A version was introduced and voted on in 2000, while Moynihan was still in office. He voted against that amendment. I will update the article to clarify.DCmacnut<>15:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
Alist of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpageofUser:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot22:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama FAR
Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
US Constitution FAR heads up
As a related Wikiproject, I'm informing you that United States Constitution has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Cheers! Zidel333 (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposed change to Federalist Party identifying color
Proposal to eliminate sequence templates from House of Representatives election articles
Hi all,
GoldRingChip and I were discussing on my talk page the possibility of removing the sequence templates from the articles on House of Representatives elections, as they seem to be redundant with the {{U.S. House Elections}} template immediately below them. For an example, see the article on the 1810 elections. What do other project members think? Cheers, Doonhamer (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a project member, but I came here to see if anyone was discussing this. First, it is in two places on each Member of Congress' page. Secondly, it's grossly misleading because redistricting causes district renaming. I'd encourage you to eliminate both places where previous member is mentioned and find a way to accurately name the member's predecessor--the one actually replaced. 68.40.222.55 (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is regarding election succession templates (i.e. Election of 1824 > Election of 1826 < Election of 1828), not representative succession. The issue you raise, wherein district numbers often change after redistricting, has been discussed elsewhere. Consensus has been to focus on district number for succession. Even if district numbers stay the same, it would include too much original research to determine the rightful successor based on geography alone, particularly when there are multiple boundary changes or when two districts are combined into one. Where there is a particularly need to explan multiple redistricting and number changes, it can be mentioned in the body of the article. See Nathan Deal for an example.DCmacnut<>16:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
