Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Archives/2009

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project
Hi, I'm a member of the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have a list of suitable articles? I know of some FAs, such as Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. and Jean Schmidt, perhaps there are others - they would be suitable as well. Please post your article suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 04:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * none yet

Great organization!
This has to be the best organized WikiProject I have ever seen!! Congrats to all those WPedians who worked on this! --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * . Tell all your friends!—GoldRingChip 00:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Party political offices
Please come discuss policy regarding party political office inclusion in infoboxes, navbox templates, succession boxes and WP:LEADs Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Create a subheading for Congressional Committees
It occured to me that we don't have a subpage for Congressional Committees here, talking about the formatting of that. If nobody objects, I'll create one, and link it into that.Dunstvangeet (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been changing the committee table formats in the Senate to match the House committees as I update the articles with new members. It occurred to me that one of the main reasons for the different style was that Senate committees tend to be smaller than House committees, yet even with smaller House committees we use the "shading" template rather than the "party/row" template that the Senate preferred. I'm wondering what the group thinks? The Appropriations Committee will now have 30 membersm, nearly 1/3 of the entire Senate and larger than some House committees. Simplifying the table would make editing easier since you only have one list to change rather than multiple rows and columns. The House tables are also easier to read, in my opinion.
 * With respect to Indpendents Lieberman and Sanders, it will be harder without the row template to delinate their different party. We have the same issue with Gregorio Sablan (I-Mariana Islands) and Pedro Pierluisi (PNP-Puerto Rico) in the House. We could either use a reference to indicate the different party, or continue using shading as in this example I put together. I'm open to suggestions.DCmacnut < > 16:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed. That's why instead of getting into a edit-war, I figured that I'd bring it out here.  I definently thing that the old Senate style looks better, and you can tell a lot more just from looking at it.  But hey.  Maybe we should lay out these sort of requirements with a subpage here.  Nobody really objected, so I'm making the edits.Dunstvangeet (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm open to anything, but I believe that if we have a style it should apply to committees in both House and Senate. The problem I have with the old way is that the tables as set up are harder to edit, and are longer than the House version when you have a lot of committe members. I'll do some experimenting.DCmacnut < > 17:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Congressional YouTube videos....
I don't know if this is the proper place for this, but would screencaps/etc from congressional YouTube videos be in the public domain as they are a work of the Federal Government? --68.56.187.186 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Photographs of new members of Congress
I just wanted to remind anyone who may be involved in editing Congressional biographies here to keep an eye out for photo portraits that aren't in the typical style taken by the U.S. Congress photography service. This is especially true for new members, whose websites are using older images taken from their campaigns and are likely copyrighted (though their staffers are negligent and do not mention this fact). People have been uploading these unofficial photos and they are being deleted as replaceable fair use. A public domain portrait would probably look something like the ones to the right, with the U.S. flag and a simple background. If it doesn't, be suspicious and check Google to see if you can find the original source. Thanks! --Tom (talk - email) 02:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Is bioguide.congress.gov still the best source?—GoldRingChip 02:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some bioguide photos are copyrighted, so it's not always a safe bet either.DCmacnut < > 03:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't trust the bioguide always. I.e., the photo of Roland Burris on the bioguide is not a PD photo. --Tom (talk - email) 06:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can the feds violate copyright law?—GoldRingChip 19:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They have maybe a permission from the office for which this photo was taken from (or from Burris himself). Would be some kind of crazy if the feds would violate their own copyright laws... Cassandro (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're confusing me, Cassandro. Any product of the federal government, including a congressional office, cannot be protected by copyright law.  However, if it's a product of a private campaign, then it could be protected.  Is that what you're saying?—GoldRingChip 21:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, because this picture was taken from him, when he was state comptroller of Ill. (iirc). Is a product of a state office also a PD? Cassandro (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Works of the Illinois state government may or may not be public domain. It says "Copyright 2009 State of Illinois" at the bottom of illinois.gov. --Tom (talk - email) 23:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that only fed stuff is copyright-free.—GoldRingChip 00:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as a sidenote, we are not constrained to only the "official" photos. Just public domain ones, of which the official ones are a subset.  Right?—GoldRingChip 19:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you can use others from house.gov websites if they seem to be legitimately products of Congressional staff. However, I'm just throwing it out there to be vigilant of photo portraits especially because they are often made by private photo studios and are copyrighted by the studio. --Tom (talk - email) 23:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Members of the United States House/Senate Committee on X
Does the project think there is any merit to including new List articles of every member that has ever served on standing House and Senate committees? We already have lists of members for past Congresses, lists of Cabinet Secretaries, etc. Right now, there is a hodgepodge of some committee articles listing past membership rolls. While it would be harder for some of the older Congresses, there is plenty of source material available from the Library of Congress memory project and the official congressional directories to create such a list. What I'm thinking of is started in my sandbox.DCmacnut < > 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be a huge amount of work.—GoldRingChip 21:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some more thoughts:
 * It's too much work and not enough value to future readers. Chairmanships and Ranking Memberships should suffice.—GoldRingChip 14:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If a list were created, it ought not be a separate article. That's just creating too many articles.  I'd include it in the articles about the committees.—GoldRingChip 14:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the articles about the members could include a complete history of her/his committee memberships.—GoldRingChip 14:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories
OK, how about creating some categories, like Category:Members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and also one for Chairmen/Ranking members? We could also place a "Committees during this congress" section on the earlier XXth Congress pages. I think this would have some value to readers. As far as the work, adding categories, creating an article, or adding committee memberships to articles all would have the same level of work, in my opinion. My thought was just focusing on current standing committees and their direct predecessor committees. That would avoid having to do much with pre-1946 standing or select committees, which is where the bulk of the headache in gathering information would lie. WP is always a work in progress.DCmacnut < > 22:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Categories are OK. A lot less cumbersome and not as definitive.  As long as it doesn't go against WP policy on overcategorization.    Make sure you use the whole long title: Category:Members of the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations. Some details:
 * I suggest using the whole House name: Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, and not just Category:Members of the United States House Committee on Ways and Means. I think the titles of the House ARTICLES should be fully expanded too, but that's a different discussion, isn't it?
 * Defunct committees should use the defunct name and they should be subcategories of the active committee.
 * Subcommittees should use the subcommittee name and they should be subcategories of the active committee.
 * —GoldRingChip 23:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... and what about categories for former Chairmen/Ranking Members? Cassandro (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do them the same way: Category:Chairmen of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means and Category:Ranking members of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means. However, I think (maybe) that the ranking member is not important enough as the chairmen and maybe we shouldn't bother with the Ranking Member category.—GoldRingChip 00:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Cassandro (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Biography infoboxes, of current Senators
Perhaps I'm worrying too much. But is it possible, that having the current Senators listed as Senior Senator of... & Junior Senator of... might be mis-leading? Might give the false impression to less familiar readers, that (for example) in California, Feinstein has more Senatorial authority then Boxer (which she doesn't)? GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should make a "re-link", e. g.: Senior Senator from Vermont. I think the note of who is the senior and junior senator is needed. Cassandro (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Showing parties in Congresses' infoboxes
Party affiliations for Senate president, pro tem, and House speaker are displayed erratically, some Congresses' infoboxes displaying them, others not, and others still providing the parties for some of the leaders but not others. It would be nice to have some consistency across this series of articles. Personally, I'd prefer that the parties be displayed, since that easily shows the majority party in each house, but at a minimum I'd seek consensus on either displaying parties or not for all articles. Qqqqqq (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree they should be made consistent. The majority parties are already listed in the infobox, so the leaders' parties can be removed.—GoldRingChip 12:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll help to remove the parties, but I suspect that they will be readded haphazardly in the future, so we'll probably have to monitor things to keep them consistent. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Committee lists
I've changed the to do list item about auditing committee lists. I noted the item should not be removed until after the Minnesota race is done with. From the committee assignment pages of the Senate's Daily Calendar, it is obvious both parties are holding open seats for Franken and Coleman. Once the election is totally, absolutely final, one party will have to rejigger its committee assignments. -Rrius (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mass flag and icon adding
Sorry if this is the wrong project if it is can you point me in the right place. User:Bluedogtn has mass added flagd and icon too templates here. I think the they shouldn't  of been added and would like to remove as per WP:ICONDECORATION. What is this projects opinion Gnevin (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is similar to the Canadian and Israel politician and gov't figure pages though! If your going to take mine down you should consider doing the same with reciprosity! It would be hyprocracy if you did not!Bluedogtn (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists isn't a arguement but Category:European_Union_templates has been de flagged with out issue Gnevin (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." From Other Stuff Exists Bluedogtn (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but when your argument consists solely of:
 * "I am proud of my country"; and
 * "Other templates do it";
 * and both points are refuted by policy and the Manual of Style respectively, that would seem to refute your entire argument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I say: remove them. It's pointless and excessive decoration.—GoldRingChip 13:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is absolutely excessive.--Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So, we are going to have two differing standards here with respect to canadian and israel navboxs versus the american ones! I am done here you all have soured me on this wikipedia thing!  See ya later, bye! Never again will I help create anything or edit anything anymore!Bluedogtn (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Farewell.—GoldRingChip 01:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Update
Looks pretty clear-cut at this point. Should we start rolling these back? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please.—GoldRingChip 11:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done Gnevin (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Smiley.svg|20px]] Thank you.—GoldRingChip 12:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Project banner categorization of main WP page
I wasn't able to inactivate all the templates on the main page of this project. If someone could figure it out, please help!! Thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "inactivate"?—GoldRingChip 21:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * GoldRingChip, look at the categories at the bottom of WP:USC and Template:Project Congress, the template examples on the page are live and they are causing those "Main" pages to be put into the Project assessment categories. Since only the "talk" pages are supposed to be in those categories, this needs to be corrected. I updated the WP's template/doc page, to take off the live example of the banner template, this is probably causing part of the problem.  However, since the template is protected, can you transclude the /doc page onto the template main page for us? Then, on this WP's main page, the template is also there as an example, but it is actually categorizing the main page. I don't know how to make it stop doing that. Another suggestion, would be to upgrade the template to WPBannerMeta, there seems to be less problems using that new template. If you need help in updating the project's template, just let me know and I can create one on a sandbox page. Thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Another reason to upgrade to WPBannerMeta, when you tag a template or project page with NA-Importance, it is going into the Unknown-Importance cat., instead of the NA-importance one, which according to V1.0, is for templates, project pages, list, cats, etc. Upgrading would save time in not having to go thru the Unknown imp. category to re-classify. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix
This year marks the 100th anniversary of the first Saxbe fix, which became effective on March 4, 1909 and facilitated a March 6, 1909 appointment. I have been trying to get this through the WP:FAC process so that I can propose it at WP:TFAR to be a WP:TFA. Because of its centennary and its membership in an underrepresented category of articles, it would have extremely high priority and almost assuredly be approved for the main page on either the 4th or the 6th if it is promoted to WP:FA. I intend to renominate it at WP:FAC in five to seven days for one final attempt at FA promotion. The article could use any assistance that you may be able to lend in terms of copyediting so that it represents the best of WP. This is your chance to get invovled not only in a FA if we get this cleaned up, but an FA that would surely go to the main page. Please come help clean this up. Also, any details on the Hilda Solis fix that you may be able to find to properly cite that eventuality would also be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I added it to Template:Project Congress to do. —GoldRingChip 21:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Commentary welcome at Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Subcategories for Category:Xth United States Congress
I propose a subcategory to categories such as Category:110th United States Congress for failed legislation so as to not confuse with passed legislation and clutter the main category, such as "Category:Failed legislation of the 110th United States Congress". If another word would work in place of "failed", I'm open to discussion. Thoughts? ~ Pesco  So say•we all 19:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

""Failed" isn't a good term here because of the POV. You mean Bills that were not enacted, but I don't know a concise word to express that.  However, I'm not sure how useful this subcategory would be anyway.  —GoldRingChip 22:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean bills either voted down or expired because the congress ended. It just seems that categories for recent congresses, such as the 110th, have a lot of articles for articles that never made it out of subcommittee, even.  I mention it because I just browsed the 110th's category to read about different bills, and I read a lot about bills that weren't even close to making it.  110th United States Congress lists them differently in the article, I just thought the category could, as well.  I wouldn't mind doing the work myself, and if consensus says it doesn't work out, it's pretty easy to undo.  How about "Unenacted bills from the 110th United States Congress"? ~  Pesco  So say•we all 23:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I also don't see the utility in such a subcategory. Many bills may not make it in one Congress, but can and are often reintroduced in future congresses. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 and the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act are just two examples of 110th Congress bills that have been reintroduced in the 111th Congress. There are also House and Senate versions of the same bill, but only one is enacted. Do you count the version not enacted as "failed" even though an identical bill was approved? Finally, there are thousands of bills introduced in each congress, and only a handful ever reach a level of notability to justify their own article. Not even every Public Law gets its own article, particularly annual appropriations bills or bills naming post offices. A discussion of failure or success and legislative history (such as how many times a bill was introduced before being acted upon) can be provided on the act's page.DCmacnut < > 20:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I should never have mentioned "failed". "Unenacted" is more neutral and inclusive.  The "Unenacted legislation/bills from the 110th Congress" could include articles on pending, voted down, vetoed, and expired bills.  When a bill is passed it can go into Category:110th United States Congress.  There's no reason an article can't be in the "unenacted" category in one congress and, when passed, in the main category for another congress.  It would actually be more descriptive.  If there were a Senate & House version and only one made it, I would assume the article would be primarily about the version that passed.  The article would discuss the other version.  Looking at the 110th's cat, there is no way to know at a glance what is now law and what never had a chance, even though every article had notability enough to justify an article.  I think historically, Category:110th United States Congress should display the succssful output of the congress and allow for the subcat to include additional information.  I had thought that, as an alternative, articles on unenacted legislation from previous congresses should be deleted, but that seemed overreaching, so this seemed like a better way to go.  I'm not explaining myself well, am I? ~  Pesco  So say•we all 22:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Block request for IP User
Could an Administrator block IP User 71.208.228.250? The user is adding information to every senator's article regarding the recent recovery bill vote in a blatant viloation of WP:NPOV. He/she is calling the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as the "$787 spend before we think act." Rather than trying to keep up with the editor on reverts, could someone block him to keep him from making these edits inthe first place. Otherwise, could the project members please keep an eye out on the senators pages for this users POV edits. Thanks.DCmacnut < > 22:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You should post a comment on the IP user's talk page. It should be discussed before being blocked.—GoldRingChip 22:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I join DCmacnut, I reverted the same edit on Mike Enzi's page. Cassandro (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have either of you informed the IP user? Blocking ought not be done lightly for NPOV violations.—GoldRingChip 23:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've done it now. Cassandro (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. They made their 12+ edits between 15:48, February 17, 2009 and 17:15, February 17, 2009.  You notified them at 23:31, 17 February 2009.  Ping my talk page if it happens again.—GoldRingChip 01:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Meanwhile, I'm reading over the Blocking policy.)—GoldRingChip 01:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Kit Bond or Christopher S. Bond?
Today (UTC) Terrancee moved the article about Bond from Kit Bond to Christopher S. Bond. Which is the better article name? Cassandro (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be Kit Bond, per WP:Naming conventions. I've moved it back, and left a note on the that article's talk page as well as the user's.DCmacnut < > 23:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur.—GoldRingChip 23:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

House Baltic States Committee
I'm clearing out defunct committee redlinks. Many of these redlinked committees already have articles out there, mainly articles that discuss the investigation carried out by the committee rather than the committee itself. I'm wondering how we should handle these? Should the committee name redirect to the investigation or should the investigation redirect to the committee? Some are a grey area, but one obvious one is the Baltic States Investigation by the US House of Representatives. The entire article discusses the committee formation and its investigation, so it should probably be moved to United States House Select Committee on the Baltic States, which is the appropriate title. Anyone have any thoughts? I will cross post this as the main article as well.DCmacnut < > 04:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are so many possibilities, so for the sake of simplicity, let's be strict. If it's a committee, name it as such.  If not, then don't worry about it.—GoldRingChip 13:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

United States House (of Representatives) Committee on…
Should we have a mass-renaming of all articles pertaining to House committees?
 * From "United States House Committee on Foo"
 * to "United States House of Representatives Committee on Foo"

and
 * from "United States House Foo Subcommittee on Goo"
 * to "United States House of Representatives Committee on Goo"?—GoldRingChip 13:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. It will lead to extremely long committee names, particularly subcommittees. Committees are commonly referred to as House Foo Committee or Senate Foot Committee. So pursuant to WP:COMMONNAME maybe articles should be simplified rather than expanded. We abbreviate Energy and Commerce subcommittees as United States House Energy Subcommittee on Goo, so we might want to leave it as United States House for subcommittees. With redirects it isn't that big of an issue, I guess, but take a look at the United States House Select Committee on the Baltic States and its official title.DCmacnut < > 21:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow (re: Baltic States comm)! Makes me think we should leave it as is.  Why make more work when it's neither helpful (google) nor helpful (WP:COMMONNAME)?—GoldRingChip 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would generally agree. Keep the articles at the shortened name, but have the oh-my-goodness-why-in-the-fricking-world-would-they-give-it-that-long-a-proper-name-someone-needs-to-get-slapped name in the lede. Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been told that the CongBio templates must be removed from External links sections
The folks at External links have confirmed a complaint raised by another editor pertaining to my use of Template:FJC Bio, which is modeled on Template:CongBio. In short, I've been told that these templates are not permitted in the "External links" sections of articles, and should be deleted where they exist. I'd like to get this rule changed, as I find the conforming presence of these links to be a positive and confidence-affirming feature of the articles. bd2412 T 07:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Where was this discussion? It would seem better to engage in a dialogue regarding the reasons given for not permitting said links than to campaign for it without the benefit of seeing how that discussion went. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conversation is at Wikipedia talk:External links. I went ahead and changed the section in all the federal judge articles, but CongBio is a bigger issue, I think. bd2412  T 10:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

After looking at how the above-linked conversation has progressed, I don't think the links need to be removed; rather, they should be moved from "External links" to "References". -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 16:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal at Lodge Committee
I'm proposing merging Lodge Committee into United States Senate Committee on the Philippines. Please discuss at Talk:Lodge Committee. The main reason for the merge is because the Lodge Committee was not a separate Senate committee, but rather an investigation carried out by the Committee on the Philippines by its chairman, Henry Cabot Lodge. Adding this information would help improve the Philippines Committee article by including a major event in the committee's history.DCmacnut < > 17:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Delinking subcommittees
User:Nevermore27 is embarked upon delinking the subcommittees that Congressional members belong to in all the member BLP articles. Examples of these edits are here and here and here and here and dozens more. None of these edits ever have edit summaries either.

Is this change approved by the project? What is the rationale for it? I believe that subcommittees should be linked for the same reason that full committees, elections, legislation passed, and everything else in linked in these articles: to point readers to a more detailed article on a particular subject if they want to learn more. In this talk page post Nevermore27 says the reason for doing this is "because I don't think linking every subcommittee on every individual senators' page is necessary, and it reduces the size of the article." I don't see the logic in the first reason (it could just as easily apply to committee links or anything else; why should we make the reader do a search or go through multiple links just to get to the subcommittee article?) and the size difference for the handful of subcommittees that any member belongs to is trivial. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think this project ever considered the issue. I, for one, think they should remain linked.—GoldRingChip 00:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. They should be included and linked.DCmacnut < > 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen absurd linking that has no relevance to the subject of an article, such as the linking of dates and years not otherwise notably connected to the subject of an article. Clearly if Wikipedia has articles about subcommittees, however, then these articles should be linked to from the various members of said subcommittees.  In the instances of lists and categories, I have seen cite tags complaining that not enough articles link to these.  I can't understand how anyone would consider this not relevant enough to link.  It seems the most likely result of such mass de-linking would be to reduce the traffic at subcommittee articles.  Why would we want to do that?  The main point of wikilinking is to promote surfing to relevant elements of an article that would enhance a reader's understanding of the subject.  For the purposes of disclosure, I'm not a member of the project and I've never edited nor even read a subcommittee article, but I have edited some articles of the politicians whose articles are being delinked.


 * By not wikilinking these subcommittees—but including a mention of them in politicians' articles—we imply that there is no such article. I think that, in addition to preventing interested parties from finding these articles, we could be courting the creation of redundant articles begun by editors seeking to fill a perceived vacuum that doesn't even exist.  Suggesting that making an article shorter is preferable to providing the link begs the question then why have subcommittee articles in the first place.  Respectfully, I strongly oppose such de-linking.  Abrazame (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My own personal reasoning for delinking the subcommittees is that any Wikipedian who is genuinely interested in a Senators' or Congressmans' subcommittee assignments, they can go to the link for the full committee and access them that way. And I also though that any reduction in size of an article was beneficial, and with members of the respective Appropriations committees, delinking subcommittees could net a decent reduction of bytes. Like I said, that was my own personal reasoning. If it is decided that this is not a worthy thing to be doing, that's completely fine. I leave it up to you. Nevermore  | Talk 05:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think they should generally be linked. I'm not sure the reduction of bytes is so substantial that it drastically improves load times, etc. It is beneficial for those people who are interested, and it *gasp* grows the web. :-) --Ali'i 13:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The links are meaningful and relevant to the work of each senator, therefore of interest to readers seeking information about them. The argument expressed about the length of articles is just silly. The main reason for keeping article size down is for length, not bytes. We are encouraged as a matter of policy to avoid making decisions based on capacity, so I just don't see the point of this. -Rrius (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like I was wrong. Sorry. Nevermore  | Talk 16:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. You were only doing what you thought was best for the encyclopedia. It's easily changed back, so no harm, no foul. It's good to be bold, though. Please don't let this stop you from acting boldly in the future. Mahalo, Nevermore. --Ali'i 16:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ex officio subcommittee members
On a related note, I've noticed piecemeal changes by the same editor with respect to "ex officio" status of the full committee chairmen and ranking members on individual subcommittee pages. I've always questioned whether we need to include ex officio members of the subcommittee's, since House and Senate rules state that all full committee chair and ranking are to be ex officio on their subcommittees. It's just that some committees explicitly state this on the subcommittee rolls and others do not. Should we come up with a policy regarding this as well?DCmacnut < > 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a policy should be developed. I'm not yet sure were I'd stand on it, though.—GoldRingChip 01:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done my best to find the relevant Senate and House committee rules to see whether chairmen/ranking members are indeed given ex officio membership on subcommittees. If it is clearly stated in the rules that they are, I've added that. When it doesn't say whether they are or not, I've omitted it. I respect the disagreement on the subcommittee delinking, but this little project of mine is based in solid research. Thank you. Nevermore  | Talk 05:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts were that we can't rely on the committee websites to determine who is and who isn't ex officio on a subcommittee. What really brought this to my attention were the House Judiciary Committee subcommittee's. John Conyers is a full member of many of the subcommittees, but Lamar Smith is not. The current format of an article like the subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law is a bit awkward, since Lamar Smith is hanging out there alone. The blank under the Democratic colum looks off to me. Perhaps we should adopt the style of theCommerce subcommittee on Aviation Operations.

With respect to who serves ex officio, many committees, like the Senate Commerce Committee explicitely state the chair and ranking as ex officio, but only in the press release annoucing the subcommittees. Others do not, but that does not prevent the chair or ranking member from sitting on the subcommittee ex officio from time to time if they choose pursuant to tradition and committee rules. Moreover, the individual subcommittee pages do not list the chair and ranking.

Another example is the House Intelligence Committee. House Rule 11 states "the Speaker and Minority Leader shall be ex officio members of the select committee" (emphasis added), but the Intelligence committee website does not list them nor do we have them listed as members in the committee article.

In general, Senate Rule 25 says any chairman or ranking member may serve ex officio on any subcommittee under their committee. House Rule 5 does not include similar language, but mentions ex officio service on a subcommittee as not counting against the total limitation on number of subcommittee assignments each member is allowed. House members can't serve on more than 2 standing committees and no more than 4 total standing subcommittees. Again, it is the perogative of the chair and ranking member to serve ex officio if they choose. I just think we need a better effort to figure out just how to display these and just when the chair and ranking are ex officio.DCmacnut < > 15:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In reference to the Judiciary Committee; the website says "The chairman of the committee and ranking minority member thereof shall be ex officio members, but not voting members of each subcommittee to which such chairman or ranking minority member has not been assigned by resolution of the committee.", meaning they don't need to be ex officio members if they're already a full voting member. I like having the separate box below the full committee members because there's a clear visual break. Maybe what we can do is place a reference when the space is blank like that saying the Chair/Ranking member (x Senator/Rep.) would be an ex officio member, but they are already a full subcommittee member, or something like that.


 * I agree that relying on the websites alone won't cut it. I think the rules should be the final word on the matter. I've done my best to make sure that they were all accurate. Nevermore  | Talk 16:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy for an example. Nevermore  | Talk 17:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried a different formating, primarily from a visual perspective. Even with the ref (which isn't necessarily needed), the large blank blue space just focuses the eye there rather than the table as a whole. I think separating out Ex officio with its own heading, etc, is more appropriate when there are multiple ex officio members, such as with the Senate Intelligence Committee.DCmacnut < > 19:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your reasoning, but I think it's better to use a uniform style when it comes to ex officio members, because if you only do it for (sub)committees where there are multiple ex officio members, then you can run into problems, like in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where in some subcommittees there are three ex officio (2 Democrats 1 Republican) members but others only two. I, personally, think we'd be better off with a uniform style, and I think the separate heading makes for the best visual style. And it should be pointed out that the pool of Wikipedians that are actually interested in a House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy will probably have enough of a discerning eye to see why the chair is not listed as an ex officio member, even without the reference Nevermore  | Talk 20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I see your point as well. The Intelligence Committee's are unique, in that they are the only committees that have ex officio members from outside the regular committee. That's the main reason I thought the Senate Intelligence should have a separate line, because it lists the ex officio's titles as well. Perhaps we can amend that article to simplify it by removing the titles for those ex officio members. With respect to Conyers, a ref could be added, but perhaps next to his name than a stand alone line.DCmacnut < > 23:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:NYRepresentatives at TFD
is listed at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_6.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

subst'd for posterity --William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Missing Representative?
Hi - don't know if this is the best talk page to ask at, but I'll try - having no response at Talk:United States congressional delegations from Illinois....

I found a Find-A-Grave bio for a representative that appears to be missing from this page, and from Wikipedia: CARLSON, Cliffard Dale (rep 1972 - 1973; filled the vacancy after Charlotte Reid stepped down) - his bioguide is at, his Find-A-Grave entry is at. I'm under the impression that some bot is creating the skeleton entries for the representatives - could someone perhaps get the job done for this guy? --Alvestrand (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC) -Rrius (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

48th United States Congress - summary
Stilltim has been writing a lot of these; I just wanted to check (before I did anything) whether it is part of a wider wikiproject-based activity? Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

committee membership lists
It's a small point, but I wonder if anyone would object to my tweaking the way committee chairman and ranking members are listed in the membership lists at each congressional committee and subcommittee page. I would like to change them so that the terms "chairman" and "ranking member" appear after the state. Also, I'd like to bold "chairman" and "ranking member". Here's what I mean:

Please advise. -Rrius (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As a frequent contributor to the committee articles, I like the idea.DCmacnut < > 02:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a bad idea, but what was wrong with the old style? Nevermore  | Talk 01:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is something unexpected and odd about finding the word "Chairman" between the name and the state. -Rrius (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I always consider it to be [x], Chairman of the committee, from [y] state. Both orders work in my opinion. But I'm not picky. Nevermore  | Talk 18:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen on the bolding, but completely agree about the word order. older ≠ wiser 13:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Layout of the ordinal Congress articles
I think we should have a discussion about the layout of the ordinal Congress articles, e.g., 111th United States Congress. I see a number of problems:

I am sure there are other areas needing improvement, so please add any you can think of. Hopefully, together, we can make these articles even better than they are. -Rrius (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The biggest is the full listing of members of each Congress. Surely these should be forked to separate lists of senators and representatives. Such lists could be sortable by state, party, class, etc.
 * Another problem is the general layout of the lists of party leaders and the like. At present, they are unpleasing masses of text. There are similar lists at List of current United States Senators that could serve as a guide.
 * There are far too many sections called "Senate" and "House of Representatives". This is problematic because it makes section linking ineffective. Any link to 111th United States Congress will target the very first such title on the page.
 * Minor formatting difference exist from page to page. For instance, some articles have the "(R)" party labels and notes like "(majority)" in italics. What is the point of italics when the information is already set off in parenthesis? More to the point, not all articles have this, and some that do are not consistent.
 * Different articles put party labels after different instances of a legislator's name. Thus, a Senate assistant leader who becomes leader may or may not have a party label after his name in any of the following places: in the list of senators, where his name is listed as assistant leader, where it is listed as leader, and perhaps in a caption to an image. Where party labels are included or not seems random.

I created a project subpage to discuss this. Here: WikiProject_U.S._Congress/Ordinal_congresses.—GoldRingChip 21:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to keep the discussion here, because it is more central. Having the widest possible range of input seems to me to be important. On that note, does anyone have a script or something that would allow adding a notice of this discussion to each of the ordinal Congress articles? -Rrius (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton GAR
Hillary Rodham Clinton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussions have been moved to Good article reassessment/Hillary Rodham Clinton/3.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

List of people who have served in both the United States Congress and the United States Supreme Court
I've thrown together a List of people who have served in both the United States Congress and the United States Supreme Court. I culled information from existing bios on the Justices, but am concerned that it does not seem to match up with the general numbers put out in recent media reports and other sources. Review would be appreciated. bd2412 T 00:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was able to confirm all three categories of senators at the relevant Senate page. -Rrius (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was also able to confirm the representatives at the relevant House page. -Rrius (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent - thanks. So the print sources I've looked at are both wrong (so much for the reliability of published experts)! They couldn't be right anyway, since they disagreed even with each other, but this makes it very clear. bd2412  T 06:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

succession box problem
Usher L. Burdick has a problem, but I don't know what it is exactly or how to fix it. Шизомби (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FixedDCmacnut < > 13:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed template for committee articles
I've developed a draft template for committees. It's basically cobbled together from how many of the current articles are formated, with a few additional suggestions on how to deal with defunct commmittees. Please see WikiProject U.S. Congress/Committees and provide comment, edits, or other suggestions.DCmacnut < > 21:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Geraldine Ferraro FAC
The Geraldine Ferraro article has been nominated for Featured Article status. Support/opposition/comments welcome at Featured article candidates/Geraldine Ferraro/archive1. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

CRS Reports
CRS Reports used to redirect to Congressional Research Service, until yesterday I changed that to Congressional_Research_Service. Nevertheless, I think it should be a high priority to write a standalone CRS Reports article, since there is growing interest among Wikipedians (myself included) to incorporate massive amounts of these reports in Wikipedia (a-la-Britannica 11th edition), and some people (myself included) need a better understanding of the caveats of doing so. (Specifically, I've created this template refideas which essentially is designed for distributing CRS reports to articles, and I'd like to know if I should have myself shot for doing so.) Of course, I can commit time to this, I'd just like some help. Agradman talk/contribs 14:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PPS Just to give you an example of the kind of things that can be done with CRS Reports: until July 1 2009, House Minority Leader was a redirect to Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives.  On July 1, I populated it with the content of the CRS report mentioned in the References.
 * For a list of other articles for which I've identified relevant CRS Reports, see Category:Articles which could have free content incorporated from elsewhere, which aggregates the talk pages which contain my refideas template. Agradman talk/contribs 14:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. Keep it up!!!—GoldRingChip 17:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

List of United States federal legislation
Also, out of personal curiosity: I'm a big fan of List of United States federal legislation, and I'm wondering if there's a movement afoot to create a comprehensive list of federal legislation (like WP:SCOTUS has done with Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume.  Agradman talk/contribs 14:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been one of the more active editors on that page. Creating a comprehensive list is daunting.  Unlike SC cases, most statutes (including all the early ones) do not have a simple name.  There have more than 40,000 statutes enacted, and a new statute is enacted on average  every other day.  I like the idea in general, but let's not bite off more than we can chew.  Finally, let's please keep the existing article, even if a comprehensive list is created.  It's nice to have this as a summary list.—GoldRingChip 17:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Flattery
Wow, you guys run a professional operation here. I'm planning on starting a Wikiproject of my own this fall ("1L curriculum") and I think I'll stick around here for a while and learn how it's done. Agradman talk/contribs 14:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The key to a well-run project is a large group of participants and plenty of communication. One energized editor is never enough because the heart of a project is diversity of opinion.   Good luck to you.—GoldRingChip 17:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

An amazing collection of encyclopedic public-domain sources relating to your work
The House Rules Committee has been kind enough to aggregate approximately eighty Congressional Research Service reports dealing with Congressional procedure, history, etc. Of course, they're in the public domain, so all you have to do is copy-paste-cite. Cheers. Agradman talk/contribs 02:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Elijah Boardman
Hey all. I think I have enough on Elijah Boardman's life outside of the Senate, but I can't seem to find much information on what he actually did during his political career. Are there any sources I haven't yet found that could be of help? Regards, SGGH ping! 11:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also can't make heads or tails of what he joined when. The source is confusing as to when he was in the House of Representatives and when he was in the Senate, and when he was in such organisations confined just to Connecticut. Being from the UK, where he only have a national upper house and lower house, it's a bit confusing at what is State and what is National. SGGH ping! 11:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Individual articles for each Article of US Constitution
Why is the need for that? (Is there an urgency?, considering each article reflects the original text?) Does it promote American "self-centrism"? I mean, how about other countries' constitution? Why this needs to be in separate articles? Why not merge them into the whole US Constitution article? Why does they have their own article, especially that they are repeating on every mother articles, or why is there a need to explain each section, each article of the US Constitution?-- JL 09 Talk to me!  09:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Special elections
Currently, House special elections for a given Congress are handled in two articles: "United States House of Representatives special elections, [odd year]" and "United States House of Representatives elections, [even year]". I see two problems resulting from this set up. First, the elections for a single two-year Congress are divided between two articles. Second, the even-year-election articles end up with a section of special elections that disrupts the flow of the article. I propose combining all special elections to a Congress in a single article with one of the following names (using the current Congress): The first would include Senate specials not occurring on the same day as the regular November election. Examples include the 1996 Oregon special, the upcoming 2010 Massachusetts special, and the anticipated 2010 Texas special. Either of the others would exclude those elections. That name has two benefits: it is short, and gives the article sufficient flexibility to take in the Senate special elections. On the negative side, there are not that many special elections for Senate that don't occur at the normal November election, which weakens adding Senate specials as a justification. Using this name is my weak preference at this point because there is currently nowhere to put odd-year elections if more than one occurs in year, and putting the even-year elections in "United States Senate elections, [even year]" has the same problem as I mentioned for House articles. As between the other two, the first is more accurate, but the second one conforms to other election articles better. -Rrius (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Special elections to the 111th United States Congress"
 * "United States House of Representatives special elections in the 111th Congress"
 * "United States House of Representatives special elections, 2009–2010"

Hones Abe FA
I'm trying to get Abraham Lincoln up to FA, and his article is within the scope of your wikiproject. It's a big job, but the article is in pretty good shape. Anyone want to help? Drop by the talk page if you're interested. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Appointed Senators and the Infobox
Please add your comments at Template talk:Infobox officeholder. I have proposed adding some parameters that would allow us to provide the appointment and anticipated oath dates to the infobox to avoid some of the trouble we seem to have every time a new senator is appointed. -Rrius (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

United States Senate elections, 2010
The article talks about November 2nd elections in 2010 I think it is on a Tuesday November 3rd 2010 can anyone verify and correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.124.170 (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Smith page move
Editors here may be interested in a discussion about moving Gordon Smith to Gordon Smith (politician) or as I have suggested Gordon H. Smith. The discussion is at Talk:Gordon Smith -Rrius (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Need to find resolution from 1961 regarding progenitor of Uncle Sam
I'm trying to find a Congressional resolution from September 1961 which states that Samuel Wilson is declared the progenitor of Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam has this quote: "Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives that the Congress salutes Uncle Sam Wilson of Troy, New York, as the progenitor of America's National symbol of Uncle Sam." When you google it, Wikipedia is the top hit. I have an NRHP nomination that confirms this information (page 12), but it doesn't cite its source (and it's not a good enough sorce for my taste to make such a bold statement). Is there a place online that would host Congressional resolutions from the 1960s where I can find this quote?  upstate NYer  02:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)