Talk:Standing Rules of the United States Senate

message: Corrected the links.  Wonder if the actual rules should be here? 68.100.68.23 23:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I there anyone here who is familiar with the so-called secret holds?  If so, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 article could use help on clarifying what a secret hold is, and under which rule it operates.  Thanks. --Burzum 00:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Secret Holds

message: Just about the entirety of the first section of the article is listed word-for-word in the United States Senate article.  Maybe some cleanup or rewording is in order?
Tristan (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: Editors following this page may be interested in this RfC about the "nuclear option" for changing Senate rules/procedures. Mathew5000 (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment about "nuclear option" 

message: Why does every rule have an internal link to its own article? If all the articles were merged (presumably by Reywas92) (seemingly removing any detail on them that might be useful) then the merger has the obligation to complete the job and remove the internal links. 
It must be adding a significant amount to the size of the document beyond being misleading Nosebagbear (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I made that merge proposal back in 2012 but apparently forgot to get back to it after leaving time for discussion. They were never merged at all but they still should be. You're welcome to do so, or maybe I'll get around to it eventually after all. Reywas92Talk 19:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Circular redirects can easily be handled by just unlinking the topic with the option to restore such links once the redirect target changes. I have unlinked all known circular redirects, including those up for discussion, with no comment on the redirects to be discussed. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I agree that having all those red links for rules without an appropriate redirect is unwise, as many are not worthy of their own pages. However, if links are added in the future, I think using piped links is far more appropriate than having redirects anyway, so I still think the redirect pages should be deleted. It is beyond me why they were created as self-redirects in the first place. This is my first experience with this and I had thought it would be easier to properly fix, but I of course the redirects are actual pages that cannot be unilaterally deleted. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless Internal Links 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule I. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Mdewman6 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule I" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Rules of the Senate has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  J947 † edits 05:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Rules of the Senate]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]