Template talk:United States congressional committees

message: The formatting of this long template often looks very awkward on the committee pages.  Can someone more experienced make it either smaller in height, or break it off into smaller and separate Senate and house versions? -- Alfoor 03:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it to its original design.  The long templates doesn't work considering how short some of the articles are. --tomf688{talk} 03:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: Hello all,
I've added a new Senate commttee to this t/p. It is an Impeachment Trial committee that is currently trying Judge Thomas Porteous of Louisiana. The was created on March 17th (see: ) and held its first meeting on April 13 (see: ). It is listed on the Senate's website under "Special, Select, and Other" committees; see . I suspect this would be a tempory addition as the trial committee should start its work in August and end in September. - Thanks, Hoshie 03:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  addittion of a new committee: Judge Thomas Porteous 

message: This is not directly related to the template, but since it involves the committee assignments, I thought I'd put it here. The new committee members have not been added, and the committees, such as the Homeland Security and Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs committees, show the 112th Congress members under the '113th Congress', without adding the new members. In some cases, this means listing old chairman, like Joe Lieberman, and in others, the ratio of the committees mean there are more Republicans than Democrats, which I know is not the case. This should be addressed, since there were only a month since th assignments have been announced, and this problem should be corrected. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Committee assignments in the House were just finalized this week. Press releases annoucing future appointments notwithstanding, the committee rosters aren't official until ratified by the full House. The Senate hasn't even considered it's organizing resolutions for the committees yet. They will be updated as soon as practical.DCmacnut<> 23:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

text: There is no value to this. There are too many Congresses worth of information to be added, and just listing a line-up emphasizes the membership on the last day of a Congress over that on any earlier day. That is to say that members who left committees will not be reflected, even if, like Dan Inouye did for the 112th, they served on the committee for the overwhelming majority of a Congress, but left near the end. Giving lists of lists of members does virtually nothing to expand readers' ability to know and understand the topic and brings us into WP:ISNOT territory. -Rrius (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree with Rrius. This is information overkill on the committee articles, and it becomes. Committee assignmetns are much more notable on the members' articles, or in a possible "list of committee members from the XX Committee". But as is pointed out that is a vast amount of data, and any such list would likely be incomplete from the start. The committee articles should list committee members as they currently stand.DCmacnut<> 23:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

text: *You two make very good points.  So we'll keep just the current memberships.—GoldRingChip  02:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memberships of previous Congresses