Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Archives/2018

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Capitals

This is strictly a style/formatting issue.

It has come to my attention at MOS:JOBTITLES and WP:TITLEFORMAT, that "Senators" and "Representatives" should be in lower case, not capitals.

Capitals should be retained followed by a person's name or for the institution. Otherwise, lower case.

Correct: "List of United States senators from Ohio" / Incorrect: "List of United States Senators from Ohio"

Correct: "U.S. senators were elected." / Incorrect: "U.S. Senators were elected."

Correct: "Markey has been a senator since 2013." / Incorrect: "Markey has been a Senator since 2013."

Correct: "Senator Smith" / Incorrect: "senator Smith"

Correct: "U.S. Senate" / Incorrect: "U.S. senate"

Over the years, the capitals have spread around extensively, so now I predict there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles with the incorrect capital in the body and their article titles.

Just because it's widespread and common, doesn't mean it's correct.

Am I missing something?

I would be willing to begin changing these capitals to lower case (which would also mean moving articles and modifying templates) but I would prefer to have some consensus.

I welcome your comments.—GoldRingChip 12:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE read MOS:JOBTITLES and WP:TITLEFORMAT before commenting here.

Comment: It depends on context. "United States Senator" is a proper noun. The S should be capitalized in that instance. JTRH (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• No, "United States Senator" is not a proper noun and it should not be capitalized unless used as an honorific. Job titles are NOT proper nouns, although their importance to organizations and individuals often persuade such groups and individuals to exaggerate their own importance and capitalize said job titles. See the CMOS, easily found on-line. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"}

The New York Times apparently disagrees,[1][2][3] as do I. I lack the time to find more authoritative sources, but I've already presented more than you have (perhaps we can agree that saying something is a proper noun doesn't make it one). ―Mandruss ☎ 13:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not copy its capitalization rules from the NYTimes. Shouldn't MOS:JOBTITLES and WP:TITLEFORMAT decide?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldRingChip (talk • contribs) 15:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Even other news publishers do not copy the NYT, which is notoriously divergent even from others in the same genre. If they did all scrap the AP Stylebook, UPI Stylebook, The Canadian Press Stylebook, and other multi-publisher, consensus-based [real-world, market-driven consensus, not WP consensus], WP still wouldn't care, because WP is not written in news style, as a matter of policy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

From past conversations it's my understanding that you are in agreement with the current guidance, as am I, so I have no idea why you've chosen me as one of the targets of your combative and superior tone. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Generally, Wikipedia's style guidelines are supposed to be based on authoritative/expert sources, not on editors' personal opinions. I don't have access to any of the professional style guides, so I settled for consistent examples from arguably the most respected newspaper in the world, who base their manual of style on professional style guides. Anyway, the Times agrees with the above examples you provided (spelling out United States doesn't change it from common noun to proper), so I don't see the problem there.
Regardless, per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, "Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus." I don't know whether a clear community consensus exists as to this issue, so you would need to either find one in the archives or seek one via RfC at a relevant MOS talk page or WP:VPP. But this is the wrong place to seek such a consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

See above, and we've been over this before, many times. WP is not written in news style, and NYT doesn't set news style even if WP cared; NYT sets NYT style, which is markedly different from usual news style as a marketing technique. It gets tedious having to repeat all this about 20x per year when you or another MoS critic are grinding your teeth yet again because we're not writing WP like the newspaper you like the most. It's like being angry that The Walking Dead doesn't have the same visual style as Scooby-Doo. It's a different genre communicating something different to a different audience. Please absorb this. I think I also detect a strong whiff in the air of the tired old fallacy that "If only I can show that the style variance I like best is the most common, then WP will have to do it my way per WP:COMMONNAME", when we all know by now that COMMONNAME is not a style policy and has nothing to do with style, but what the underlying name is (whether we apply, per MoS, any particular style to it or not).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"U.S. Senator" or "U.S. Representative" is correct because it is a job title. Also Correct: "List of United States Senators from Ohio" and Correct: "U.S. Senators were elected.". WhatsUpWorld (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

That seems to contradict MOS:JOBTITLES, which gives as an example "Controversial US president, Richard Nixon, resigned.". I don't know why US Senator/senator would be any different. meamemg (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, too.—GoldRingChip 19:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

As long as we have consistency across the articles, I'm fine with any solution. FWIW, we need some consistency on many bios of governors & lieutenant governors. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, you are missing something. It is not the case that "over the years, capitals have spread around". Rather, the convention has shifted in the other direction. About two generations ago, these words were routinely capitalized [in such a context] by almost everyone. Then the capitalization started to be dropped as superfluous, pretentious, and inconsistent with most of the rest of English usage, just as such over-capping has been dropped in English for various other things. This shift started in academic writing, then spread to journalism (with some divergence - there are a few publishers who rampantly overcapitalize and do other old-fashioned things, including The New York Times and The New Yorker; it's part of their brand marketing, and doesn't reflect English usage norms, or even the norms of the journalistic register, which for American publications you'll find in the AP Stylebook. Aside from a few news publishers, the last holdouts for over-capitalizing these words are legal and business publications, which also tend to do it to commercial job titles, market sectors, and many other things.

  MoS is following the lower-casing trend (see Chicago Manual of Style, New Hart's Rules, etc.), not inventing it. Because the people who grew up capitalizing these things (like me and everyone else in my age bracket) aren't all dead yet, and haven't all broken old style habits yet, some people still insert capitals where MoS (and almost all other style guides) would have them not do so. It is not an emergency, or a sea change, or a rule deficiency; it's simply another MoS divergence to quietly clean up and move on from.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Chronological order of polls

Why should polls be in reverse order when everything else in an article is in correct order? Should we reverse other parts of an article just because the later history is more current? If the election were from the 1960s, would it be ok to have it in correct order now in 2018? WP is not an election data source. Wikipedia is not an aggregator. It is an encyclopedia for historical reference. It is not a news website, pollster.com, 538.com, cpvi.com, or any other such thing. It is a historical reference… even if the history is current. If, as some might say, one has the ability to set up a sortable table, then shouldn't that table initially be in correct order and allow the reader to reverse it on demand? I welcome a broad discussion; thanks!—GoldRingChip 12:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The historical record (FiveThirtyEight, RCP, and Pollster) is in reverse chronological order. I see no reason that Wikipedia should differ at this point and use the opposite. Sortable tables are possible, but because of the specification of date ranges within the columns, are tedious to set up. Mélencron (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Congressional infobox terms are also in reverse chronological order. Not making any judgements, just sharing current status....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The "historical record" sites are meant to show snapshots in time, highlight the present. We are an encyclopedia. We're meant to cover the whole thing from start to finish in a different way than polling sites like 538, RCP, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Michael Cloud

Michael Cloud won a special election in June and was sworn into office on July, 10, 2018. The infobox notation said not to change his office date as the sworn in date, but elected and qualified date. I've searched the templates trying to find the editing guidelines on this. Any info would help. https://www.texastribune.org/2018/07/10/republican-michael-cloud-sworn-texas-newest-us-congressman/ P37307 (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for bringing this to a wider editor's review. The Texas Tribune article correctly states his oath, first vote, and an inaugural speech. It incorrectly states that he "officially became the newest member of Texas' congressional delegation Tuesday evening." This issue has been addressed many times here, however unconvincingly. See, e.g., the results of this search. It's unconvincing becuase we haven't found a 100% iron-clad hard-and-fast authority stating that a new member starts a term once elected + certified + qualified. What's more, even though most authorities seem to imply this position, there are occasional authorities that seem to contradict it.—GoldRingChip 16:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The membership list of the Clerk of the House includes the official, definitive start date for each member's service. JTRH (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Martha McSally

There is a RfC at the Martha McSally talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Ron DeSantis "monkey" quote

There is an RfC at the Ron DeSantis talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation form and capitalization

The issues raised in Talk:Dan Sullivan (American senator)#Requested move 8 September 2018 may be of interest.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of committee names

I've been reading pages about US congressional committees as well as international committees and committees of other nations and I've found that the capitalization of the word committee in particular is highly inconsistent. There are some obvious examples where the word should be capitalized, such as the NPCSC where the term "Standing Committee" is part of an official and established title. Similarly, the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee is a committee with an established official title. However, there are many instances of committee being capitalized on its own. For example, in the "In the 20th century" section of this article the word committee alone is capitalized a couple times. Additionally, the "See also" section on standing committees and often times in pieces of the article that are not part of the main body of text there will be variations on the capitalization of the word committee, such as the image description found on the image in the Standing committees section of the US congressional committee article. This is just to name a few, but since these inconsistencies tend to appear in portions of articles such as "See also" sections and other miscellaneous portions of articles, I was wondering if there is a capitalization rule I can cite to fix these instances when I see them.

It seems clear to me that "committee" must be capitalized only when referring to a specifically named committee (or other obvious places where general capitalization rules apply, such as the beginning of a sentence). I just don't want to make a bunch of edits that wind up being against the MOS since I don't edit that often and this isn't my area of expertise. Thanks in advance for any feedback! Penitence (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for considering this issue. I suggest avoiding overcapitalization, which is a constant problem in congressional articles. Do the best you can to change them, Be Bold! —GoldRingChip 15:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to election/referendum naming format

I've started an RfC on changing the election/referendum naming format to move the year to the front (so e.g. French presidential election, 2017 becomes 2017 French presidential election). All comments welcome here. Cheers, Number 57 20:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This RfC has been reopened for further comment, including on using a bot to move the articles if it closed in favour of the change: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. Cheers, Number 57 15:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of articles about competitive Congressional challengers

In U.S. Congressional races that are competitive according to fivethirtyeight.com, a number of articles about challengers that have received repeated national and international media attention have been deleted as non-notable. Examples are Max Rose (politician) and Sean Casten. Strongly disagree with this application of the policies, which is leading to coverage of the election on Wikipedia which is biased in favor of the incumbent. Currently, the policies are being revisited to potentially prevent this. See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Centralized_discussion_on_the_notability_of_political_candidates, WP:NPOL. La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Louise Slaughter in the 115th Congress

On the page United States House of Representatives elections, 2018, Louise Slaughter, deceased, is mentioned only once as the former incumbent for a special election. However, it intuitively feels like she should have a line in the "non-retirements" subsection of Retiring Incumbents - can y'all tell me whether that would be consistent with the style of other articles of this kind? 66.90.173.208 (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• There is no consistency to be had regarding the "non-retirements" section. I created it for United States House of Representatives elections, 2018 because some reps announced their retirements and then either changed their minds or retired. Slaughter, however, does not fit that description. I think she was planning her re-election campaign when she died. —GoldRingChip 13:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @GoldRingChip: Cool, I'll leave it as is, then. 209.166.108.196 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Potential reference for Mace of the United States House of Representatives

I am looking to improve and expand the above article. My question is: does this qualify as a valid reference? It is technically a blog post, but it was posted on history.house.gov which is the official historical site of the United States House of Representatives. I'm assuming that they do not post essays from random writers, but from certified experts. In my personal opinion, if the publishers of this website deemed it appropriate to post this essay, they must feel that it is accurate. I'm curious to hear what other people have to say. Thanks - PUZZLED🥕|🗣️ 21:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes that's certainly a reliable source. Being a blog post has no relevance to reliability, it's always based on who the writer/publisher is. Reywas92^Talk 20:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

2022 election article title

Is there a reason why 2022 United States elections is named differently from other pages such as United States elections, 2018 and United States elections, 2014? The move log shows a move by User:GoodDay, but they have referred to an RfC in their edit summary which I couldn't find (or find a link to) on the talk page. Airbornemihir (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the pages I cited as examples have been moved, too. Is there some obvious place for these kinds of RfCs that I'm missing? Airbornemihir (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: can help you with that. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was here. The RfC was also advertised on this page above. Number 57 23:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57 and GoodDay: Thanks! Airbornemihir (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for new format for Congressional Elections

While working on the 1892 United States House of Representatives elections I developed a new format which I'd like to propose here, not knowing a better place to do so. The current format to me seems better suited for fairly recent elections where individual articles are created for the Congressional elections in each State, such as 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in New York, but those seem few and far between. What I sought to do was to expand on the information available, adding in the actual vote totals, and also noting those cases where a candidate was endorsed by another Party (explaining their absence from the race); in the later case though information is sporadic at the best of times. The structure of the format itself though is largely the same. I have an example hidden in the banner below. --Ariostos (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

1892 United States House of Representatives elections in Kansas

District	Incumbent	Party	First elected	Result	Candidates
Kansas 1	Case Broderick	Republican	1890	Re-elected	Case Broderick	Republican	19,401	54.47%
					Fred J. Close	People's	15,782	44.31%
					T. J. McCormick	Prohibition	276	0.78%
					Ed Carroll	Democratic	161	0.45%
Kansas 2	Edward H. Funston	Republican	1884	Re-elected	Edward H. Funston	Republican	22,900	49.38%
					Horace Ladd Moore	Democratic (Endorsed by People's Party)	22,817	49.20%
					D. W. Houston	Prohibition	656	1.42%
Kansas 3	Benjamin H. Clover	People's	1890	Incumbent retired. People's hold.	Thomas Jefferson Hudson	People's (Endorsed by Democratic Party)	23,998	52.20%
					Lyman U. Humphrey	Republican	21,594	46.97%
					M.V. Bennett	Prohibition	382	0.83%
Kansas 4	John G. Otis	People's	1890	Incumbent lost renomination. Republican gain.	Charles Curtis	Republican	25,327	52.03%
					E. V. Wharton	Democratic (Endorsed by People's Party)	22,603	46.43%
					J. R. Silver	Prohibition	749	1.54%
Kansas 5	Benjamin H. Clover	People's	1890	Re-elected	John Davis	People's	20,162	50.35%
					Joseph R. Burton	Republican	18,842	47.05%
					Sidney G. Cooke	Democratic	568	1.42%
					Horace Hurley	Prohibition	471	1.18%
Kansas 6	William Baker	People's	1890	Re-elected	William Baker	People's	19,398	49.85%
					H. L. Pestana	Republican	17,887	45.96%
					Duane Freeman	Democratic	1,301	3.34%
					Benjamin Brewer	Prohibition	330	0.85%
Kansas 7	Jerry Simpson	People's	1890	Re-elected	Jerry Simpson	People's (Endorsed by Democratic Party)	33,812	50.89%
					Chester I. Long	Republican	32,053	48.24%
					W.E. Woodward	Prohibition	583	0.88%
Kansas At-large	None (District created)			New seat. People's gain.	William Alexander Harris	People's (Endorsed by Democratic Party)	164,624	50.72%
					George T. Anthony	Republican	155,791	48.00%
					J. M. Monroe	Prohibition	4,162	1.28%

Interesting. For the meta-articles (e.g., 2018 United States House of Representatives elections) I suggest that we not use multiple rows for each candidate, but rather just use a single row for each seat (as we currently do) with a line-break (<br/>) between candidates. We currently don't shade all the candidates, just the incumbent and the result; I prefer to leave it that way. You suggestions might work better in the individual articles (e.g., 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in New York). —GoldRingChip 19:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The formatting presented was meant to be largely based on the ones present in the individual articles, but as an absolute summary of the results of the race. To me, the individual articles were meant more for going into detail on the individual races in that State or the background of the Congressional elections there as a whole, something which obviously won't make sense in every instance as records of many races will be scarce at best, or would require local researchers which presently don't contribute here. I'm not against changing the format, but it looks really clunky and messy when I try to mold it into having a single row. Example is below. --Ariostos (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

1892 United States House of Representatives elections in Kansas

District	Incumbent	Party	First elected	Result	Candidates
Kansas 1	Case Broderick	Republican	1890	Re-elected	Case Broderick (Republican) 19,401 54.47% Fred J. Close (People's) 15,782 44.31% T. J. McCormick (Prohibition) 276 0.78% Ed Carroll (Democratic) 161 0.45%

I'd also like to propose that we take into account Seats Before for the Congressional Elections, at least in some capacity. There should be some level of recognition of seats having changed hands in Special Elections or (in more than a few cases) results being overturned and the opponent being seated, and while I'd prefer we'd operate like the article on the 1997 United Kingdom general election, where it is the Seats Before that is taken into account for the Seat Change, I can understand why opinion on that may vary. --Ariostos (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Test

This is a test of auto-archiving, using a falsified date (7 September 2018) 179 days before the correct date (5 March 2019). —GoldRingChip 13:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)