Talk:1st United States Congress

message: One can see here, the debates of the HofR from 1789, near the top of the rightward column, that a Mr. Lawrence is speaking. There is no Mr Lawrence listed on this page. JoshNarins 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Data Missing

message: I have been "bold" and moved all member data into tables to see if that is what the consensus is for building these lists. Plain lists, as in other Congress' articles (see Fifty-second United States Congress) are much easier, and this article could easily be made that way.  
Much as I would have liked to, I did not use the standard pro/anti administration colors, because they were simply too bright and put too much color on the page. Maybe there should be no color in these tables? 
The senate counts are one off the official numbers, as I'm quite sure Richard Bassett was pro-administration and the bio guide indicator is a typo. Naturally, this makes the maps wrong too, but no one can see little Delaware. For count snapshots, I used the beginning of each session. 
Markles, I'm sure you'll have plenty of comment before I get up in the AM, but I am looking forward to a friendly and productive discussion to settle the format (lists vs. tables) for these articles. I have no preference, just want a consistently applied decision for all articles, (nearly) all sections.
I still plan to add supplementary articles for "State Delegations," "Political Parties," and "Membership Chnages." and they will be in the list format. stilltim 03:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: table revisions

message: I should note that the House of Representatives table is kind of screwed up, not just at June 1, 1790 (which comes after June 16!), but in the number of vacancies. Because NC ratified the US Constitution on November 21, 1789, the number of vacancies in the House went up to five, and in the Senate to two. The House was at 34-25 at that time; it went to 34-26 (4 vacant) on March 19, 1790 when Hugh Williamson (NC2) was sworn in; 34-27 (3 vacant) on March 24 when John Ashe (NC1) was sworn in; 34-28 (2 vacant) on April 6 when Timothy Bloodworth (NC3) was sworn in; and 35-28 (1 vacant) when John Steele (NC4) was sworn in. Rhode Island ratified the US Constitution on May 29, which raised the both the House and the Senate vacancies to two; then Theodorick Bland (VA9) dies, bringing the House vacancies to 3. The Senate vacancies are both filled on June 7, then John Sevier (NC5) is sworn in, which brings the House vacancies down to 2. And so on and so forth. This is such a radical change from the current version, however, that I don't want to just charge in and edit; it should be agreed upon first. Mcglk (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: House table 

message: :Please see a related discussion at Talk:General ticket#General ticket vs. Plural district vs. At-large.—Markles 16:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General ticket vs. Plural district vs. At-large 

message: I reverted recent edits that "simplified' by removing redundant links to districts and parties.  It is useful to have the party links next to each name, because a reader may want to surf there, or simply hover his cursor over the abbreviation to see what party it is.  For example, Andrew Stewart (AM) - the party is relatively unknown, but the reader can immediately find out what it is.  For lessor-known parties, it may be difficult to find the first they stop talking occurrence of that link in the article. The second reason for reversion is that there are 110 ordinal congress articles, and consistency is desirable.  Many 1000s of hours have been spent by editors developing these articles and formatting them for the readers' benefit.  Any mass changes ought to be discussed in advance, and changes will be agreed upon by consensus. Anyone interested in working on these - I invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress and participate in discussions there.--Appraiser (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Note: I was the one who had altered the standard format.) I did not remove all but the first occurrences of links; I left one in each state's section. Such sections are quite small, so it is not difficult to find the links. My edits followed Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), particularly the section "Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?". I will, however, not change it back, pending further discussion. Ardric47 (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One link per party per state might make sense, but since the changes required would be so extensive, let's make proposals and reach consensus upfront.  Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the standard format

message: Could someone take a look at the Georgia House members listing in this article? There is a discrepancy between the district numbers assigned to each representative compared to United States congressional delegations from Georgia, List of United States Representatives from Georgia, and Georgia's 1st congressional district which lists Abraham Baldwin as coming from the first district. I'm inclined to think that this main article is the correct one, since it is primarily based off of the Ken Martis atlas of congressional districts. I am in possession of another source on U.S. congressional districts by Stanley B. Parsons et al that places Baldwin in the 3rd district and Mathews in the 2nd, based on sources that place Baldwin as residing in Richmond County (3rd district) and Mathews in Wilkes County (2nd district). Parson's based his district boundaries off the Acts of the State of Georgia Dec. 8, 1790.
Could someone with access to the Martis atlas or other sources take a to confirm the correct order?Dcmacnut (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on order of Georgia Representatives 

message: Did the 1st United States Congress meet in a different building than Federal Hall?—Markles  13:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal Hall in NYC 

message: Currently, text is labeled as 10th Confederation Congress, but links to Congress of the Confederation. Attempts to change the former to the latter end up with a link going to Second Continental Congress.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.188.64.65 (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous Congress link