Talk:List of current United States senators/Archive 1
Turn off HTML
[edit]Would you please turn off the HTML table? It ruins the article in AmigaOS 4.0 browser. —Anonymous
- This is the standard Wikipedia table and is used in hundreds of articles. You need a new browser. Adam 04:59, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
110th Congress
[edit]Here's a new table with the new Senators. I plan to move it to article space after Jan 3 2005:
Candidates elected on November 2 are not yet Senators and should not be added to the article until January. Adam 08:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Class?
[edit]Sorry to bug, but what does class 1 and class 3 mean on certain Senator's pages? I assume it has something to do with election rotation, but I haven't found anything certain. Should this info (if it doesn't already exist) be added to the Senate page? Atrivedi
- Your guess is correct. On the U.S. Senate's website, we read:
class - Article I, section 3 of the Constitution requires the Senate to be divided into three classes for purposes of elections. Senators are elected to six-year terms, and every two years the members of one class—approximately one-third of the Senators—face election or reelection. Terms for Senators in Class I expire in 2007, Class II in 2009, and Class III in 2011. [1]
- On the Senate site, that definition is linked to from this page, which gives the full Senate roster with each Senator's class. Go ahead and add the information wherever you think appropriate. JamesMLane 08:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Corzine
[edit]Should Corzine be listed as leaving? If he loses his gubernatorial race this year, he'd presumably still be able to run for reelection in 06, wouldn't he? john k 05:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Translation in German WP
[edit]Hi!
I (de:Benutzer:Klever) translated this version into German: de:Liste der gegenwärtigen Mitglieder im US-Senat.
Are changes in this article planned??
CU,
Marco(de:Benutzer:Klever)
- There will be several important changes in January when the new group of Senators take office. Same goes for any United States House of Representatives articles. --Tim4christ17 talk 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It strikes me that this list could easily become a featured list. It would need a slightly longer lead, ideally a graphic, and some references (perhaps this list from the Senate website?) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Lieberman Party Status
[edit]I noticed that Lieberman's party status changed to his independent party that he is using to run on for the November General elections. I changed it back to the Democractic Party because he was elected a Democrat and is still listed as a member on the Senate Democrat's page. Any comments, shoot my way. And if you know that I'm wrong, let me know too because this sort of thing hasn't happened in quite sometime.
- Lieberman is a Democrat. At least for the current Congress (109th). —Markles 02:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Lieberman is a Democrat for his current term, but an independent for his campaign. Usually you campaign with the same affiliation you're serving with, but Lieberman seems to have created an exception to that rule. --Tim4christ17 talk 19:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Now the question is, once the new year rolls around and he resumes his seat, what party should he be put under? General "Independent" or should we actually go with his "party's" name?
- Go with whatever he says he is. And I have a hunch he will be back in the Democratic fold by then. But you'll have to wait and see. Wahkeenah 22:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Lieberman himself used Independent Democrat "Capital I, Capital D" on Meet the Press, and we have updated the Joseph Lieberman and Connecticut pages accordingly. Please see Talk:Joseph Lieberman#Joe_Lieberman_is_NOT_an_Independent to read how consensus was formed. The quote is sourced in the Joseph Lieberman lead. Now, what color goes with Independent Democrat? I'd rather leave the changes to editors who regularly work on this page. Jd2718 17:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see the discussions at Talk:Joe_Lieberman and Talk:110th_United_States_Congress. He was officially an ID yesterday, today he's an I. [2] Simon12 03:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who made that, but it seems to be incorrect. Thomas Carper (DE) was re-elected in the 2006 midterms. Jack Daw 17:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, Lieberman is officially a Democrat for the term he is finishing (see the Senate website). What party he will have for his upcoming term is yet to be decided...he would normally default into "Connecticut for Lieberman" (because that's how he was elected) but there is virtually no chance he would use that as his official affiliation for his next term. --Tim4christ17 talk 07:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the list to extend the term of office for all of the Class 1 Senators to 2012. It should be ready for cut-and-paste to the mainpage on January 3, 2007. -- Robster2001 02:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Lieberman is ID (according to senate.gov); color is same as Independent (grey). That should satisfy everyone.
[edit]According to senate.gov, Lieberman is an Independent Democrat. However, since there is no official party called "Independent Democrat", the color is the same as other "independents", grey. user:mnw2000 00:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have requested from senate.gov the OFFICIAL listing for Joe Lieberman. One web site (a PDF dated 1/3) says it is I-CT and another web site (an dynamic page) says it is ID-CT. Let's wait for the response. user:mnw2000 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have received the following reply:
Senator Lieberman's official listing is ID-CT (Independent Democrat). The pdf you list below only allowed for one letter parties. This problem is being corrected, and when the new phone list is generated in about a week Senator Lieberman's party will be listed as ID. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
Best Wishes, Liz Horrell, On behalf of the Senate Webmaster
I guess the case is closed on this one for now. user:mnw2000 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Great job! Can you please post this on Talk:110th United States Congress and Talk:Joe Lieberman? Simon12 03:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge
[edit]This page is rather redundant. Just H 01:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Images
[edit]There is a problem with the images at the top of the page. Two of them overlap, and the whole thing looks pretty messy and disorganized. I don't know how to fix it, so I'd appreciate it if someone who does know how could do so. Thanks.Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- What browser and OS are you using? -Rrius (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am currently looking at the article with IE 7.0 on Windows Vista, and the image on the upper left overlaps with the top table, causing part of it to be unreadable. Jonathunder (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know...
[edit]This article was mentioned by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in KERRIGAN v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 289 Conn. 135. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Graphics overlapping
[edit]The diagram of the Senate seats is overlapping the chart at the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.236.198 (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Religion?
[edit]Why is there a column for each Senator's religion? How is it relevant? I mean, I understand that it is relevant to them personally, and to some of their constituents, and for some of them it may strongly affect their behavior in the Senate, but it is not relevant to Senators qua Senators. We might as well have a column for their ethnic background, or their sexual preference. -68.196.8.50 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree that this is somewhat strange. It has an obvious place in each senators article. One might conceivably imagine an article which lists current U.S. Senators by religion. But I see no reason for religion to be addressed in this article. john k (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I also found it striking and odd that religion had a column. I can think of other aspects that are equally irrelevant or arguably more relevant. Military Service, perhaps. Gender? 24.193.42.103 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is relevant in looking at the decisions they make as senators; as such it is relevant to senators qua senators. Sex is manifest from the names and pictures, and military service is relevant to far fewer different issues that come before the Senate. -Rrius (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just wanted to chime in that I agree the religion column isn't relevant for this column. I'd strike it myself but I'll wait to see if there's a bit more consensus. ThomasAndrewNimmo (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is not relevant to 'List of current United States Senators'. I don't think education or prior experience is relevant to this list either.148.9.131.44 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with most of the above: thought it was very strange. Don't usually participate in discussions, but had to chime in here. It is about as relevant as race and certainly LESS relevant than education and perhaps prior experience (though that seemed awkward, as well). --134.67.6.14 (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree too that religion isn't relevant in this list however I'd be sorry to see it go after having read such an eclectic list of religions. I have no idea what religions like Lutheran and Presb... are (being from Europe) nor the other churches like Church of God but it is interesting to see how many Senate members are in the LDS or Jewish and how not a single person is listed as not being religious. Again, coming from Europe it is shocking to see that all US Senators are religious - very few European politicians would admit to being religious except in places like Poland, Italy, Spain and Greece.--109.228.87.230 (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is an encyclopedic entry; encyclopedias include such because thousands of students are tasked each year with reports which cover multiple politicians. Rather than expecting students to wade through 100 pages of senators, or 435 representatives, consolidation is preferred and appreciated. 75.202.34.229 (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is true, but an encyclopedia entry should only contain information which is directly relevant to the subject at hand. If it is desired to have a compilation of the religions and other details of sitting Senators, then a different entry should be created for that information (perhaps a listing of the religions of all members of Congress, or something like that). As previously observed, we could also have a column with each sitting member's military service; this would most definitely be useful to someone doing a report on the subject of military experience and how it affects politicians. It is better to only have the bare essentials in a table like this because there is no non-arbitrary way to determine what other information is included. 129.161.35.60 (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Can we reopen this conversation? It seems like most people were okay with getting rid of the 'religion' column...--Rishidesai (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Religion is irrelevant to this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.164.157 (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorting by last name
[edit]Is there a way to make this possible? Sorting by name currently sorts it by first name, putting Al Franken on top instead of Daniel Akaka. @harej 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have now made sorting by last name possible through {{fns}}. Now I can live my dream of being the Clerk of the Senate. @harej 01:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Such a template already exists called {{sortname}}. -Rrius (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Jumping the Gun
[edit]Brown isn't MA senator yet. He is the presumed senator elect. The current senator will hold the seat and cast the vote, until Brown is certified and then seated by the senate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.160.199.100 (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Top Template error
[edit]The Democrats party-colour isn't showing. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I believe I've fixed it. -Rrius (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Percent of vote?
[edit]Sorry. I don't really know how to use this discussion page. Would it be possible to include the percentage of the vote that each senator received in their last election? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.73.250 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- New sections should be added at the bottom, and you should sign your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end. To your point, it is possible, but I'm not sure I see why that is important enough to add here. Moreover, the table is already crowded with information, and I think we need to be very careful about adding more. -Rrius (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Political party color coded list?
[edit]Should the list be color coded that corresponds to the Senators respective party? You know many lists of politicians in the U.S. have this formula and design. Why not this? I know you can easily read it in the column, but I think it's best if it were color coded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.65.165.173 (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- It seems inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry. One reason this is the case is because there aren't really particular colors that are formally associated with parties that aren't the Democrats or Republicans. 129.161.35.60 (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism
[edit]A guy named CreatureKawa done a series of vandalisms in many of the former senatos lists such as Illinois, Indiana and Louisiana. I fixed Indiana and Louisiana and a user fixed Illinois. Can someone find other vandalisms and fix them and also find CreatureKawa and prevent him of doing other strange things? (If someone find out that he was not a vandal but he was experimenting, tell him about the sandbox)
77.49.58.110 (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
File:BarbaraBoxer.png Nominated for Deletion
[edit]
|
An image used in this article, File:BarbaraBoxer.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
|
| A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
No lead section
[edit]The top of this article notes that it has no lead section (among other things it has been flagged for). Somebody could simply type that there are 100 senators, two from each state, but I would think that most people visiting the page know that already. In my opinion a lead section is not that important considering the page title says it is a list, but it should still have at least a small lead section if that is required of all Wikipedia pages. EvanJ35 (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Tim Scott election year
[edit]Scott will be a class 3 senator, since he's replacing DeMint, but his appointment will be up in 2015, because state law requires a special election be held for the seat in 2014. So, Scott's entry in this table is inconsistent with the key, which indicates that class 3's terms expire in 2017. Technically this might still be true, since he's really serving out the remainder of DeMint's term, but I think it's misleading. Should we add a footnote or another column (e.g., next election year) to the table to represent this? 24.1.94.199 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sanders counted as Dem, but King as Independent
[edit]In the count of Senators by party, Sanders is counted as a Democrat, as explained by the footnote "caucus [sic] with the Democrats." But according to several news stories from Nov. 2012, Angus King likewise caucuses with the Democrats. Shouldn't they be counted consistently? Either both should be counted as Independent, or both as Democrats. Ishboyfay (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Elizabeth Warren
[edit]Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts is missing from this listing.DOMICH (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Experience
[edit]The experience column should simply list all significant experience for each Senator, or list both private and public sector experience for each Senator. Or maybe there should be a column for private sector experience and another column for public sector experience. In any case, both public and private sector experience should be treated equally per NPOV. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Just noticed that this talk page is relatively inactive, so I'll just start working on fixing it myself now. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
This section may have value, but "no private sector experience" seems intended as a criticism and raises NPOV concerns. Croctotheface (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's a negative or a positive, it probably depends on the reader's POV. When I came upon the article, several Senators had "no public sector experience" in their experience column, again, not sure how readers would view that, but I wanted to be fair either way. It seems like useful information for the reader so, as the case may be, we say "no ______ sector experience". Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- At the very least, we should find a way to phrase it that doesn't sound like a charge made by an opposing politician. Saying that an opponent has "never worked in the private sector" is a fairly common line of attack. Even if it were not, it sounds quite negative; it implies that ideally, a politician should have this sort of experience but does not. Croctotheface (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- And to clarify, my position is that, as it is currently, the article is not neutral and should be reverted until we find a way to phrase this concept that is consistent with our NPOV policy. Croctotheface (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I reverted it back. I see three options:
- 1) Don't mention information about private and public experience.
- 2) Mention both public and private experience.
- 3) Split the column into "Private experience" and "Public experience"
- I don't like option (1) because it means that we'd leave out useful information. We can mention both public and private as I said above or split it into two columns. Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate the reversion; hopefully this is a solvable issue. I don't think it's necessary to call attention specifically to the presence or absence of "private sector experience." Truly, "no private sector experience" is a line right out of political attack ads. It's too loaded to say or even imply, especially if the only benefit is calling the readers attention to something that they can infer from the presence of only public sector entries in the "significant experience" column. Croctotheface (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- The "no private sector experience" comments are ridiculous, flout the POV rules, and, more importantly, are inaccurate. Numerous people are listed as having "no private sector experience" when their own Wikipedia pages say otherwise--Mark Begich started an under-18 nightclub and did real estate, and Kay Hagan worked in the private sector in major law firms, for example. Odd how both of them are up for election this year and "no private sector experience" is a conservative attack point. I understand some entries previously had "no private sector experience" listed before Sparkie took the lead on this, but that probably was just vandalism. The inaccuracies are so blatant on this page that I'm going ahead and removing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cat spasms (talk • contribs) 03:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- They've now been removed. As an additional comment, frankly, when you think about it, saying someone DOESN'T have a certain kind of experience opens a can of worms, as that requires a higher burden of proof. I think that's why the Mark Begich and Kay Hagan mixups happen--both arguably had real private sector experience, but that would a) depend on your definitions of "private sector" and "experience" and b) weren't necessarily the most prolific aspects of their careers. For verification purposes, it is much easier to simply say the experience we know they do have. So, let's please not reinsert those changes. I'll be watching this page. Cat spasms (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Cat, please assume good faith when you edit on Wikipedia. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- The missing items of experience for Begich and Hagan that you mention above were not on their WP pages or senate.gov pages when I made my edits back in May and I did not have any other sources for them. I'm not sure why you mentioned them here but failed to add them to the article. I'll add them myself. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- I added Begich's experience, however, I couldn't find a source for Hagan's law firm experience. I did find a source that said Hagan worked as banker, so I added that. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- The "no private sector experience" comments are ridiculous, flout the POV rules, and, more importantly, are inaccurate. Numerous people are listed as having "no private sector experience" when their own Wikipedia pages say otherwise--Mark Begich started an under-18 nightclub and did real estate, and Kay Hagan worked in the private sector in major law firms, for example. Odd how both of them are up for election this year and "no private sector experience" is a conservative attack point. I understand some entries previously had "no private sector experience" listed before Sparkie took the lead on this, but that probably was just vandalism. The inaccuracies are so blatant on this page that I'm going ahead and removing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cat spasms (talk • contribs) 03:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate the reversion; hopefully this is a solvable issue. I don't think it's necessary to call attention specifically to the presence or absence of "private sector experience." Truly, "no private sector experience" is a line right out of political attack ads. It's too loaded to say or even imply, especially if the only benefit is calling the readers attention to something that they can infer from the presence of only public sector entries in the "significant experience" column. Croctotheface (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- I reverted it back. I see three options:
"No private sector experience" has got to go, it's obvious POV, unverifiable, and probably wrong in most of the cases. How can anyone verify that Senator X didn't work in a grocery store for 2 weeks when he was 16? Toohool (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- As I mentioned before, when I first began editing this article, there were entries that said, "No public sector experience", however, there were no complementary entries for "No private sector experience" where applicable, which seemed POV to me, so I just added the latter for balance to make the article NPOV. I don't know if it's a negative or a positive, it probably depends on the reader's POV. Apparently, when some readers come across this article and see "No X experience", it triggers a feeling of bias (not understanding that the "No X experience" entries are included irrespective of whether the "X" is "public sector" or "private sector"). The fact that a Senator has no X experience is entirely verifiable by examining a complete bio for the Senator. Unfortunately, many of them are sometimes less than forthcoming in their resumes and lie by omission by leaving off some experience that they'd rather the voters didn't know about. However, other sources eventually come forward with all the facts. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think the best way to resolve this is to have separate columns for private and public experience, and include all known experience from available sources. If there is no known "X sector experience", that entry can simply be left blank until the information is known. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Done. (Columns: Private Sector Experience and Prior Public Office/Position) Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think the best way to resolve this is to have separate columns for private and public experience, and include all known experience from available sources. If there is no known "X sector experience", that entry can simply be left blank until the information is known. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Reverted edit by blocked account SleepCovo
[edit]Reverted the edit but there were some intervening edits that need to be added back. Most of intervening edits seem to be photo updates (which are usually edits by the senators' staff anyway). Sparkie82 (t•c) 16:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders affiliation
[edit]While Bernie Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination for President, his official Senate designation is still Independent. For instance, from a 12/22/2015 press release from his Senate office (and this pattern is consistently followed):
WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement today opposing the omnibus and tax extenders bills:
Similarly, official Senate websites include the independent designation despite his current campaign. His 2018 FEC Senate filings list him as an independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PantsB (talk • contribs) 22:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect or outdated Senator party count
[edit]The lead image that shows how many Senators of the Democratic or Republican (or Independent) parties doesn't quite match the content of the list of Senators below. I noticed that, on the map, North Carolina is colored blue to indicate two to indicate two Democratic Senators, but in the content of the article North Carolina's Senators are both listed as Republicans, so NC should be colored Red, not Blue. There might be other inconsistencies, or this could be the only one, but this is the one I noticed and I just thought I should point it out. 72.192.119.52 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2016
[edit] | This edit request to List of current United States Senators has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Army 2602:30A:2EE7:8F30:3C70:1A9A:9FCF:2BDF (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Todd Young - Age?
[edit]The age given in the Senators elect table seems to be wrong, his personal article claims he was born 72 which would make him 44 not 82 years old?? --5.146.47.75 (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Someone has been messing with this page. Look at the political party that is listed for Joe Donnelly (Corporate Hack Party (United States) Corporate Hack) and Heidi Heitkamp (Democrat In Name Only). You may want to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.81.82 (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Reformat table to make more room horizontally
[edit]A few changes could be made to the Senators table that would result in more room horizontally (which is needed in that table):
- Remove the first column which is simply a red/blue color bar. The color could be indicated in the party column.
- Abbreviate the party names in the party column to a single letter: D, I, R
- Remove the title in the Party column (it's obvious)
- Remove the "Class" column; it's redundant with the "Seat up" column.
- Use 2-letter abbreviations for state names.
These changes would make the other columns easier to read. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Page title
[edit]I moved back the page to List of current United States Senators. I understand the desire to make it parallel with Current members of the United States House of Representatives. But they aren't exactly parallel in the first place. In the House, they are sometimes called "Representatives," and other times called "Members." Whereas in the Senate they are almost always "Senators." Also, this IS a list article, so it's OK to put "List" in the title. Let's discuss here before we create a move/edit war.—GoldRingChip 14:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
[edit]There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Current members of the United States House of Representatives which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Assumed Office
[edit]When trying to sort the Senators by the date they assumed office, the table currently ranks them not in chronological order, but alphabetically according to the month and not the numerical year. Thus, you have those senators who assumed office in December (regardless of year) sorted first, followed by those in February, January, July, June, and so on. I am unsure how to correct this error despite examining the table's parameters. Note: there is no problem with the Senators' birth years column, which ranks them correctly according to their age. Theprofessortfn (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Absolute numbers
[edit]I'd like the lead section to include the absolute numbers of current senators per party. Having to scroll down and count them is a pain. It would also be the only page on the internet that states this straightforwardly. Yb2 (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Table Sorting
[edit]Is it possible to update the table so that we can sort based on "Assumed Office"? Right now it sorts based on the text name of the month the individual started in, instead of the actual date in the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.85.77.1 (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- It also doesn't sort properly by party. I've no idea how to fix this myself. Yb2 (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Private Sector Experience
[edit]I removed this column because it is blank for half the senators (which obviously does not mean that they never worked but that no research has been done, but it is better for the column to be removed until such research is done, instead of having so many blank entries) and contains arbitrary content for the other half, for example: Chris Coons was listed as a "volunteer", Bill Nelson was listed as an "astronaut" even though NASA is not a private company and he had joined a mission because he was a congressman, Dick Durbin was listed as a "meatpacking plant laborer" even though he only did this while he was in high school (at least what he did afterwards was also listed), Chuck Grassley was listed as a "farmer, factory worker" while he did these jobs part-time when he was young and afterwards became a teacher of political science, which was not mentioned (this could be potentially libellous), Joni Ernst, a retired soldier with degrees in psychology and public administration was listed as a "farmer", Jim Inhofe is the only army veteran to be listed as an army veteran (what is the relationship of the army with the private sector, I cannot tell), Jeff Merkley's position as a technology worker for the Department of Defence was listed as Private Sector Experience, while his position as Congressional Budget Office was listed as Prior Public Office, Pat Toomey was listed as a "bank currency swap trader" where "banking executive" would perfectly do, Orrin Hatch was listed as a "janitor, construction worker, bishop, lawyer" while he was just a lawyer (when he was a student he worked part time as a janitor and construction worker / his position as a bishop in the LDS church cannot be described as Private Sector Experience), Bernie Sanders was listed as a "carpenter" (not mentioned in his article) and as a "filmmaker" (as a result of a 30-minute documentary he made in the 1970s), Mark Warner was listed as a "broker of mobile phone franchise licenses", which, I am certain, can easily be replaced by "businessman", Tim Kaine was listed, among other things, as a "missionary", which is not Private Sector Experience. Also, many of them were listed as "president of a company", "director of nonprofits" etc., without any mention of the companies' names.
In short, if you would like this column to be added again, please re-write it: do not re-add it as it was.--The Traditionalist (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestions. I have applied your corrections to the restored table with these comments: Under US law, religious workers are part of the private sector (with a few exceptions, such as military chaplains); experience was included in either the public or private sector irrespective of the pay received or the reason for engaging in the activity; changed Toomey's title to "currency trader"; removed experience that occurred during high school, but incuded experience occurring after high school; the convention that has been used for private experience was to list titles, but not specific organizations (however that practice is subject to discussion, of course, if there is good reason to change it); replacing blanks with n/a. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Also, I've begun to add links to the titles under Private Experience since most of those in the Public Sector side had links. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the comment above. The listings of private sector experiences are subjective and arbitrary. The list should have an even handed tone throughout, which it does not. Only the most relevant information should be included. Saying someone was a janitor or an intern long ago is inappropriate.Asburyparker (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC) For example, the current list has "lawyer in private practice," "Lawyer in a law firm" and "pro bono lawyer" when they could - and should - all say "lawyer" to ensure NPOV.Asburyparker (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- All known private sector experience is listed. "lawyer in a law firm" means that the subject worked for someone else in a law firm, while "Lawyer in private practice" means they had their own practice. "pro bono lawyer" means they did work as lawyer for free. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Table is WAY too large
[edit]The width of this table is way too large for the page. I would suggest removing three fields: "Private sector experience", "Party", and "Education". Although it could easily be found, IMO, their jobs aren't that important for this list, either is their education. If visitors want to know about the senator, they can go to their article. The "Party" field is just repetitive of the first column (which is a color and is labeled at the top). The table now is way too overly detailed. I would also recommend either getting rid of the color scheme in the "class" section or removing the "Seat Up" column... it's repetitive. Simplifying the "Public Sector Experience" column cleans up the box well. My following proposal would be something along the example below:
Before update
| State | Class | Portrait | Name | Born | Public Sector Experience | Assumed Office | Seat Up | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts | 1 |  |
Richard Blumenthal | December 3, 1973 | Connecticut Attorney General, Senate, and House of Representatives |
January 3, 2013 | 2018 |
After update
| State | Portrait | Name | Born | Previous experience | Assumed Office | Seat up | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hawaii | .jpg) |
Brian Schatz | October 20, 1972 | Hawaii Lieutenant Governor, Hawaii House | December 26, 2012 | 2022 | |
.jpg) |
Mazie Hirono | November 3, 1947 | U.S. House, Hawaii House, Hawaii Lieutenant Governor | January 3, 2013 | 2018 |
If they hold too many public sector jobs, then we could say something like "various U.S. (or state) government offices". Thoughts? Corkythehornetfan 09:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've updated the table since it has been one year and no one has commented on it. See the "After update" table above to see the new updated version. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit. The issue of table items has been discussed at length in previously and subsequent threads. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Sparkie82: Please provide them because there is nothing on this article's talk archives... Besides the old version is a fuster cluck. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 02:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Three threads up, "Private Sector Experience". And below "Reformat table to make more room horizontally". And there is probably more in the archives. If your discussion about the table being too big is just a backdoor way of trying to remove content you don't like, well that's not how things work here on WP. If not, then I've suggested below several ways to reformat the table to make it better. If your thread title, "Table is WAY too large" is commentary on an editor's disability when it comes to reading dog whistles and social metaphor, then fine... but don't mess up WP just to make a point about another editor. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Sparkie82: Please provide them because there is nothing on this article's talk archives... Besides the old version is a fuster cluck. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 02:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit. The issue of table items has been discussed at length in previously and subsequent threads. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the table IS way too large. In fact, a simple list would do the trick already. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- BTW, Corkythehornetfan, please try not to cuss in edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- The list has been this way for years and the information is useful to readers and removing the information makes little difference in the size of the table anyway. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Drmies: my apologies. I was clearly frustrated.
- @Sparkie82:, if readers want more information on a senator, they should go to that senator's article and get the information there. We should be brief here, not list everything that is already in the senators' articles. The other issue with the old format is WP:OVERLINKING. My version reduces that situation by combining the states, and lists just the brief information that is needed. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 03:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've suggested below several things that could be reformated/removed without taking away any useful information. Why select "Private sector experience" for excising? Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Why keep it? One could make a completely arbitrary selection--are you going to include every single job someone had? And what does it matter anyway? If someone wants to know what all jobs someone held before, they can go to the article--that's why God invented a. lists and b. wikilinks. "Previous experience" is just as useless; typically that terms means something specific, like "experience relevant to this job". Well, one of these guys was an astronaut; is that relevant? He also served in Vietnam and was a president of Key Club International--shouldn't we list that? That's the problem with such lists, or one of them. And why are we taking up valuable space with their ages? So we can get cute and sort them by age? I see no value in that whatsoever. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I removed the "party" column and replaced it with the bars with a key at the top of the article; I don't believe we should use abbreviations for states as not everyone knows what they stand for (even though they could click the link); I removed the "class" column because I, too, thought it was redundant and their election year is more important; Drmies pretty much sums up why I removed the private sector; and I kept the age because I think it is good to show a representation of who is representing the US in the Senate generation wise (i.e. baby boomers, their children/grandchildren). Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 03:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- The way it has been for years (with the two columns) included all known prior work experience. This is how it was worked out here on this talk page back in 2014. (See "Experience" above) The way you are proposing it now, with one column does not list all work experience, and editors are forced to make choices as to what gets included and linked to. The proper (NPOV) way to do it is to include all previous work experience as the editors here had worked it out three years ago. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- or we can just get rid of it entirely. We don't need to list every single job they've had – it's why we have individual articles for the senators. This isn't the place for it. I stuck to the more noticeable jobs that most people would recognize. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest
- The way it has been for years (with the two columns) included all known prior work experience. This is how it was worked out here on this talk page back in 2014. (See "Experience" above) The way you are proposing it now, with one column does not list all work experience, and editors are forced to make choices as to what gets included and linked to. The proper (NPOV) way to do it is to include all previous work experience as the editors here had worked it out three years ago. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've suggested below several things that could be reformated/removed without taking away any useful information. Why select "Private sector experience" for excising? Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- The list has been this way for years and the information is useful to readers and removing the information makes little difference in the size of the table anyway. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not a vote, but I support the shorter version; I further feel that there's been ample time since the initial change that the status quo ante bellum should be Corky's version. I don't see how NPOV comes into play at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: Time by itself doesn't establish consensus. The table has included all the info for years. Then Corkythehornetfan (talk · contribs) made a bold edit to delete information from the table in mid-August during an off-election year when few editors were paying attention. He made the edit without notifying any of the other editors who had discussed the table in previous years. When I discovered what he had done I reverted it following BRD. He reinstated the edit without going to the talk page. The fact that the edit is controversal and is being challenged demonstrates that it is not consensus. Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- My discussion took place in July 2016 giving people ample amount of time – 13 months to be exact – to discuss this. Two other users have expressed support for the shortened version over the old cluttered version... we don't need a whole slew of people to !vote on this? A majority of the editors of this article would have seen it on the talk page as they already had it on their watchlist pre-July 23, 2016 when I created this section... yourself included. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 02:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- The changes you want to make don't have consensus. Period. Let's discuss what you want to change and why, then see if we can reach a consensus. Because it's a major change to something that has been in the article for years, we should solicit wider participation when we are ready to make a change to assure that we actually have consensus before making any changes to remove things from the article. Before you tried to remove that material, I suggested several changes that could be made to the table to address your concerns about it being too big, without removing essential information from the article. If your concern goes beyond the size of the table, and you want to remove information for some other reason, then let's discuss that (under an appropriately titled thread.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- My discussion took place in July 2016 giving people ample amount of time – 13 months to be exact – to discuss this. Two other users have expressed support for the shortened version over the old cluttered version... we don't need a whole slew of people to !vote on this? A majority of the editors of this article would have seen it on the talk page as they already had it on their watchlist pre-July 23, 2016 when I created this section... yourself included. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 02:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies and Corkythehornetfan: Please respond. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- I, too, suggested changes one year before you but you seemed to think a new section was better. We don't need to list every single job each Senator has had as readers can find that in the individuals' articles. Everything else I changed is mentioned above in my proposal and just seven paragraphs above this comment (starts with a bullet). This table is much cleaner and simpler. The less clutter we have, the better. You're making this harder than it needs to be. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 00:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Respond to what? The table is too big. What can one reasonably ask from a table like this? Name, party, when they got in, when they're getting out. Previous experience in government or elsewhere is irrelevant. Date of birth is incredibly irrelevant. That this table may have existed in some form or other a year ago is irrelevant to me--we need a table that is workable and relevant. The more fields, the more unworkable--and uneditable as well. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- The core question here is which columns to include, so I've initiated an RFC to solicit priorities from other editors here. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Doug Jones
[edit]Various media outlets have "called" the special election Senate race for Doug Jones. However, he is not yet the Senator. AFAIK, we do not add people until they officially assume office. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. He'll presumably be sworn in this week, but there's a potential of shenanigans. We should hold off adding Jones tonight (and semi-protect the page if necessary). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sent a request to RPP for protection. These edits are good faith, but premature. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed, however, Jones more than likely will not be sworn in until January 3, 2018 at the end of the current session. I say wait until he is sworn in. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 04:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- This controversy comes up every single time there's a special election. You do not become a "current member of Congress" until you take the oath of office. That should not be subject to debate, because there's a definitive answer to it. What apparently confuses people is that the seniority date is sometimes the day of election (in the House) or the day after (in the Senate). But that doesn't mean you go on the roster as soon as the election is over. It should mean that you get added retroactively. But apparently Jones won't be sworn in for a while (at the very least, the certification isn't until the 22nd) and Strange's appointment doesn't expire until Jones takes office, so it's not yet clear to me what Jones' seniority date will be. JTRH (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed, however, Jones more than likely will not be sworn in until January 3, 2018 at the end of the current session. I say wait until he is sworn in. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 04:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sent a request to RPP for protection. These edits are good faith, but premature. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Time clock problems
[edit]Something is wrong with the timer in this article. It has the Senators who've served exactly a year, being listed as 11 months. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Computer-readable list of the Current members of the US House & Senate?
[edit]Where might I find a computer-readable list of the current members of the US House and Senate?
I wrote functions in 2013 to read the members of the US House from "house.gov" and the US Senate from the Wikipedia article on "List_of_current_United_States_Senators". Neither function currently works.
Suggestions? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- @DavidMCEddy: Are these what you're looking for... Senate and House? Corky 19:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Corkythehornetfan: No: I need something that is easy to read under program control and can produce a table of the current members of the US Congress. I wrote code for this in 2013 that, I believe, still seemed to work in 2016-12-09 in the Ecfun package for R (programming language). Changes in the past year or so in house.gov and the Wikipedia article on "List_of_current_United_States_Senators" have broken my web-scraping code. With the help of someone else, I think I have my code for the US House almost working again, but the Senate still poses problems I'm not ready to confront.
- Thanks for your reply. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- @DavidMCEddy: If you just want a table to plop into a document somewhere, your program can just grab the wiki code and run it through a converter. There are converters out there to convert wiki markup to text, pdf, etc. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Removal of Content tag at the top of the list
[edit]@Jonathunder You keep removing the {{Content}} tag at the top of the list and I don't understand why. The tag is there to indicate that some of the columns in the list were removed without obtaining consensus. The tag directs editors to an RFC that is working to resolve the issue. You also left a message on my talk page [3] which I interpret as threatening or as some kind of attempt to discourage me from editing the article. Your removal of the tag also seems provocative to me, especially in the absence of a reasonable explanation for the removal and in coordination with the message on my talk page. (Your edit summary said: "Work it out on talk, but this tag in a list throws off format and is silly", however, the tag doesn't effect the formatting of list and, as I said, we are already working on the issue on the talk page.) Not only do content tags help readers, but they assist in defusing difficult situations among editors. Removing them just stirs up more conflict. Please explain why you keep removing the tag when its removal creates a disruption here. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
References
[edit]RFC: Which columns of information should be included in the list?
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editors of this article are discussing which information to include in the list.
- Which columns of information are most helpful to readers? Sparkie82 (t•c) extended 06:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC); initiated 17:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The list currently looks like this:
| State | Class | Portrait | Name | Party | Prior/Current occupation(s) | Previous office(s) | Education | Assumed Office | Born | Seat up | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 3 | 
|
Richard Shelby | Republican | Lawyer in private practice | U.S. House, Alabama Senate | University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa (BA; LLB) Birmingham School of Law (JD) |
January 3, 1987 | May 6, 1934 | 2022 | |
| Alaska | 3 | .jpg)
|
Lisa Murkowski | Republican | Lawyer in private practice | Alaska House | Georgetown University (BA) Willamette University (JD) |
December 20, 2002 | May 22, 1957 | 2022 |
(Please list the columns in priority order, most useful first, with reasons)
Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Here are my column priorities:
- Name - absolutely essential
- Assumed Office - basic
- Seat up - useful for sorting
- Prior/Current Occupations - of interest to readers
- Previous Offices - of interest to readers
- State - sorting/readers can find their senators
- Date of birth - sorting/reader interest
- Education - maybe of interest to some reader
- Party - largely irrelevent these days, but of interest to some
- Class - redundant with "Seat up"
- Portrait - too much space
Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Added more topic areas to the rfc to garner more comments. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Restored the RfC tag, which was removed by a bot. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- User:Sparkie82 I think state, name and party are essential. After that the prior occupation, previous position, assumed office, and when seat is up seem important. Not needed ... Class isn't meaningful without explanation to readers and duplicates when seat is up so should go. Education seems overlry lengthy and dubious, plus would be available at their wikipage so could go. The birthdate (age) ... I'm leaning to no, since the age part is a maintenance effort and is on their wikipage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment – First off, you are already misleading editors. The table you have above is not the current version. Secondly, I !vote that we keep the current version of "party color, state, portrait, name, born, previous experience, assumed office, and seat up" (however, I could be persuaded for the "born" column either merged with name or removed completely). My reasons:
- The previous version (also table above) overlinks everything and the current version reduces that;
- The portraits should be included to provide a visual of the Senators, not to mention it's the standard among these types of lists;
- A key for the color bars and not having a "party" column clears up space; and
- As mentioned above, we don't need to list every previous job a senator has had... that can be found on the senator's article and is not relevant here. What is relevant is the previous public service
- Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 23:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- There is no reason why we should not list all known previous positions in the occupations column. Most of them have had fewer than three or four jobs. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Everything -- Include everything. People come to Wikipedia looking for information, it is always better to provide more information rather than less, better to give researchers a single source to find what they're looking for when the information is relevant and well-sourced with references and citations. So include everything. Damotclese (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Questions and Comments To what end is the Rfc? Do you propose a change to this. A change seems implied, but not expressed. Perhaps clarification in a new Rfc should be considered, one in which an alternative to the current is clearly stated. Then, when the reasons for that were hashed out, alternatives could be adequately discussed. I do think you have some good ideas in your example, and to solidify them going forward, this might help. Compliments to all for the thoughtful work.Horst59 (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Horst59: see this section for more info. I changed the table after no discussion for a year and Sparkie didn't like it. The above table does not reflect the current table. Some concerns of mine (seen listed in my opposing statement) describe why we should not keep the old format. Main thing: we don't need to list every single job a senator has had as that info can be found I the individual articles. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 01:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Right--thanks for the info Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest . I like much of your alternatives which you proposed in the this section. And I believe this adds further to the question I asked: To what end is the Rfc? The increased clarity in Rfc questions allows for details to be understood which leads to an improved and stable article. I don't read between lines very well when perusing talk pages, and I prefer clarity. Perhaps that is just me. I do believe this avoids future problems.Horst59 (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Horst59: Thank you for your comments and inquiry. The question is about the information to include in the table. Which columns of information do you, Horst59, believe should be in the list? Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Sparkie82: Thanks very much for the response. If a decision is made to change the current table, I encourage a tempered approach. The table is communication to provide information in an easily readable format so to readily foster understanding. The current table does that effectively. Along with information presented, it is organized and formatted well. The center justification is an excellent format. Avoid clutter; clutter is static in a table of information and interferes with the message. Listen to those who promote such. As such, keep "party color, state, portrait, name and d.o.b., previous experience, assumed office, and seat up". Please center justify the information as it is currently. Horst59 (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Horst59: Thank you for your comments and inquiry. The question is about the information to include in the table. Which columns of information do you, Horst59, believe should be in the list? Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Right--thanks for the info Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest . I like much of your alternatives which you proposed in the this section. And I believe this adds further to the question I asked: To what end is the Rfc? The increased clarity in Rfc questions allows for details to be understood which leads to an improved and stable article. I don't read between lines very well when perusing talk pages, and I prefer clarity. Perhaps that is just me. I do believe this avoids future problems.Horst59 (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Horst59: see this section for more info. I changed the table after no discussion for a year and Sparkie didn't like it. The above table does not reflect the current table. Some concerns of mine (seen listed in my opposing statement) describe why we should not keep the old format. Main thing: we don't need to list every single job a senator has had as that info can be found I the individual articles. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 01:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Regarding party color and Party; Although they may seem redundant, I can see two reasons to keep both. 1) Color blind readers may find the party color difficult to view 2) the party color bar is not searchable. If I want to quickly search for senators of a particular affiliation, Party is important. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Mary Mark Ockerbloom: Thank you for the comment, Mary. Aside from party affiliation, which columns of information do you believe should be in the list? Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Class is redundant to the "Seat up" column and should not be included for space reasons. I would also not link party affiliation, per the over-linking concerns. I remain neutral on the more contentious issues of whether education is necessary to include, and whether "prior elected office" and "non-government occupation" can be merged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Summary
- Here is a summary of editor preferences/comments from the discussion so far. Feel free to edit your row in the table if something's not right. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
| Editor | Color | State | Class | Portrait | Name | Party | Prior/Current occupation(s) | Previous office(s) | Education | Assumed Office | Born | Seat up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corkythehornetfan | combine columns | |||||||||||
| Damotclese | ||||||||||||
| Horst59 | combine columns | |||||||||||
| Markbassett | ||||||||||||
| Mary Mark Ockerbloom | ||||||||||||
| power~enwiki | ||||||||||||
| Sparkie82 | ||||||||||||
| Taketa | ||||||||||||
| Timtempleton | ||||||||||||
| South Nashua | combine columns? | |||||||||||
| GoodDay | ||||||||||||
| red="don't include", green="include", white="no preference" | ||||||||||||
- I made an edit to the table (the table is an outstanding inclusion to this Rfc) on my section under party. I do think party affiliation should be included. The notion of those dealing with colorblindness is, I think, a valid point. In the spirit of brevity, I encourage it as a simple R, D, or I after the Senator's name and not a specific column. Apologies for my clumsiness and not being clear from the beginning. It was a careless oversight on my part.Horst59 (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the fix. Another possibility is to include the "R" or "D" inside the color column. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- only if the font color complies with WP:CONTRAST. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 13:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- R, D, and I in the color is an inspired idea. If the letters are big and bold enough, I think the visibility should work. It is worth experimenting with. Might User:Sparkie82 want to create some examples for review and comment in this Rfc?Horst59 (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- only if the font color complies with WP:CONTRAST. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 13:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- The bot removed the RfC notice because the time has run out. Based on the comments so far, it looks like we have the following columns:
- color (with party designation)
- state, portrait
- name
- prior/current occupation
- previous offices
- assumed office
- born
- seat up
- There is only weak interest in the education column and the two experience columns might be combined into one column. Although only one editor wants to remove the portraits, please note that portraits in these types of lists of politicians appear to be unique to the US -- they aren't in the lists from other countries. (enter "prefix:list of members" or "prefix:list of current members" into the search box to find lists from other countries). I suspect this is due to congressional staff members wanting to please their bosses. :)
- I'm reluctant to change the columns in the article during the holidays. Let's continue to work on the remaining questions of including education, column combination, etc. and then apply whatever the consensus is early next year. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I won't agree to change anything until we decide what goes in the previous experience column. As I have said time and time again, we don't need to list every single job the Senator has had – that can be found on their article. We need to keep it simple and not so cluttered to where it looks messy. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 02:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- This discussion is about which columns to include, if you want to propose some criteria for inclusion of info in the experience columns, please start another section on that. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the delay on changes. So, why not determine info for the experience column? There are uncertainties, qualifications, in the support for the experience column. There is no rush, so I urge a deliberate approach to address this. Thanks for everyone's work.Horst59 (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- This discussion is about which columns to include, if you want to propose some criteria for inclusion of info in the experience columns, please start another section on that. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I won't agree to change anything until we decide what goes in the previous experience column. As I have said time and time again, we don't need to list every single job the Senator has had – that can be found on their article. We need to keep it simple and not so cluttered to where it looks messy. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 02:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- For some reason I was called to an RFC here today. I do not see a new discussion on this topic, any other topic should be in a new header I think. As for the old discussion, I agree that Class is redundant to the "Seat up" column. One of these can go, preferably the Class can go. For the rest I would prefer everything to stay as it is. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Taketa. I've added your input to the summary table above. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Comment I am guessing that 'Seat up' refers to 'next election'. I wonder if a more universal term could be used. This one is not going to be understood outside US I suspect. Pincrete (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe 'Term ends'? But this should probably be discussed elsewhere. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. I think "class" is a pretty useless column, given that there's also a "seat up" column (which should probably be renamed to "term ends"). The "seat up" is much more undersandable to readers than the "class", and one follows from the other, so why have both? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Summoned by bot. I added my preferences to the table. I'm in favor of not including the previous position or job, since the info is of varying relevance (freshman legislator versus 30 year senator, for example). Interested readers can click through for a full career history. And FWIW, "Term ends" is better than "seat up". TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I think it's fine as it is above there. Combining the prior experience/positions held is fine, but not a big deal. Removing the "term close" is fine if there's an internal link on the class column pointing to when each class is up. But again, either way is fine. Everything else, no need to touch. South Nashua (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @South Nashua: I added your input to the table above. Can you please verify that it correctly reflects your suggestions? Sparkie82 (t•c) 16:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Sparkie82: Looks right. South Nashua (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- A shame that in the first sentence of the RfC "editors are discussing" hasn't been linked to where they are discussing it. For me we only need to keep name, state, party, date of birth (or just age), assumed office and term ends: there are individual articles on all these guys and the personal information is just a click away: Noyster (talk), 19:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- The suggestion that readers can simply click the link and find additional information at the senator's article page is an argument that can be used for virtually any column of information in the table. Therefore, by that logic, the only information that should be in the table is the senator's name, because the rest of the information can be found at the senator's article. The question here is which columns of information would be useful to readers here in a listing format. Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Sparkie82:There has been much discussion, and there seems to be much agreement on the information. With the split regarding occupations, offices, and education, I believe it might foster consensus to view examples incorporating and contrasting the matter. Might you do so? Thanks for the work you've already done.Horst59 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Did it. See below. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Name, Assumed Office, Seat up, State, Date of birth, Party, Class, Portrait, all essential prior occupation and education waste of space prior office of some interest. עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
.
[edit]Here's what the table might look like given the rough consensus from the comments here. Party designation is included in the name column for accessibilty (rather than putting it in the color colomn). It looks much cleaner than before but still includes most of the information. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
| State | Portrait | Name | Born | Occupation(s) | Previous
office(s) |
Assumed office | Seat up | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | .jpg) |
Richard Shelby (R) | May 6, 1934 | Professional Wrestler
Lawyer |
Alabama Senate, U.S. House |
January 3, 1987 | 2022 | |
 |
Doug Jones[a] (D) | May 4, 1954 | Hand model
Welder Staff Counsel |
U.S. Attorney | January 3, 2018 | 2020 | ||
| Alaska | |
Lisa Murkowski (R) | May 22, 1957 | Snow Plow Driver
Cherry Blossom Princess Attorney |
Alaska Senate | December 20, 2002 | 2022 | |
.jpg) |
Dan Sullivan (R) | November 13, 1964 | Walmart Greeter Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Law Clerk Attorney Retail Clerk Machinist |
Alaska Attorney General, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State |
January 3, 2015 | 2020 |
- ^ Democrat Doug Jones was elected to succeed Luther Strange on December 12, 2017. Jones will be up for re-election in 2020.[1]
- Support Considering all the input and opinions, I think this is acceptable. Thanks for all your work. One point of detail: Wasn't Senator Shelby a performance car designer, specifically the Mustang Cobra?Horst59 (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- We need to figure out a specific number for previous occupations/offices because you will go overboard and way too much shit in there that others can find on the Senators article. We don't need to list their jobs in high school, college, etc. It should be a professional job such as an attorney or medical doctor... not a Walmart greeter. As of right now, I don't completely support the table. Corky 03:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think the first occupation for each senator in this mockup is just a little joke ;) The discussion just dealt with which columns to include or exclude.--Gorpik (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the occupations in the example were fictitious -- I thought I'd lighten it up a bit. I think the best way to address the issue of the occupations list in a NPOV way is to limit it to the most recent six occupations, but we can discuss that in separate thread as needed. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think the three most recent for each column (3 previous and 3 office) is better... 6 for each column is way too many and takes up way too much space. We don't need to open another thread, something you are still lacking to understand. We can discuss all of it here now that the majority have ruled on how it should look. Corky 00:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Corkythehornetfan I just refactored the example to add occupations to Sullivan's row above. Six jobs doesn't add any more space because the photo has a fixed height. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think the three most recent for each column (3 previous and 3 office) is better... 6 for each column is way too many and takes up way too much space. We don't need to open another thread, something you are still lacking to understand. We can discuss all of it here now that the majority have ruled on how it should look. Corky 00:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the occupations in the example were fictitious -- I thought I'd lighten it up a bit. I think the best way to address the issue of the occupations list in a NPOV way is to limit it to the most recent six occupations, but we can discuss that in separate thread as needed. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think the first occupation for each senator in this mockup is just a little joke ;) The discussion just dealt with which columns to include or exclude.--Gorpik (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- We may as well hash out these details as they appear. Much positive work has been done; let us continue with our cooperation. That 6 prior occupations does not take up extra space is something I do see. When I look at the boxes listing 3 as opposed to 6, I do believe that keeping the number down to 3 helps with clutter reduction and that increases reading comprehension. So, let's consider that as we go through the dialogue. Thanks for everybody's contributions.Horst59 (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Horst59: The RFC is titled, "Which columns of information should be included in the list?" I'm reluctant to get any deeper into the discussion on exactly how many occupations shoud be listed, because it is less transparent when it is buried in this long discussion. This RFC has been in discussion for about two months and we have consensus on most of it. I suggest we close this discussion with the following agreed upon:
- The columns included in the list are as shown in the proforma above, i.e., Party Color (narrow column w/o a title), State, Portrait, Name, Born, Occupation(s), Previous office(s), Assumed office, Seat up.
- The Senator's party is included in parenthesis after her name.
- The number of occupations listed is not unlimited, and should likely include the most recent occupation(s).
@AmYisroelChai, Anythingyouwant, Corkythehornetfan, DavidMCEddy, GoodDay, Gorpik, Legobot, Noyster, Pincrete, Redrose64, South Nashua, Taketa, and Timtempleton: I'm pinging others who have posted to this talk page here during the discussion to see if there are any other closing comments. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm happy with the table as currently displayed in this discussion.--Gorpik (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I would remove the Class & Education columns. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
* Comment Responding to ping Just to remind that 'seat up' is US-specific and a more universally understood term should be used (Term ends?, Next election?) . For similar reasons, I wonder whether (D) and (R) should be (Dem) and (Rep), with presumably some (Ind), US political abbrevs are not universally known. Pincrete (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment I would remove previous occupation especially if you're going to put in so many it makes it look idiotic the only way it doesn't is if you put in only the most recent previous occupation everything else is good. עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment Although we couldn't pin down an exact number as a limit for entries in the occupations column, I felt we did reach a consensus on the topic of this RFC, i.e., which columns to include. (I'd still prefer no limit at all for the occupations column, but agreed to a limit to achieve consensus.) The question of changing the name of the last column from "Seat up" to "Term ends" was briefly discussed. I'm fine with the change. There is a request at the admin board to close this discussion. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
_2021.jpg){kind=link}
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
_2021.jpg){kind=link}
Crop of Ossoff picture needed stat
[edit]The current picture of Jon Ossoff is so out of proportion to all the other pictures that it is pushing the birthdate column almost all the way off the page. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders picture
[edit]I know that the article uses the Sanders Senate portrait for his list entry, but I found another portrait of Sanders that he uses on his Senate website so technically it is another senate portrait. The portrait is more up to date. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Proposal
- ^ "Jones victorious in stunning Alabama Senate upset". AP News. Retrieved 2017-12-13.