Talk:United States Congress

Former featured articleUnited States Congress is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 22, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 24, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
September 26, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article


The Congress vs Congress

edit

While normally its called "Congress" (as in members of Congress voted on X), but is it not proper to call it "The Congress" (as in members of the Congress voted on X) Tildin (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Q: Is switching party grounds for a "formal installation"?

edit

In the article on the 118th United States Congress, Joe Manchin's switch to Independent prompted user:Zeddawg to change the "Date of formal installation" from "N/A" (entered by me I believe) to the date of his party switch. I reverted that, pointing out that " ... he wasn't installed in the Senate then, he was installed back in November 2010. N/A is most appropriate since he isn't new.".

That was then reverted by user:OutlawRun, referring to previous examples in the 111th (Arlen Specter) and 107th congresses (Jim Jeffords and Virgil Goode), where their switches have a "Date of formal installation".

So we need a consensus here. Should a switch of party affiliation/registration be viewed as a "formal installation"? Is the person who changes his/her registration sworn in anew? I don't believe so.

If someone thinks we need to be able to sort on the column, and the N/A ruins that, we could easily solve that "problem" by applying template {{sort}} like this: {{sort|the date in question|N/A}}, or possibly some use of "data-sort-value".

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply