U.S. Congress Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is about one (or many) event(s).

United States: Government Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Yay or nay? Fireflyfanboy (talk)

Yay or Nay?

Fireflyfanboy (talk)

Good points, but maybe "other" isn't the best section heading. I'm concerned that the 1945 and 1973 speeches, for example, which have Wikipedia pages labeling them as 'State of the Union Addresses' will fall into a section which could be construed as not an actual SOTUA. FDR actually includes the words 'the State of the Union' in his 1945 Address, which you say (but your source doesn't) is not a State of the Union Address. Randy Kryn 6:46 14 January, 2015 (UTC)

Better section titles, maybe some polish needed in the longer one. Yes, I must agree, the template is becoming more interesting. Randy Kryn 6:56 14 January, 2015 (UTC)

By linking to the speech text themselves you are losing many if not most of the Wikipedia articles on the subjects. 1956 for example, which has an article but is linked to the actual speech (I edited the template because it looks like 1956 was spoken aloud to both houses of Congress). So, keeping to 1956 alone, how will the reader find the Wikipedia page? Randy Kryn 7:07 14 January, 2015 (UTC) ti

WHOOPS! My bad, my mistake, it was my intention to only link to the Wikisource if there was a redlink, not if there was a bluelink/ corresponding Wikipedia article. I think just the 1956 one is the only one I screwed up on, if you find any others that HAVE a Wikipedia article and I screwed up and gave them a Wikisource instead, that's my bad and you're free to link to it instead of the Wikisource. Fireflyfanboy — Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for where the 1956 entries, I think the category it is in right now is fine for the time being. I think there's some confusion because he delivered a speech to congress, but a DIFFERENT speech to the people, so I think keeping it where it in this category is appropriate. |Fireflyfanboy (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only way to do that is to go back to the old template page and compare. Can you do that, since you're designing the changes? Thanks. Glad the 1956 was caught, but I think the official address, the constitutional requirement (which actually doesn't say yearly, but something like from time to time), is the one delivered to Congress. So wouldn't 1956 and all the others be the official address? Nitpicking, but could be a Constitutional nitpick. And I apologize for jumping in so much on this, it's just that I had the template linked and saw the changes, and then put my two cents in (worth less than half-a-cent in today's economy). Randy Kryn 7:27 14 January, 2015 (UTC)

I have gone through with an older version, and I can confirm that no other Wikipedia articles were deleted off the template, all the existing State of the Union articles are still on the template. user:FireflyfanboyFireflyfanboy (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are you linking to WikiSource if WikiSource doesn't have the text of the speech? For example, 1838 (Martin Van Buren's second address) does not exist at WikiSource, and if it did, it probably wouldn't live at the URL you've provided in the template. Wouldn't it make more sense to leave a redlink in place for a Wikipedia article? That way you'll be able to see actual demand for such an article by checking inbound links -- and the interwiki logic always formats a WS link as a blue external link so you have no idea that there's no content there either until you actually navigate there. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 03:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]