Talk:84th United States Congress

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

U.S. Congress Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) event(s).

Untitled

This article is COMPLETE and meets the current standard for this series of articles.
suggestions for future improvements:

supplemental Senate & House committees article
supplemental district maps article
narrative for major legislation
narrative for major events

stilltim 02:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like some of the changes you've made to the standard

I like the two-column format
I'm OK with changing (Rep) to (R)
I'm ambivalent about removing the individual state links to delegations article - replaced by a single link to the list of delegation articles. On one hand, the black text looks better; on the other hand, the reader has an extra step to get where he wants to go - and some probably won't bother. I can't see much of a good reason to not have individual links to each article. Contemplating finishing 86th through 100th congresses, it will certainly be easier if the state delegations links are immediately accessible, which makes me think others would appreciate it too.

The reason for the single link is as you state, readability, otherwise the many links are fine. It seems to me everything gets lost in all the blue, and the reader might appreciate finding their way around the page too. Besides, how would they ever know the link is to the delegations? I might have assumed it went to the state article.

I would like to see death dates, appointments, special elections, and resignations restored. Anytime multiple people serve in the same seat during the same congress, a brief explanation is warranted. Why should such statements be removed? --Appraiser 12:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the dates would be nice, but the two columns seem to preclude that, again for readabilty. I think it becomes too cluttered, particularly on the earlier Congresses where there were many more changes. You may notice this information is retained on the supplemental articles 84th United States Congress - Political Parties & 84th United States Congress - State Delegations.

What size screen and screen resolution are you using? I don't have any trouble with the two columns and some other text, but I usually use large screens, so my experience my not be universal.--Appraiser 22:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I appreciate your careful and thoughtful editing. There is so much detail I have a tough catching it all. stilltim 21:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There is a lot to be done. It's nice to have effort appreciated. --Appraiser 22:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:John mccormack.jpg

Image:John mccormack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Joseph martin.jpg

Image:Joseph martin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GOP president of a DNC Senate?

How was Nixon Senate President when the majority was Democrats? Bizzybody (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dingell out?

The Dingell sentence is now outdated, he was replaced in office by his wife Debbie -- but how to rewrite that? Just delete it? Seems a shame to lose interesting material in such a short article. Did not know what to do.

Johnpdeever (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 84th United States Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060612232546/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd108-222/ to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd108-222

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]