Template talk:Current U.S. senators

message: The problem I have with this version is that it does not scale well.  Some people have small screens or don't have their browser maximized and that makes this look terrible. --Vik Reykja ♬ 09:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scaling

message: I agree the punctuation of the title needs to be fixed. Definately prefer the smaller, simpler visual layout like this over the gaudy box versions. I actually prefer the state and party abbrevs be linked (first use, at least). Niteowlneils 14:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: K.I.S.S.

message: With the Cologne Blue skin, the current (April 10) version uses standard text size. This takes up easily the entire screen. It might work if the font sizes was defined differently (font or small tag, style on span e.g.). Please check.—Preceding undated comment added by Docu (talk • contribs) 11:25, 11 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for fixing it. The span tag reduces the text size. -- User:Docu—Preceding undated comment added by Docu (talk • contribs) 23:06, 11 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Text size too large (with Cologne Blue skin)

message: This template was listed for deletion on WP:TFD.  Since this link is blue, I think that it is safe for us to assume that the decision was to keep (humour; there actually was consensus and I have archived it).  Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted for more information. -Frazzydee|✍ 00:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFD'd 

message: I'm going to paste below the length of this template combined with several others from John McCain's article.
It's way too much IMO.  The recent changes to the FedRep templates (which adds links to other congressional delegation templates) just adds one extra click to the process, and should be used in favor of this template.
Too much. --tomf688(talk) 14:58, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
: I'm actually inclined to agree.  However, I would hold off on the VfD until (a) all of the XX-FedRep templates at least have the Senate links filled and (b) all of the individual senator's pages have the "Current U.S. Senators" template removed.
: BTW, has anyone considered the effort that's going to be required for the XX-FedRep templates come January 3, 2007?  — DLJessup 22:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to take back my previous comment (about being inclined to agree), because the XX-FedRep templates no longer link to the other templates, but to the U.S._Congressional_Delegations_from_<State> pages. — DLJessup 15:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be better to keep those three lines and just get rid of this template... then it would be a lot of lines shorter. :) --tomf688(talk) 20:14, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Please consider revising this template to match the USGovernors template. No color, no party designation, nice size, clean and simple. Plenty of room at this font for two last names in the place of one full name. stilltim 12:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template is making pages much too long 

message: To improve the user experience User:Matt Yeager tried to REDUCE the font size of the template Template:Current U.S. Senators. His version (which would be referred to as Version M) of the template could be found here . 
To User:DuKot this new version looks BIGGER than  his version  (Version D) . 
According to the wiki code Version M must be smaller than Version D. However User:DuKot has tried viewing the page in Firefox and IE and still Version M looks bigger than Version D. 
Question 1:
In your browser , which version appears larger? Version M or Version D. Also specify the name of your browser. 
Question 2:
According to your opinion which version of the template is more user friendly? Version M or Version D
--DuKot 07:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick look at the template code for Version M and at the official standard shows the cause of the problem: font-size:xxx-small is nonsense. The smallest <absolute-size> available is xx-small. This causes the whole font-size property to be dropped (with a nice error message on Firefox's JavaScript Console), making it assume the default value (which is defined elsewhere, and which for most people should be larger than Version D's x-small). --cesarb 00:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I've re-written the template using xx-small, and it again looks much, much smaller on mine. How about on your guys'? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great to me. By the way, while we're all discussing the template, I have to put my lot in with those who think the colors aren't useful. We already show party affiliation, so it doesn't add any useful information, and it certainly doesn't add to the aesthetics, IMHO. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the colors ought to go. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 16:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size poll 

message: * Q1. Version M bigger (Firefox, IE). Q2. Version D is better --DuKot 07:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses 

message: I was wondering if it would be alright to add leadership to the template. This is what I'm suggesting:
Current members of the United States Senate	Current members of the United States Senate	Current members of the United States Senate	Current members of the United States Senate	Current members of the United States Senate
President: Cheney (R)
President pro tempore: Stevens (R)
AL: Shelby (R), Sessions (R)
AK: Stevens (R), Murkowski (R)    
AZ: McCain (R), Kyl (R)
AR: Lincoln (D), Pryor (D)
CA: Feinstein (D), Boxer (D)   
CO: Allard (R), Salazar (D)
CT: Dodd (D), Lieberman (D)
DE: Biden (D), Carper (D)
FL: Nelson (D), Martinez (R)
GA: Chambliss (R), Isakson (R)
HI: Inouye (D), Akaka (D)	
ID: Craig (R), Crapo (R)
IL: Durbin (D), Obama (D)
IN: Lugar (R), Bayh (D)
IA: Grassley (R), Harkin (D)
KS: Brownback (R), Roberts (R)
KY: McConnell (R), Bunning (R)
LA: Landrieu (D), Vitter (R)
ME: Snowe (R), Collins (R)
MD: Sarbanes (D), Mikulski (D)
MA: Kennedy (D), Kerry (D)
MI: Levin (D), Stabenow (D)
MN: Dayton (D), Coleman (R)
MS: Cochran (R), Lott (R)	
MO: Bond (R), Talent (R)
MT: Baucus (D), Burns (R)
NE: Hagel (R), Nelson (D)
NV: Reid (D), Ensign (R)
NH: Gregg (R), Sununu (R)
NJ: Lautenberg (D), Menendez (D)
NM: Domenici (R), Bingaman (D)
NY: Schumer (D), Clinton (D)
NC: Dole (R), Burr (R)
ND: Conrad (D), Dorgan (D)
OH: DeWine (R), Voinovich (R)
OK: Inhofe (R), Coburn (R)
OR: Wyden (D), Smith (R)	
PA: Specter (R), Santorum (R)
RI: Reed (D), Chafee (R)
SC: Graham (R), DeMint (R)
SD: Johnson (D), Thune (R)
TN: Frist (R), Alexander (R)
TX: Hutchison (R), Cornyn (R)
UT: Hatch (R), Bennett (R)
VT: Leahy (D), Jeffords (I)
VA: Warner (R), Allen (R)
WA: Murray (D), Cantwell (D)
WV:  Byrd (D), Rockefeller (D)
WI: Kohl (D), Feingold (D)
WY: Thomas (R), Enzi (R)	
Republican  |  Democrat  |  Independent    	Republican  |  Democrat  |  Independent    	Republican  |  Democrat  |  Independent    	Republican  |  Democrat  |  Independent    	Republican  |  Democrat  |  Independent
I added the President and the President pro tempore. Since every column wasn't equal in height, I thought I might as well add the two leadership positions. (I left out Byrd and president pro tempre emeritus since that title is absolutley ceremonial.) One clear disadvantage is that both President and president pro tempore are not very significant positions in common practice as well. Another con is that Ted Stevens is listed twice near eachother, (which may imply the senior senator from Alaska and the pres. pro tempre are different people). I already know the template is already crammed with information, but just wondering if anyone else has any thoughts. - Rogsheng—Preceding undated comment added by Rogsheng (talk • contribs) 01:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea. I'd suggest going for it. Be bold! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leadership?

message: shouldn't Liberman's party be changed (either to I or CL) since he is now officially in the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party FleetAdmiralJ 14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's wait on an official announcement that he's changing parties (or going indie)--for now, he's just running as an independent. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats, and there is no reason to believe they will not allow him to do so. Technically they would not have a majority without him. He himself remains a Democrat through and through, despite his views on the war and the primary voters' preferences. I'm sure he is registered as such. Think of it this way: the Connecticut for Lieberman Party chose a Democrat as its candidate. Or did I miss something? Addendum - I suppose I did miss something, namely my opinion, though one could derive the answer. As Lieberman is a Democrat and a duly elected Senator from Connecticut, he should be identified on the template as a Democrat. --BDD 06:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Lieberman still caucuses with the Democratic party (admittedly so does Saunders) and, perhaps more importantly, is a registered Democrat.  He frequently votes against and speaks against (most) Democrats on a specific and high-profile nexus of issues -- those surrounded the Iraq War and other military and clandestine operations in the Middle East -- but those are not the only issues that the Senate considers.  On the vast majority of his other positions his votes match the consensus of the Democratic caucus in the Senate.  I'm not personally a fan of him, but let's not pretend he's something he's not. --Jfruh (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Connecticut for Lieberman

message: Current members of the United States Senate	Current members of the United States Senate	Current members of the United States Senate	Current members of the United States Senate	Current members of the United States Senate
AL: Shelby (R), Sessions (R)
AK: Stevens (R), Murkowski (R)    
AZ: McCain (R), Kyl (R)
AR: Lincoln (D), Pryor (D)
CA: Feinstein (D), Boxer (D)   
CO: Allard (R), Salazar (D)
CT: Dodd (D), Lieberman (I)
DE: Biden (D), Carper (D)
FL: Nelson (D), Martinez (R)
GA: Chambliss (R), Isakson (R)
HI: Inouye (D), Akaka (D)	
ID: Craig (R), Crapo (R)
IL: Durbin (D), Obama (D)
IN: Lugar (R), Bayh (D)
IA: Grassley (R), Harkin (D)
KS: Brownback (R), Roberts (R)
KY: McConnell (R), Bunning (R)
LA: Landrieu (D), Vitter (R)
ME: Snowe (R), Collins (R)
MD: Mikulski (D), Cardin (D)
MA: Kennedy (D), Kerry (D)
MI: Levin (D), Stabenow (D)
MN: Coleman (R),Klobuchar (D)
MS: Cochran (R), Lott (R)	
MO: Bond (R), McCaskill (D)
MT: Baucus (D), Tester (D)
NE: Hagel (R), Nelson (D)
NV: Reid (D), Ensign (R)
NH: Gregg (R), Sununu (R)
NJ: Lautenberg (D), Menendez (D)
NM: Domenici (R), Bingaman (D)
NY: Schumer (D), Clinton (D)
NC: Dole (R), Burr (R)
ND: Conrad (D), Dorgan (D)
OH: Voinovich (R), Brown (D)
OK: Inhofe (R), Coburn (R)
OR: Wyden (D), Smith (R)	
PA: Specter (R), Casey (D)
RI: Reed (D), Whitehouse (D)
SC: Graham (R), DeMint (R)
SD: Johnson (D), Thune (R)
TN: Alexander (R), Corker (R)
TX: Hutchison (R), Cornyn (R)
UT: Hatch (R), Bennett (R)
VT: Leahy (D), Sanders (I)
VA: Warner (R), Webb (D)
WA: Murray (D), Cantwell (D)
WV:  Byrd (D), Rockefeller (D)
WI: Kohl (D), Feingold (D)
WY: Thomas (R), Enzi (R)	
Republican  |  Democrat  |  Independent    	Republican  |  Democrat  |  Independent    	Republican  |  Democrat  |  Independent    	Republican  |  Democrat  |  Independent    	Republican  |  Democrat  |  Independent
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.97.30 (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  110th congress update - use after Jan 3 2007 

message: Does this templete REALLY need the leter and a color for each senator. Doesn't one or the other get the point across? Cnriaczoy42 21:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was brought up a while ago; I agree that the colors are not necessary and are redundant. --tomf688 (talk - email) 00:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. I think the colors serve a useful purpose in giving a quick visual idea of the composition of the Senate. And also I think they just make it more aesthetically pleasing. Perhaps they aren't necessary but I see no reason not to have them. DanyaRomulus 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think the colors are useful.  Perhaps redundant, but human beings aren't computers - some people are more visual, and the colors are interesting to them; some are more word-oriented and "(R)" and "(D)" are enough.  Unless the colors have some negative impact (it's not clear to me what that would be), I think they should stay.   John Broughton  |  Talk 15:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i know this has been discussed, and since i really don't have a problem with beating dead horses, i'd like to add that i'm really hating the colours too. --emerson7 | Talk 02:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (d) (r) and colors 

message: The green color is not only horrible, but also makes no sense. The GOP should be red, not green. Who thought this was a good idea? It needs to be changed back to red as soon as possible.1.21 jigwatts 03:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Green color for Republicans

message: I've changed Amy Klobuchar's party designation from DFL to D. I've done so for two reasons:
1. While no doubt the DFL has meaning for Minnesotans, it's not something most people are familiar with outside of the state.  My first impression was that it was a typo, and I almost changed it straight away.  But I thought to click Klobuchar's wiki and learned from her page of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party in Minnesota. 
2. The DFL is affiliated with the national Democratic party; and in terms of it's relationship with the national party, it doesn't seem any different than the North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party, which is listed only as (D) for Sens. Dorgan and Conrad in the template. 
I considered making the (DFL) wikilink to the DFL party page, but that would have been inconsistent with the other party designations (and would have required an update to Conrad and Dorgan's affiliations as well to be consistent in showing state-specific party designations--and that didn't seem called for).
The other possibility would have been some sort of asterisk/footnote explaining the DFL, but which would have further cluttered the template and would have still left us with either the same inconsistency with the ND senators, or more clutter to make them the same way. 
(And by this point, I didn't even want to know if there were state-specific Republican Party affiliates!) -- Zen Jeff 10:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klobuchar and the DFL, et al. 

message: A Draft of the template for the 111th congress. I have added Kaufman and Franken in the event that either or both is a senator by that time, without removing either Biden or Coleman. 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by MrLincoln (talk • contribs) 04:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  111th Congress template 

message: I thought Hillary resigned to become Secretary of State. She has been sworn in, and I doubt she is both the Secretary of State and the junior Senator from New York at the same time.--24.26.56.214 (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone already removed it.   --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Hillary? 

message: I was thinking, rather than dividing 50 into 4 columns, it would make more sense to divide 50 into 5.  But by doing that, and reducing the padding, NJ just barely hangs on two lines...
µ
Senate
So is this a no go, or a wait until Lautenberg retires (assuming he's replaced by someone with fewer letters in his/her name), or some other fix I'm not thinking of? --Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any particular problem with leaving it in four columns?  Additionally, I'm seeing NJ remaining on one line in both versions.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  NJ hung on two lines on my work computer, and it's much worse on my home computer.  I'm not changing it, just experimenting. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Not a major problem.  But I thought even columns are easier on the eyes and I had too much time on my hands.  No matter.--Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Harris should be placed above Leahy. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columns 

message: Mike Lee (American politician) was recently moved to Mike Lee (Utah politician); if this template is updated, it clears redirects from 99(+?) other articles, allowing the remainder to be located and updated. Thanks in advance, & HNY2011! 75.203.205.194 (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 75.203.205.194, 10 January 2011 

message: Change Bill Hagerty (politician) to Bill Hagerty to removed redirect link 172.58.110.190 (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing... ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Done - Special:Diff/1013379167 ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2021 

message: There are multiple discussions on this talk page complaining about the colors. They are in breach of MOS:ACCESS. The grey color is particularly bad and will be essentially invisible to the vast majority of users, let alone those with disabilities. DrKay (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A darker shade of grey, would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

text: That is why party affiliations are also in parentheses next to each officeholder. If the shade for independent officeholders is unacceptable, it can be changed at . WMSR (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors (again)