Talk:United States Congress: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen
(change name to U.S. Congress for consistency)
imported>José Leonardo Andrade
Line 18: Line 18:


any objection to changing the name to '''U.S. Congress''' for consistency? [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 06:03, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
any objection to changing the name to '''U.S. Congress''' for consistency? [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 06:03, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
I don't know. Don't you think it sounds too informal?--[[User:José Leonardo Andrade|José Leonardo Andrade]] 09:20, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 08:20, 26 April 2007


Article Checklist for "United States Congress"
Workgroup category or categories Politics Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article? No
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by -Versuri 11:45, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





Trivial change: "infamous" is a very non-neutral word. Notorious isn't necessarily negative. Perhaps a simple famous would be better, but definitely not egregious. Daniel Drake 02:18, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

I agree "infamous" was not a good choice, though I struggled more with that word than nearly any other in the article! "Famous" sounded like something I'd use for Britney Spears... Maybe I need to just rephrase the whole thing. Thanks for the spelling and grammar check on the rest of it. Steve Mount 15:38, 4 April 2007 (CDT) [edit: ok, I thought "famous" sounded more reasonable there than I initially thought. Regardless of your "side" in the revolution, I think the word is appropriate.]

change name to U.S. Congress for consistency

any objection to changing the name to U.S. Congress for consistency? Richard Jensen 06:03, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

I don't know. Don't you think it sounds too informal?--José Leonardo Andrade 09:20, 26 April 2007 (CDT)