Template talk:USCongRep-row

State parameter

About 522 of the 1215 USCongRep/XX/nnn templates which use this template don't pass |state=. Is this an error? If so, most of them could probably be fixed automatically by copying the parameter from the USCongRep-start template which typically appears above. We wouldn't need disambiguating qualifiers: List of United States senators from Georgia etc. exist. Certes (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm glad you noticed this. I created this #ifexist test. Can you carry forward that |state= parameter, then? —GoldRingChip 14:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip: I've done Alabama as a test but I've noticed a few inconsistencies. Only a few of the templates (113, 115) use {{USCongRep-start}}; perhaps they are errors and start should only be in the article instead. Also the templates specify inconsistent categories both for themselves and for articles which transclude them, but that's probably beyond the scope of this exercise. Any thoughts? Certes (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Even those such as 114, do use {{USCongRep-row}}. They just aren't formatted to show that as an example (between "noincludes").

As for categories, they should be:

[[Category:Congressional delegations from State navigational boxes|NNNN]]

NNNN is the Congress number as three-digit with leading zero, such as 099, 100, 101, 102 and

[[Category:NNNNth United States Congress templates|State]]

NNNN is the Congress number without leading but as an ordinal, such as 99th, 100th, 101st, 102nd. —GoldRingChip 17:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

114 does use -row, but doesn't use -start. I think 114 is right here and 113 and 115 may have harmless errors. Fixing the categories would be a larger run, as it would include the templates which I'm skipping because they already have |state=, and we might want to request a bot. Certes (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh! Now I see what you mean. {{USCongRep-start}}, not {{USCongRep-row}}. Sorry, I didn't read you correctly. But the templates don't need to use {{USCongRep-start}}. That's just for the Article pages, as you suggested above. See, for example, Gary Palmer (politician):

{{USCongRep-start|congresses= 114th–115th [[United States Congress]]es |state=[[Alabama]]}}{{USCongRep/AL/114}}{{USCongRep/AL/115}}{{USCongRep-end}}

—GoldRingChip 19:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip: I've revised Alabama (mainly changing category from "nth US Congress" to "nth US Congress templates") and done AZ AR CA CO CT, including adding missing categories such as AZ/113. Other states may have different problems. A few things I've decided not to fix because, although I'd have done it differently, I don't think the current version is actually wrong:

1. two-digit sort codes: although an old version of MediaWiki would have sorted 11 between 109 and 110, the current version gets it right; {{PAGENAME}} also works as long as it's used consistently for the whole state
2. using the -start template: as this is in noinclude tags, it is harmless and in fact makes the template preview more readable

Does that look OK so far and worth continuing for other states? If so then I'll continue after leaving things for a few days for anyone to object. Certes (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorting by {{PAGENAME}} doesn't put them in useful position, however. They all end up going in under the letter "U." But look at Category:Congressional delegations from Massachusetts navigational boxes where they are sorted by the number… they are alphabetized by their most prominent feature, their ordinal congress, and separated by other templates that might someday be added. —GoldRingChip 15:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

{{SUBPAGENAME}} would file them all under 0–9 rather than under U. I've left a note at WT:WikiProject U.S. Congress in case someone there would like to help us get this right first time. Certes (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Subpagename is a great solution, assuming (as you say) that MediaWiki sorts numbers properly. —GoldRingChip 18:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

However, after much deliberation, I am not sure that these templates as a whole are very useful, actually. Sure, they give some information but they don't not add much that isn't already evident. They're a set of templates that can exist, but I don't know if they should exist. Many of the politicians already have a lot of navboxes and succession templates and this just becomes more clutter even when hidden. I say this as someone who has worked extensively on these (and on many many others), so I kind of feel guilty stringing this project along. Before we continue to improve them, maybe we should consider if we should instead abolish them. —GoldRingChip 18:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)