Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LouI (talk | contribs) at 22:13, 30 October 2005 (Party color codes in lists). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A resource for political actions, in addition to normal history sources, is the page facimilies of the Statutes at Large volumes available at the Library of Congress. I took dates from there for statehood. I don't know what other sources say. The second Congress did not convene until the Autumn of 1791. BobCMU76 12:12 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Statutes at Large

The pages for each Congress should mention promimently when the Congress sat. I would suggest at the top of the page. Rmhermen 22:52 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

The session dates are available here. Locations are not shown, The third session of the first congress met in Phila. I believe the second session of the sixth congress first met in D.C. BobCMU76 11:41 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
This document from the Congressional Record lists Congresses, sessions, dates of convening and adjournment, length (in days), President Pro Tem, and Speaker through the convening of Congress in January 2003. It states that Congress met for the first and second sessions of the First Congress (1789 and 1790) in New York City, from the third session of the First Congress through the first session of the Sixth Congress (1790 to 1800) in Philadelphia, and, since the second session of the Sixth Congress (1800), in Washington DC. As an aside, I think using numerals rather than spelled-out numbers (107th Congress, not One Hundred Seventh Congress) would be far easier to read (with redirects based on the spelled-out versions), and also would reflect longstanding practice. This style is used by both houses of Congress. OtherDave 13:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've assigned myself the task of adding the dates for each session of Congress, along with the location, to each individual Congress's page, using the format I found at the First Congress as an example. I noted on the page for the Sixth that it was the first to have a session in Washington, and on the page for the Seventh that it was the first to meet 'only' in Washington. For subsequent Congresses I will simply include Washington as the location. OtherDave 22:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

session dates vs. period served

OK, I'm a little confused about how to describe the dates that a member of Congress served, particularly for pre-1934 Congesses. The Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress seems to do it two ways. For example, I'm looking at the entry for Lucius Lyon. Here [1] the 23rd Congress is listed as 1833-1834. But here [2] the dates are given as March 4, 1833-March 3, 1835. So should I write that he served from 1833-1834 or from 1833-1835? I suppose I could include the exact dates, but that seems to me a bit tedious for persons elected to multiple terms. Bkonrad | Talk 16:23, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The bioguide simplifies things because, today, congresses begin and end on January 3. In the past, it was early March. When it says the 23rd congress is 1833-1834, it means March 1833-March 1835. He should certainly be listed as serving from 33 to 35. Personally, I don't think exact dates are needed unless the person started or ended their term at a date other than the proper start-end date, like if they resigned, died, appointed or contested the election. --Golbez 14:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tables

I've joined this because of the work I've been doing on the tables of state delegations; good examples at US Congressional Delegations from Kentucky and US Congressional Delegations from Florida. These could be a very useful cross-reference tool. These list who served in what congress from a particular state; the #th Congress articles list who served from what state in a particular congress. --Golbez 14:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Congregator

I've been playing around with a program I wrote (called congregator) to extract data from pages at [3]. I created a page for the Thirty-second_United_States_Congress as a trial run and then went through and checked the links. More to come.K4 pacific 03:23, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Be warned - the BioGuide's database is sometimes wrong. I typically run into 1-2 errors per state, where it lists someone in the wrong congress, or doesn't list them in the proper congress. (The bios themselves are fine, but the database linking them together is not) --Golbez 05:24, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I've found that the bios are not 100% reliable either. Usually just small errors, but enough to make double-checking things worthwhile. older≠wiser 11:36, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) PS, re: K4 pacific's program--I think it's great--just add a note at the top that the data was automatically extracted and needs to be verified. older≠wiser 11:39, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Your script is linking to the Georgia disambiguation page, no the state. I have fixed the Thirty-second_United_States_Congress page, but your script needs tweaking. Susvolans 13:00, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll look into it. I haven't done any besides Thirty-second_United_States_Congress and Ninety-eighth_United_States_Congress yet because I am working on a way to automatically verify the links. K4 pacific 14:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Articles about congresional districts

Not sure if anyone is still watching this project or not. I'd like to start making articles about Michigan's congressional districts, describing some history and listing representatives from the districts. If possible, I'd like to get maps showing the area represented after each redistricting (although that would require some digging). I'm just wondering if anyone has already tried anything similar and I'm also looking for naming suggestions. I was thinking of First Congressional District of Michigan, but I see there are some other variations under Category:U.S. Congressional districts. Such as North Carolina congressional districts (only lists current districts), United States House of Representatives, Texas District 1, 1st Congressional District of Kansas and First Congressional District of Hawaii. Personally, I think the last naming form is clearest, but curious if anyone else has thoughts about this. older≠wiser 19:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ordinal number first has my vote, for what that's worth (10th Congressional District of Maryland). I think it's easier to read in a list than the spelled-out version would be (Twenty-ninth vs 29th). I just looked at the web pages for 20 House members; roughly 3 in 4 use the equivalent of "3rd" rather than "third" on the home page; at least one of those who spell out the name also uses the numeral elsewhere on the member's site -- "Congressman Wombat of the Ninth District... voters in the 9th District." OtherDave 13:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seventy-first United States Congress?

Is this article correct? Seventy-first United States Congress? It doesn't look right. Can someone working on this project please fix it? thanks :) Kingturtle 07:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I went to the page and added dates for all three sessions, a little project I've assigned myself (dates from the Congressional Record). I did not try to verify names of leaders, though I see the page does not mention President Pro Tem of the Senate (as opposed to the majority leader). OtherDave 14:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i could help this project

i saw the congress pages on the most linked to and nonexistant wikipages list, so i added to the 91st United States Congress and created the 90th United States Congress. all i planned on doing (for now) was copying, pasting, and wiki'ng info from house.gov. then i saw that there was a project for these pages. with "your" OK, i will continue to do so for the remaining missing congress pages, and formatting to any style that you planned on using.
- Somedude 01:41, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Following Somedude's lead, I've been putting specific dates for sessions (see note above). OtherDave 22:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Project

I think you should have every page link to the Thomas Project ([4]) where possible. This is a service of Congress has lists of all Bills passed by each Congress since the 93rd (e.g. [5] etc).Chris Martin 16:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks bad

I SPENT HOURS ON THOSE SENATE LISTS AND I HAVE IT MESSED UP! I HAVE SAID TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT IF YOU MESS WITH THOSE LISTS IT LOOKS LIKE CRAP! AND IT DOES LOOK LIKE CRAP, It does not look neat! --Jack Cox 21:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are so... right. Yeah. I messed them up. Sorry. They do look bad.
So I've since tried to clean them up.
* I put in "nowrap"s in the columns,
* I eliminated the (D), (R), (I) abbreviations because they take up unnecessary space since the colors already indicate party
* Changed "Members of the XXXth Congress" to "United States Senators in the XXXth Congress" because the Senate is a continuous body unlike the House.
I made these changes to the 105th through 109th("Current") templates for your perusal.
What do you think?
--Markles 00:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bless you for using cellpadding! I have been working through the individual Congresses, adding session dates and adding or adjusting the previous/next navigation (the one at the bottom of the page, under External Links), giving it cellpadding of 6. Re Senators: while I agree the Senate is a continuous body in that the terms of office for its members extend through three congresses, the Senate is a part of Congress and thus subordinate to the entity as a whole. Senator Byrd of W. Va., for example, is very much a member of the 109th Congress, as he was of the 108th, 107th, 106th, etc., etc. So I'd go for the simpler "Members of the XXth Congress" label for both houses. OtherDave 22:55, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Categories

The use of the 'catch all' category Members of the U.S. House of Representatives for individual members is just not workable. There is some work that is breaking former members out by state. And there are two forms in use: U.S. Representatives from Missouri and Members of the U.S. House from Maryland. We ought to strive for some consistency. So, just edit the proposal, and add any comments after it. Thanks, Lou I 12:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed categories

  1. Each state should hacve a category for current and former House members, in the form of U.S. Representatives from Statename. Each category should have a parent category entry of [[Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives| ]].
  2. An additional category should be reserved and used for current house members, such as U.S. House Members

discussion

House

The use of a blank in the parent category entry will force all 'subcategories' to the first page of the now massive Members. Once we get the list down to a workable size (none), we cabn reinsert the state names to get headings/toc entries. Lou I 12:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think U.S. Representatives from State goes better with U.S. Senators from State, as many senators were also representatives at one point. --tomf688<TALK> 00:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Senate

We could continue a single category for the members of the U.S. Senate. The list is not so large as to make this unworkable, but I prefer the Category:U.S. Senators from Foo by state. Lou I 12:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Both

People will want to view these things several ways: members of either body by party (especially after the 25th Congress or so), members by State (= state delegations). Is there an option for some sort of database from which the information can be pulled? If so, then the "XXth Congress" page could have links for "House membership by state" (with parties indicated), "House membership by party" (with state indicated). It seems counterproductive to clutter up the "Congress page" with a huge list of names when the accomplishments (or failures) of the Congress are more pertinent, as long as there's an easy way to find out who the participants/culprits were. The 108th Congress has four lines for legislation out of info that 'print preview' says would chew up 28 pages. Isn't this what hyperlinks are all about? Or am I misundestanding something? OtherDave 22:55, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Removing the list to its own article make sense.What does anyone else think? Lou I 12:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To do

Moved from main article page:

  1. . Please add all Senators and the Congresses they were in. See article Old version of Ernest Hollings article] for an example.
  2. . Create more boxes for Governors.
  3. . Would like to know about possibility for adding Categories about what Congresses the Senators or Reps were in so that we can make a list for example
Category:Senators in the 108th Congress
Category:Representatives in the 108th Congress
Jack Cox 12:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.
  1. Adding all Senators and the Congresses they were in will create excessive clutter. It's interesting information, but too much for the articles. See Old version of Ernest Hollings article.
  2. Governors shouldn't be included in a project regarding the U.S. Congress, as they aren't in the U.S. Congress.
  3. Categories aren't intended to be lists. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes.
Perhaps this could have some discussion.
--Markles 16:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I've been adding templating to former Senate pro tems, just so you all know. Staxringold 01:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Member Categories

Current use of categories for individual members:

  • The votes from CFD and renaming is now completed for [[Category:United States Senators from Foo]]. The U.S. Representatives category vote failed to reach concensus in any particular version of category name.
  • I have created a sample of a category heading for House members, at Category:U.S. Representatives from Kentucky. Please comment or edit it. After a pause for comments, I plan to duplicate this across the states, and for the senators as well.
  • Thinking about this also raised a question about the delegations articles. In the current use most states have two articles: the U.S. Congressional Delegations from Kentucky and the List of United States Senators from Kentucky. I'd like to suggest that we remove sanators from the delegation detail, leaving a note and link to the Senate list in the house (delegations) article.
  • U.S. Congressional Delegations from New York has a Senate section that uses a column form to present both 'Classes' of Senator in a single table. I'd also like to suggest that our List of Senators from xx use a similar format, but with the congress and dates link first, then the two classes as the second and third column. Comments?
  • If we do this, what about the few articles like List of United States Senators from Delaware that contain aditional information?
  • There are also a couple of clean up details, such as List of United States Senators from Kansas, which is a redirect to the delegations page.
  • In the wishful thinking department, I wish I could think of a better way to present the table of representatives by date/district some way that didn't scroll off the page to the right. Maybe something like a spreadsheet that keeps the first (date) column but hides the next 10, letting me see districts 11-15. Any suggestions are welcome...
  • After the pause for comments, I'll add a summary of the layout for individual member usage to the project page.

Thanks for your consideration, and intersperse comments above, or use my talk page Lou I 17:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC) talk[reply]

Lists of Senators

I've modified the List of United States Senators from Texas as an example of the format I'd like to follow. The toughest part of this activity is the footnotes. My next target is Pennsylvania since it covers all Congresses. If anyone has comments let me know. I've also compiled a color and link schema from several of these articles, described below. Comments are welcome, but if you get them in early I can incorporate any improvements in this pass. Lou I 21:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent. The format and the footnotes make sense. But it can be definitely hard work to collect that information at one time. Tfine80 21:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Party color codes in lists

Several lists of senators, delegations, and other politicians use color coding to show political parties. This table shows the most widely used colors, but they're not universal. (See the Texas Senator list linked above for an example.) After a pause for comments, I'll put this or a list improved by comments on the project page. Also, any suggestions on a color code for anti-federalist? Lou I 22:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

colorpartyparty link source codde
CCCCCCHeading
DDEEFFdemocrat (D) [[Democratic Party (United States)|(D)]]
FFE8E8republican (R) [[Republican Party (United States)|(R)]]
CCFFCCdemocratic-republican (D-R) [[Democratic-Republican Party (United States)|(D-R)]]
FFFFCCwhig (Whig) [[Whig Party (United States)|(Whig)]]
E6E6AAfederalist (F) [[Federalist Party (United States)|(F)]]
noneanti-federalist (A-F) [[Anti-Federalism|(A-F)]]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Congress&oldid=26917383"