Talk:U.S. Congress: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
imported>Chunbum Park (editintro) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
NOTE: The <code><nowiki>{{editintro}}</nowiki></code> template atop the article page should be removed prior approval. | |||
<!-- DO NOT ARCHIVE ABOVE THIS LINE --> | |||
Trivial change: "infamous" is a very non-neutral word. ''Notorious'' isn't necessarily negative. Perhaps a simple ''famous'' would be better, but definitely not ''egregious''. [[User:Daniel Drake|Daniel Drake]] 02:18, 4 April 2007 (CDT) | Trivial change: "infamous" is a very non-neutral word. ''Notorious'' isn't necessarily negative. Perhaps a simple ''famous'' would be better, but definitely not ''egregious''. [[User:Daniel Drake|Daniel Drake]] 02:18, 4 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 08:57, 5 January 2008
NOTE: The {{editintro}} template atop the article page should be removed prior approval.
Trivial change: "infamous" is a very non-neutral word. Notorious isn't necessarily negative. Perhaps a simple famous would be better, but definitely not egregious. Daniel Drake 02:18, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
- I agree "infamous" was not a good choice, though I struggled more with that word than nearly any other in the article! "Famous" sounded like something I'd use for Britney Spears... Maybe I need to just rephrase the whole thing. Thanks for the spelling and grammar check on the rest of it. Steve Mount 15:38, 4 April 2007 (CDT) [edit: ok, I thought "famous" sounded more reasonable there than I initially thought. Regardless of your "side" in the revolution, I think the word is appropriate.]
change name to U.S. Congress for consistency
any objection to changing the name to U.S. Congress for consistency? Richard Jensen 06:03, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
I don't know. Don't you think it sounds too informal?--José Leonardo Andrade 09:20, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
- I think it's less ponderous. Note that Library of Congress uses "U.S. Congress" in its formal siteshttp://thomas.loc.gov/links/] The House calls itself "The United States House" but calls the Senate "U.S. Senate"[1] The Senate uses both long and short forms (U.S. Senate). The Chicago manual of style OK's U.S. as adjective (section 15.34 -- it also allows just US instead of U.S.) AP Manual of style says: ok as adjective. Richard Jensen 09:50, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
- You already did it for the Constitution, so I guess go for it here. Scared me for a minute there :) Steve Mount 22:28, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
- I would never try to overthrow the Constitution, only rename the article. :) Richard Jensen 23:06, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
- You already did it for the Constitution, so I guess go for it here. Scared me for a minute there :) Steve Mount 22:28, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
- I think it's less ponderous. Note that Library of Congress uses "U.S. Congress" in its formal siteshttp://thomas.loc.gov/links/] The House calls itself "The United States House" but calls the Senate "U.S. Senate"[1] The Senate uses both long and short forms (U.S. Senate). The Chicago manual of style OK's U.S. as adjective (section 15.34 -- it also allows just US instead of U.S.) AP Manual of style says: ok as adjective. Richard Jensen 09:50, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
So it has been moved. It would have been better to use the "move" button because the history of contributions was lost this way [2]--José Leonardo Andrade 05:39, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
- My mistake, I should have used "Move". :( Richard Jensen 08:49, 28 April 2007 (CDT)