Template talk:United States Congresses
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
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.stilltim13:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:USCongresses has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — —Markles12:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stilltim, why'd you remove the future congresses?—Markles02:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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?—Markles19:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before I nominate this for renaming, I want to discuss it here.
There aren'tterms of Congress. They are individucal Congresses.
Thus, I suggest we restore the name,{{USCongresses}}. Support/Oppose/Discuss? —Markles23:53, 19 August 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]
.svg)
