Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Ordinal congresses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a proposed guideline for formatting these 110+ articles.
Please join the discussion to develop a consensus!

Contents

[edit] Sub-sections / TOC limit

Using {{ TOC limit | 2 }} reduces the TOC to just the main sections without subsections.

This allows editors to use more subsections, such as:

==Members==
===Senate===
====Alambama===
. . . 
====Wyoming====
===House of Representatives===
====Alambama===
. . .
====Wyoming====
====Non-voting members====

Without overloading the TOC.—Markles 17:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • This OK with me although hardly critical as with the existing standard it never applied, and only seems to when the non-voting delegates are subordinated which you have just begun doing. stilltim (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • In many articles, states are not under a section heading; they are manually indented and bolded. This standard would change that to make them headings.—Markles 11:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italics

Italics for party designations or abbrevations aren't necessary.—Markles 17:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Italics distinguish the party information from the other information, making the presentation clearer. Not "necessary" but IMO a much better presentation. stilltim (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Middle Initials

Middle names, nicknames, or initials are unnecessary in these articles unless necessary for disambiguation. As a rule, therefore, don't make the piped links more elaborate that the live link.
For example:

  • Richard Nixon does not need the middle initial "M."
  • Tip O'Neill is sufficient, not [[Tip O'Neill|Thomas Phillip "Tip" O'Neill, Jr.]].

—Markles 17:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The proper presentation of names is very important. I have diligently followed the name form used by Martis, who is clearly following the most common usage by the Congress and the individual at the time. Let's let the congressional records and their scholars determine this and not presume to understand better. I think it is inappropriate and poor scholarship to override their conclusions and feel quite strongly on this issue. stilltim (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titles

[edit] President of the United States Senate

President of the United States Senate should be listed and linked as such. It redirects to Vice President of the United States, but future editors may find that avoiding this redirect is confusing.—Markles 17:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The documents of the Congress consistently refer to the Vice President as the "Vice President" and not "President of the Senate." We should follow their style. I thought we had found a satisfactory middle ground by listing both so there would be no confusion. Can we never settle these issues? stilltim (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Employees

In these ordinal Congress articles, employees should be listed by their names only. Do not include honorary or professional titles, which are better left in the person's article instead. Otherwise, we'd have to put "Hon." in front of every Rep. and Senator and who knows what else. It's just easier this way.
For example:

—Markles 17:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

    • It is the almost universal custom to use certain titles and honorifics with applicable persons when the citation of the person is relevant to the title. When writing about an ordained person in the context of their professional responsibilities it is always appropriate to include "the Rev." It is only customary and appropriate for them in their role as Chaplain, however, and would not be if they were a member of Congress. The fact that much of the congressional documentation does likewise supports this. Once again we have debated this for years. stilltim (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • May I respectfully suggest that these issues pale in importance beside the generally poor and inconsistent quality of most of the articles refering to the Congress and its members. I would much prefer to spend my limited time working on those things and not regularly rehashing these old issues. I consider the format used on Congresses 1-55 to be a standard mutually designed and agreed to by both of us and other interested parties through many discussions. In the best spirit of WP, the design incorporates many, if not most of your concerns, as well as mine. How about it, can we move on and work on new stuff, cooperatively? stilltim (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


I'm not clear on which officials/employees are to be included in the article. It says to use the biographical directory, however that includes far fewer officials than are currently listed in the boilerplate.meamemg (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)