This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

All of the others (1st United States Congress through 113th United States Congress) have long since been renamed with the consensus of the Wikipedia community. I suspect that the renamers found these articles hard to move and gave up.—Markles 10:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article states there were 56 Democratic and 39 Republican Senators at the beginning of the new Congress, while one seat remained vacant. However this article United States Senate elections, 1916 gives different figures in the election results: (54 Democrats and 42 Republicans and no vacancy). Looks like only one of these statements can be correct. Maybe someone could do some research and do the necessary correction. --WAG57 (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll look into it.—GoldRingChip 18:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Fixed—GoldRingChip 00:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate elections, 1916 now says 55 Democrats and 41 Republicans held seats after the election, while this article says that when the 65th Congress began it was 54-42. Is an article wrong, or are they somehow consistent? 110.175.117.28 (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A special election gave Republicans an added seat. The infobox on 1916 United States Senate elections only covers the general elections, not the special. I will make a note there, to clarify. —GoldRingChip 13:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. 110.175.117.28 (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 65th 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/20060601025644/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd108-222/index.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd108-222/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060601013451/http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]