Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/COTW

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Initial Proposal

I (Markles) am proposing the creation of a U.S. Congress Collaboration of the week.

Right now, there's a United States Collaboration of the Week. I think that with so articles about the Congress, then maybe we can create our own such project.

So one week, for example, the article would be Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and the next week it might be United States House of Representatives, Iowa District 2 and then Historian of the U.S. House and then whatever.

People could nominate and vote for the article each week. If we can get enough interest, then someone here can put it all together (doesn't have to be me, I'm not all that good at such things).

The USCCOTW project can be organized here on this sub-page, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/COTW]].

--Markles 16:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Does no reply then mean that nobody's interested? —Markles 17:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This would be great! Although I'd recommend a collaboration of the fortnight instead. Also, it might be a good idea to just pick one yourself, and declare it, and see if people pick up on it - if there's enough interest, it can be made into a voting thing. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this would be good. Although, instead of one specific district, we might be more general, like districts, using a given template. Anyhow, I think it's a good idea, I think if we have enough people interested we should start it. --Mathwizard1232 21:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a great idea, and I'm glad to see it come to life. Count me in. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 21:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Person: Ben Nighthorse Campbell Seal of Congress
Place: United States House of Representatives, California District 50
Thing: Cloture

I assigned these by fiat. Someone has to get the ball rolling. (See our discussion on the talk page.)—Markles 02:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I now admit I wasn't very creative in my choices. Sorry for such an inauspicious start.—Markles 18:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the choices were fine - except that 2 of the 3 weren't stubs, and this is supposed to be for missing articles or stubs. I'd also recommend a longer period than 1 week - perhaps monthly, or even open-ended. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There are several "Fortnightly" COTWs; I think that might be an ideal time period for Congressional articles, and provide for more improvements/refinements, not just "de-stubbification" or "redlink rectification". It would also give us more time to elicit participation, given the relatively low profile of the project. I know that COTW and Article Improvement Drive are usually separate efforts, but there's no reason they can't overlap a bit and complement each other. We don't necessarily have to bind ourselves by the Wiki-wide COTW conventions. <EDIT: Even if we did want to be strict, who's to say we couldn't add a stub tag to an article deserving significant yet simple improvements? That would follow convention.> —ElCharismo 16:58, 9 March 2006

Regarding stubs, etc.: I think maybe limiting our COTW drives to non-existent or short articles is probably for the best. I really don't know why I chose the three articles which I chose. They really don't need major collaborative editing.

Regarding weekly, fortnightly, monthly: By choosing to do three articles every week I really declared that I had a great deal of confidence that other Wikipedians would want to hop on this COTW bandwagon. I think I'd like to try it at three per week, but with better articles (ones which truly need major collaborative editing).

Therefore, here's my NEW PROPOSAL:

[edit] New Proposal

We start a new 3-part (P, P, & T) COTW this coming Monday March 13, 2006 or even sooner. I'm suggesting hurrying this up, because I don't want to lose what little momentum we have from the roll out of the COTW project altogether. Of course, we could change it right now if there's some consensus on the three new articles. I've commented below on the nominees I like.—Markles 23:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

— Support. I applaud both your efforts and your attitude, sir. I'm on board. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 17:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Nomination Guidelines

I wrote up a very brief set of nomination guidelines on the main page. Any thoughts? ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 21:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping the Project Alive

I shuffled the COTW to Edition III today, though with a certain measure of arbitrary selection, in an effort to keep the collaboration active. I'm happy to keep doing the shuffling, but more peeps nominating and making the edits are preferable and always welcome. Cheers, ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 15:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • OK. What we need is publicity for the COTW—Markles 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. We could probably start by shouting out to all of our Project Congress members first. I seem to notice only four of us really working on this lately. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 20:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template on Article or Talk page?

Oleg Alexandrov has raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:Collaborations of whether the template for the current winner of a collaboration should go on the article or the talk page. You might be interested in taking part. Pruneau 00:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitol Visitors Center

I just rewrote the Capitol Visitors Center article. If someone could look at it and make changes (while I had a lot of information for it, I'm not very good at writing articles). eric 22:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I did some further editing to that article. The facts are there (sort of, a few misnomers), but it needs to be rewritten. I will try and tackle it this weekend. --Daysleeper47 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To do lists

I've tried a little experiment with the nominated articles for the next round. I created to do lists for each of the nominated articles and asked the nominator to populate it. My thinking is that this might give participants in the project a place to start editing an article and help expedite the collaboration process. Let's see how it develops. Comments welcome here.--G1076 22:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Biography

Let us know your pick for a person and we'll alert our members! plange 05:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of United States Senators from Alabama

Can somebody explain the terms 2nd and 3rd class Senator. Obviously there must be a 1st class as well. --212.202.113.214 14:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] PLEASE VOTE: The Congressional Barnstar of Honor (WikiProject U.S. Congress)

The Congressional Barnstar of Honor
For substantal, notable, or significant work on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress, or work of substantial interest to members of that WikiProject.--Dr who1975 01:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Please vote for this at new awards proposals, if you have an alternate submission for the image. I would love to see it proposed as well.--Dr who1975 14:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalize or not?

I've noticed that all of the article names for congressional districts do not capitalize these two words, but in some of the articles "congressional district" is capitalized on the first line. I think coming to a consensus on this will greatly improve both the articles and the work of this project. I don't think capitalization is warranted with the way the titles are worded. What does everyone else think? JSellers0 19:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community Portal

This collaboration appears to be inactive so I am removing it from the community portal. If this becomes active again just add it back.--Banana 00:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Sad, but true.—Markles 01:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)