Talk:U.S. Congress: Difference between revisions
imported>Chunbum Park (editintro) |
imported>Shamira Gelbman (Article emphasis) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
So it has been moved. It would have been better to use the "move" button because the history of contributions was lost this way [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=United_States_Congress&action=history]--[[User:José Leonardo Andrade|José Leonardo Andrade]] 05:39, 28 April 2007 (CDT) | So it has been moved. It would have been better to use the "move" button because the history of contributions was lost this way [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=United_States_Congress&action=history]--[[User:José Leonardo Andrade|José Leonardo Andrade]] 05:39, 28 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
:::My mistake, I should have used "Move". :( [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 08:49, 28 April 2007 (CDT) | :::My mistake, I should have used "Move". :( [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 08:49, 28 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
== Article emphasis == | |||
The organization seems (to me, anyway) kind of of odd for an encyclopedia entry on the US Congress. I think it would make more sense to keep the focus primarily on what the current rendition calls the "modern United States Congress" (i.e. the institution as it was established in the Constitution and developed since 1789) and perhaps include a brief section on "origins" or "precursors" that would include some mention of the Continental Congresses. I'd be happy to develop the article in that direction if others agree, but being a relative newbie here I don't want to step on any toes. [[User:Shamira Gelbman|Shamira Gelbman]] 17:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:01, 28 February 2009
NOTE: The {{editintro}} template atop the article page should be removed prior approval.
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)
- I think it's less ponderous. Note that Library of Congress uses "U.S. Congress" in its formal siteshttp://thomas.loc.gov/links/] The House calls itself "The United States House" but calls the Senate "U.S. Senate"[1] The Senate uses both long and short forms (U.S. Senate). The Chicago manual of style OK's U.S. as adjective (section 15.34 -- it also allows just US instead of U.S.) AP Manual of style says: ok as adjective. Richard Jensen 09:50, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
- You already did it for the Constitution, so I guess go for it here. Scared me for a minute there :) Steve Mount 22:28, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
- I would never try to overthrow the Constitution, only rename the article. :) Richard Jensen 23:06, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
- You already did it for the Constitution, so I guess go for it here. Scared me for a minute there :) Steve Mount 22:28, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
- I think it's less ponderous. Note that Library of Congress uses "U.S. Congress" in its formal siteshttp://thomas.loc.gov/links/] The House calls itself "The United States House" but calls the Senate "U.S. Senate"[1] The Senate uses both long and short forms (U.S. Senate). The Chicago manual of style OK's U.S. as adjective (section 15.34 -- it also allows just US instead of U.S.) AP Manual of style says: ok as adjective. Richard Jensen 09:50, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
So it has been moved. It would have been better to use the "move" button because the history of contributions was lost this way [2]--José Leonardo Andrade 05:39, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
- My mistake, I should have used "Move". :( Richard Jensen 08:49, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Article emphasis
The organization seems (to me, anyway) kind of of odd for an encyclopedia entry on the US Congress. I think it would make more sense to keep the focus primarily on what the current rendition calls the "modern United States Congress" (i.e. the institution as it was established in the Constitution and developed since 1789) and perhaps include a brief section on "origins" or "precursors" that would include some mention of the Continental Congresses. I'd be happy to develop the article in that direction if others agree, but being a relative newbie here I don't want to step on any toes. Shamira Gelbman 17:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)