Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Archives/2019

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Archives. 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.

Archives

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

I know everyone is excited for the changes tomorrow....For what it's worth, the new congress meets at noon, so I guess technically no changes until then?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious to know the provenance of the data on pages such as 2018 United States House of Representatives elections. Can these be trusted to be official results? What about previous years? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwilly123 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Could someone who understands Miszabot etc. fix the archiving on this page, to make the history easier to navigate? The current version of this page has a horizontal archive box as well as an archive sidebox, which in turn lists archives in both numbered and yearwise formats. Additionally, nothing seems to have been archived for a while - properly dated sections from 2017 are still present on the page. Airbornemihir (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I tried to fix some of it. How is it working, now? —GoldRingChip 19:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @GoldRingChip: Thanks, this is much better! I'd personally have gone with archiving posts older than 180 days, rather than the 30 days you seem to have set. We can reconsider that part of it if there are problems. Airbornemihir (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Airbornemihir: I changed to 180, I don't care much about that. My concern, however, is: is the auto-archiving now working? I can't tell; can you? I've created a test below that MIGHT try it. —GoldRingChip 13:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @GoldRingChip: This edit seems to show that automatic archiving is up and running. Let's see what happens to your section below. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The notability of a Congressional staffer is disputed. -- econterms (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• The staffer in question is Saikat Chakrabarti, FYI. Airbornemihir (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The red links are here. Note, the earlier subcommittees before the reorganisation had their own articles and were thus notable. Airbornemihir (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to let everyone know that the List of acts of the 115th United States Congress is incomplete -- every bill signed into law after December 20, 2018 (which is over 100 bills) have not been added to the article (see here). As I simply do not have the time to add all ~100 laws, I am posting this here so that an editor(s) with more time might possibly add them. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

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" Reywas92^Talk 00:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Reywas92^Talk 09:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)