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.

U.S. Congress Template‑class High‑importance

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. High This template has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This template is about one (or many) event(s).

In my edit today I left the columns as rearranged in blocks of 10 years. I can see how that might be the most understandable. However, the previous blocks of 9 years provided a more even distribution and largely matched the recognized historical eras of US history. Perhaps too esoteric for WP, but something to consider. stilltim 13:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USCongresses has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — —Markles 12:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stilltim, why'd you remove the future congresses?—Markles 02:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you think they're really needed on a template that shows on every page? I can't imagine many people will use the links because they describe a future event, have almost no information on them, and besides they make a clean simple template more crowded, more complicated and less sightly. I suppose if you feel real strongly about it we could work the design so it looks better, but then I'll bet someone will want labels and further explanations, etc, etc...and what a mess that will make. I think we sometimes have a tendency to try and present too much information in too little a space and risk losing the focus on what really matters. We had a design several months ago that included all this and looked OK, so we could return to that if you like, but really hope we can leave the extra stuff off this one. stilltim 01:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points. Ok, let's leave them out. But if I forget this conversation in a couple of months and revert, just give me a cyber-dope slap.—Markles 03:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here I go again

Dope slaps aside, I again think it's time to put future Congresses back on this template. The 2008 elections are looming and therefore so is the 111th Congress. These articles are not red-linked: they are active. Let the users decide if they don't want to use the links. Sure the 111th isn't that important, but there are many people out there who don't care about the 8th, 23rd, or 46th, either! Comments?—Markles 19:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I nominate this for renaming, I want to discuss it here.

There aren't terms of Congress. They are individucal Congresses.

Thus, I suggest we restore the name, ((USCongresses)). Support/Oppose/Discuss? —Markles 23:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing no objection, I moved the template to ((USCongresses)).—Markles 19:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than having 11 columns of 10 links and 1 column of 2 links, why not balance the columns better? It looks strange to me having all that blank space there at the end of the last column. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way it looks here: [1] (the current version) makes it way more inconsistent than the way it was before. Reverting back to the previous one. —Mr. Matté (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]