U.S. Congress NA‑class

This redirect 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 NA This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This redirect has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

I've added a width attribute for the image. The previous version had the width hard-wired to 160px. If an image is smaller than this, it will be expanded to fit, causing a reduction in picture quality. The previous value is now the default, so current use should be unaffected. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 20:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a question about this at Template talk:Infobox Politician#Infobox "name" field - use common name? Full name?. Those interested might want to add a comment there. John Broughton | Talk 16:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added 'religion' to this infobox for a reason. Religion is one of the categories included in the box's of senators, so it makes sense to have it here as well. It goes along well with the rest of the basic biographical info, such as date of birth and place of birth, that are found on Congress's website.

Consistency across political articles is nice. The relevance of religion to a particular politician is debatable. I have made it an optional variable since it looks like 90% of usage omits that var. -- Dgies 07:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was not a good way to indicate the Representatives-Elect without making a false statement, so I have added a footnotes section at the bottom. This will give the option to indicate the next in line. I couldn't figure out how to remove the middle line, so I put the footnote on the right side. Stealthound 06:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This infobox is adding several lines of blank space to every article on which it is transcluded. View any of the pages listed on the What links here page to see what I'm talking about. This needs to be fixed. I'd do it, but would likely mess it up even more. -- AuburnPilot^talk 22:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what you're talking about. I looked at several articles using the template and they all look fine to me. Please provide a specific example and tell me where exactly is the extra blank space. Also, what browser do you have and what is your screen resolution? --Dgies 23:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, perhaps you're referring to the formatting caused by the combination of the default TOC placement with an element floated to the right, like almost every type of infobox. (as occurs in the most recent version of Nancy Pelosi) This is not the fault of the infobox, but can be fixed by adding {{TOCleft}} near the beginning of the article. --Dgies 23:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That must be it. I hadn't dealt with this infobox until today, and the ones I deal with daily (Officeholder/School/Zoo/Governor) don't have this effect on the page. Thanks for the info. And incidentally, my browser is Mo Firefox and screen res of 1280x800. -- AuburnPilot^talk 01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I put religion as non optional 'cos almost all the articles include this character. --Checco 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't understand hop optional template variables work. If you make a variable optional, articles which use it work fine, and articles which don't use it simply leave out that information and also look fine. If you make a variable non-optional, every article which doesn't include that variable will display garbage like Religion: {{{religion}}}. Just because a lot of articles use the variable, or just because you think articles should include that variable it not sufficient reason to make it non optional. I have reverted your change. --Dgies 23:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that there are lots of articles which do not include the variable "religion" (find one for me!!!), and I don't think it is a problem to see things like {{{religion}}}. Anyway this possibility don't exist (I have controlled all the articles about 109th Congress representatives). --Checco 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may have made sure the 109th Congress has complete info, but what about the previous 108? Also, because of Separation of church and state in the United States, some people, myself included, feel a little uncomfortable listing religion as a main fact about our government officials. --Dgies 23:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if your problem is that of separatism between Church and State, the whole discussion takes another way... However, religion is an important personal character as date of birth, spouse, occupation... It is not a problem to keep things as religion and spouse optional. What is important for me is the result, not the means. The result is that, as many articles specify the religion of the politician, everyone can read it. I do not care if it is optional or not. So, I agree with you, even if I generally think that knowing the religion of a person could be very interesting and useful. --Checco 23:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Net worth, educational attainment and annual income are important characertistics as well. Hell, they'll probably tell as much about a politican as does religion... why of all things pick religion (which violates the idea of respecting this government's secular nature) and omit all other important variables???! Signature^brendel 02:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to go around adding religion to congressman articles, great, be bold; just don't break backwards compatibility with existing articles. --Dgies 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're right. Interesting discussion, thank you. --Checco 23:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think religion should be taken out. The government is supposed to be secular institution and thus the religion of congressmen is to be irrelevant. Of course religion is part of the complex social fabric and is an important social attribute of an individual (as is net worth-which should be added), but there are many more important social attributes. I don't see why religion of all things needs to be mentioned in regards to congressmen, people devoted to serving a secular institution. Signature^brendel 08:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If religion is important to understanding a particular congressman, then by all means devote a whole section to it in the body of the article. But to include it in an infobox is to imply that it has something to do specifically with being a congressman, which of course is not true. Lesgles (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) True, if religion is important it can be mentioned in the article but having religion in the infobox of a public offical serving in a secular government is just plain wrong. I have removed religion from the template. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 21:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing it as religion has made it on the infobox, there are two other social attributes that should be mentioned: educational attainment & net worth. Both ought to be added as optional fields, as should religion. They are certainly both as relevant (I actually think that relgion is somewhat irrelevant in this day and age, but... not now) and fit in nicely with the mention of profession. Regards, Signature^brendel 08:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really none of them should be there. This infobox should only contain those fields in {{Infobox person}} and fields directly relevant to congressional service. We start treading dangerously into POV territory when we include miscellaneous trivia among key biographical facts. —Dgies^t c 08:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should definitely remove reiligion from the infobox. Educational attainment does actually bear some relevance as it is part of a person's resume and professional life. Signature^brendel 07:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun here to establish consensus regarding the religion parameter. All editors are invited to join the discussion. This message has been cross-posted to other relevant talk pages. Thanks. --MZMcBride 04:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]