Jump to content

Talk:List of United States Congresses

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

by the way, if you want to do bios on congress people from history, check out http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp Kingturtle 04:58, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just looking over a few of these pages, I found numerous errors -- Tom Luken confused with Charlie Luken, Clarence Miller called Charles Miller, Delbert Latta called Daniel Latta, Edward Feighan misspelled as Fieghan, Dennis DeConcini called Douglas DeConcini. And I found these errors in a matter of five minutes. I can't begin to imagine the number of errors that exist throughout the project. What are the contributors using as their sources here? Is there any way of ensuring better quality here? Acsenray 20:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The years of Congressional sessions are usually listed as the year the session begins to the year of the election. That means, the 109th Congress should be listed as 2005-2006, not 2007. - sebmol 22:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Library of Congress, the Senate, and the House of Representatives web sites all refer to Congresses with numerals (the 103rd Congress, the 83rd Congress) rather than words (one-hundred-first). Is the word format a Wiki standard? OtherDave 23:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you guys think of adding a infobox ala what the individual presidents have on their articles. You could put on the right hand side the main leadership for that congressional session in a qucik and easy to find method. Cmdrbond 05:22, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looking for a table showing parties in power

[edit]

I could probably create a basic HTML table showing which parties were in power in Congress, and this seems to be the most appropriate article to add it to. Is there demand for this kind of information?

Chadlupkes 00:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Session dates

[edit]

This would be a good article in which to include session dates.—Markles 13:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columnar header style

[edit]
- Idiomatic American English expression pairs temporal expressions as 'Start and Finish', 'Begin and End', 'Convene and Adjourn'.
- They may be styled as Started - Finished, Begin date - End date.
- The style of the columnar data, "March 4, 1789" is widely recognized as a date, no explanatory 'date' is required for the general reader.
- I propose Convened and Adjourned be substituted for 'Begin date' and 'Adjourn date'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 November 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus - The main arguments cited for moving is consistency, WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS. The main argument against moving is the potential scope-change, reduced conciseness, and potential vagueness of the proposed title, especially given the official name. Both in numerical terms and in terms of weight of the argument, this appears to be a deadlock with no clear consensus in favour of moving. A further re-list, given that this has already be re-listed three times and !voting is moving against the proposed move, and has slowed with only one !vote (an oppose) cast since the last re-list, appears unnecessary.(non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


– The United States Congress and its various meetings (e.g. 116th United States Congress) are proper nouns and should remain capitalized. However, I'm not sure that's the case when referring to multiple meetings of Congress in plural form. "Congress" can be used as a common noun just like "parliament" can be.

If these articles are moved, it would bring them in line with other articles like:

If this move is agreed to, then Category:United States Congresses and Template:United States Congresses should follow suit as well. --Woko Sapien (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which would remain unchanged, as it refers solely to the institution. What I'm talking about is when the word is being used synonymously with "meetings" (plural). For instance, Senator Smith served in three United States congresses. Senator Smith has only served in one institution (the United States Congress), but has served in three meetings thereof. --Woko Sapien (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To a matter of scope (as raised below), it is a mater that can and should be addressed by hat notes regardless of the ultimate result here. Anybody not familiar will not recognise the limitations of the present "scope". This probably applies to most of the non-US En WP and a good part that is. But, the scope of an article is largely defined by the lead - even if it is not quite what you expect (with hat-notes we would find there is more than we might expect from any of the proposed titles). There is no issue with WP:PRECISION. There are no actual conflicts in WP article titles that require further disambiguation. Please don't view this decision as "WP knows best" and "We know better". How bests do we serve readers that know nothing of the subject? Subtle distinctions in capitalisation (and what editors think these man to readers) really don't serve anybody. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this argument is that given names must be capitalized because they are always proper nouns. The word "congress" however can be both a proper and common noun. My point is that when it is plural, it is arguably being used as a common noun.--Woko Sapien (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is the US substantially different from other national legislatures which are not unitary (eg Canada and the UK) where we use lowercase for lists of their national legislatures? This is WP:EN, not WP:US. How is the US national legislature (yes, it is a bicarmeral system but so are many others) so special or distinct that it should be treated differently from other similar national legislatures? For a reader unfamiliar with the subject, how does capitalising "Congress" sufficiently and unambiguously define the scope? It doesn't. It relies on the lead to define the scope of the article. How then, does changing the capitalisation of the title actually change the scope of the article? Where is there a conflict in naming with other "actual" articles that would require such a distinction in the article title? I don't see it, but if so, are we serving our readers well by relying on such a subtle distinction? Given that accessibility is a matter of policy, how are those relying on text readers well served by such a minor distinction? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Rotideypoc41352 Cinderella157 (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cinderella157, for weighing in.
Closer, I leave the weighing of my oppose rationale, the above reply, and the other !votes in your hands. Thank you for your patience, time, and diligence, and I wish everyone a safe and restful year-end. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.