Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Archives/2016

Almanac of American Politics 2014
I have a copy of this book on my kindle and am using it to tweak Congressman and Senator articles. Either to add new information or to put in the book as a reference for existing information. Here are two examples of what I have done.

Back when I was younger, I bought these books and had every year from 1984 to 1992 and a few more from the years 1994 to 2004. Over time I gave away or threw out the older copies. Now I wish I still had them....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional opinions sought
on a topic that may be of interest to those editors interested in the use of redirects on a page that disambiguates names of defunct House and Senate committees. See Talk:Committee on Government Operations. older ≠ wiser 23:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

113th Congress and subcommittees
A friendly reminder to editors to take a second look before creating new subcommittee articles, particularly if committees are proposing renaming or restructring. Existing subcommittee articles should be moved to the new names if possible. The House Oversight Committee is once such committee, and I would propose the following moves to reflect the new subcommittees that were annouced yesterday.


 * Nice reminder, but, please remember to sign your posts. :) II  | (t - c) 01:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...
 The Wikipedia Library

There are up to 30 free one-year Alexander Street Press (ASP) accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP.

Alexander Street Press is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. Cheers! 22:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes
Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 01:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

font for changes in membership for individual congress pages
a couple of us noticed the font size varies for the change in membership for both Senate and the House for each congress (i.e. 114th, 113th, etc.). A suggestion has been made to eliminate the 80% font and standardize on 100%. I think there are more congresses at 80% than 100% font. It shouldn't take to long to do either size.....I thought I'd throw it out to see if anyone feels strongly either way........feel free to comment below......Pvmoutside (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm the other person in the "couple" mentioned above. The 80% was probably used to squeeze more info into the table.  But its font-size seems to stick out visually.  There are plenty of other places one could possibly argue for a smaller font size, but then the page will look chaotic.  Therefore, I suggest moving all text to the default size, with a few tiny exceptions such as dates in the party summary tables (which might be ok at 100% after all), and the specially-created "Leadership" section contents TOCs. —GoldRingChip 14:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. The articles need to be legible and consistent.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 16:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Images from pocket directories
I'm at one of the local libraries right this moment. They have copies of the pocket directories for the 82nd through 113th Congresses inclusive, excluding a few of the more recent sessions. They also have a 600dpi book-scanning device available for public use. I'm really only interested in scanning the photos pertaining to Alaska and a select few other topic areas. However, I can't help but notice that a great many of the images used in biography articles are rather low-quality images scavenged from Google Books and various other places on the web. If folks here want to put together a priority list of requested images, I may be willing to also scan those photos on a later visit. Don't tarry, though, as I have enough going on in my life to where I may not have the opportunity to revisit this after about a week or two from now. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject United States - 50,000 Challenge
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move notice
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:United States Presidents and control of Congress, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, JudgeRM   (talk to me)  20:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment on United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016
Please provide input on the RfC at the talk page of United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016. This issue has been unresolved since Summer 2016 and requires community input. -- Dane 2007  talk 01:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 18:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)