Template talk:CongLinks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CongLinks is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
Template This article has been rated as template-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Person This article is about one (or many) Person(s).

Contents

[edit] Space in name

I want to use Congresspedia.

Its code looks like this:

[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title={{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}} {{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}} at
SourceWatch Congresspedia]: Congressional wiki

And I want it to return (for example using Mel Watt):

*[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mel_Watt Mel Watt at
SourceWatch Congresspedia]: Congressional wiki

And it should look like:

My problem is that name/PAGENAME will have a space in it, which will break the html.

Anyone have any solutions?—Markles 00:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should encourage the mass linking of sourcewatch. See also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 19#Template:SourceWatch. I would like to figure out how to get rid of the leading linebreak. I don't get that. Cool Hand Luke 01:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salary Info Links

I have restored the salary info link that I added previously and that Hu12 removed. The [[1]] Hu12 apparently had, is incorrect. I have absolutely know relationship with the company or website involved. I saw the information in a different (reverted) edit, and saw that the information was useful, unbiased, and relevant. I added to the template for these reasons. This link does conform to the "What to link" of Wikipedia:External_links, and as I have know relationship with this site, it isn't a conflict of interest, nor is it spam. If you disagree with this, please discuss it here before reverting this change again. kenj0418 (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I have the same issue with the removal of links to Legistorm.com. As I am utterly untainted by any foreknowledge of the site, or of any connection to its ownership or employment there, I will be more than happy to reinsert the information. Why on earth would anyone be removing useful information from Wikipedia? Alansohn (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's an understandable suspicion for someone to have. A few months ago, someone replaced the Washington Post link with a website they apparently maintained themselves, containing eventually identical content, GovTrack.us. Legistorm doesn't look like shameless self-promotion though. Moreover, Legistorm doesn't overlap with existing links, and it seems useful. Cool Hand Luke 06:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. As with this case, The links that were removed were a result of the users and IP inserting them were associated with the organization they were linking to. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Storming_Media_LLC_Spamming.As in most cases, spam is defined not so much by the content of the site, as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. In addition, typical of sites that are owned by a single company, such as Storming Media LLC, illustrated a situation where someone is using Wikipedia to promote for their own interests (Adsense pub-5159231827098763). I would recoment seeking an alternative for Legistorm.com. The nature of just how widespread Storming Media's abuse is with their other domains is unknown at this point, but this could lead to future blacklisting and create problems with articles templated. Cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the policies in WP:EL and conflicts of interest may apply to their previous edits, but not to mine (or the other people not associated with this company who have added this information). Past bad actions from someone at that company may justify an IP block from editing for them, but it doesn't justify avoiding inclusion of useful information in wikipedia. Based on your request above, I have searched for other sources of this information, however there doesn't appear to be any others available online. (The information in question is released by congress in printed form, and that site appears to be the only one that has transcribed this information and made it publicly available). Every link or story I found online refering to congressional salary information that provided a link linked back to that site. (and unless the storming media people also work at Harvard's info/law[2] I don't think they were involved in those links to their site). If you can find some other site that has this information, then lets discuss using that, but I wasn't able to. Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. This information is valuable and appopriate for wikipedia, keep it based on the informations merits. kenj0418 (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Three non-COI users support this link. There's an ANI discussion on this at WP:ANI#Abusive identification of Legistorm.com as "spam". Cool Hand Luke 21:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kill with fire. Five sockpuppet accounts and an IP registered to the website have spammed this link. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
See now MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#legistorm.com. Cool Hand Luke 23:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GovTrack.us

Two issues. First, in light of the hostility toward excessive links, what exactly does GovTrack.us add to our collections? Second, if we really want to use these links, we don't need to ad a separate parameter. GovTrack will accept the congressional bio id in this form: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?bioguideid=[congbio] For example, D000606 for David Davis. Incidentally, the issue at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#legistorm.com is not resolved. Cool Hand Luke 07:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It appears User:Markles is simply using the template to replace already-extant links. GovTrack.us is not a standard link. I think that's the purpose of the template, so it looks appropriate. Cool Hand Luke 07:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better without name repetition?

I think this is a useful template, but the repetition of {{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}'s on every line seemed unnecessary and crowded, so I've tried removing it. As others may this differently, I'm posting here to open any discussion. Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak support - I think the repetition looked OK when it was just a few lines, but now we're up to so many that it just looks a bit stupid. Let's give this some time and see what happens.—Markles 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My gut reaction was also to oppose, but after looking at some biographies, I agree that it looks better. Cool Hand Luke 20:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I'd been scratching my head about the same issue, and it looks better without the duplication. Alansohn (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] political graveyard and find a grave

I'm gonna add the political graveyard and find a grave

Once I get around to it. Until then, here's sample code from Thaddeus Stevens, who wouldn't be usable for Conglinks, yes I know the irony.—Markles 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Findagrave Y Done

[edit] OpenSecrets.org

The template didn't work for Tim Roemer, so I added a working link separately in his article. I don't know if it's all retired officials, or just those before a certain date. ALSO, the other sources are wikified and this one isn't - why? Flatterworld (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange. Opensecrets doesn't have a "career profile" on him. I imagine that happens more often with retired politicians. Not all of the links can be wikified—just the ones with actual articles about their source. Cool Hand Luke 02:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. I wikified it myself.Flatterworld (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)