Template talk:USBill

House and Senate reports

Is it possible to add support for house reports and senate reports? Cburnett (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's 12 years later, but this would still be a nice addition. Alternatively, you could make a separate template, but I think it makes sense to include support in this template. $\langle$ Forbes₇₂ | Talk $\rangle$ 17:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done I went ahead and implemented this. I'm not an experienced template editor, but it seems to pass all the test cases. $\langle$ Forbes₇₂ | Talk $\rangle$ 19:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. You're experienced now! —GoldRingChip 21:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

New THOMAS URL syntax

I've updated the template to reflect the new URL standard implemented by THOMAS, which provides permanent URLs. More information on the new URLs is available from THOMAS. The new changes should properly format bills and resolutions in articles, e.g. S. X and H.R. X, and will avoid the complexity and risk of broken links caused by the old THOMAS syntax. I have tried to anticipate the older variables used by editors so that any current article that uses {{USBill}} should continue to work. If you find any broken links, please update the article as appropriate. Thanks.DCmacnut<> 19:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

THOMAS not working

The links are not working. I don't know if it's due to an error with THOMAS itself, whether THOMAS has changed the way things link, or an error with this template. I'm not good at the workings of templates, so I'll ask others to kindly check it out. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 17:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Can you tell us more about the problem ? Is there a specific link?—Markles 18:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It must have been THOMAS. Links are working now, and I see that no changes were made to the template. I had noticed the problem on a number of pages that used this template. Thanks for checking. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 19:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

hdl.loc.gov not working

As of this posting, hdl.loc.gov is giving a "Handle System Error" for each example (and others). The error at the bottom is:

The original error: HandleException (INTERNAL_ERROR) Error connecting: java.sql.SQLException: Io exception: The Network Adapter could not establish the connection

I'm hopeful that the errors will be fixed by morning. --Goldfndr (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like it's been fixed.—Markles 12:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken for the 112th Congress

Help! This template seems to be broken for the 112th Congress. Can anyone figure out why? Can anyone fix it? Samples: H.Res. 1, H.R. 2 —Markles 16:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Template works just fine, as do the links above. This is the opening week, and THOMAS does not have its database fully populated with the resolutions that were adopted yesterday. As THOMAS is updated, the links should work.DCmacnut<> 21:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

They didn't work when I posted my whine. Really. Maybe I jumped the gun. The bills were on Thomas (That I'd checked), but the links that {{USBill}} uses didn't work.—Markles 22:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Broken

It appears this template is broken in different ways. There is at least an extra leading space when a link is not present (it is not a recent bill.) Looking at the changelog there appear to possibly be other problems. The last changeset by Morphh and GoldRingChip after mine only appeared to revert my edit, and reintroduce the leading space. This causes, as can be seen in the template, the "boxed" preserved formatting style for that entire line. This will be in every article that starts a line with this template. Int21h (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Probably my fault. I'm trying to fix it now. I'll post here when it's fixed.—GoldRingChip 12:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done. I think it's fixed. I've also added a new {{{site}}} parameter. Does it work? —GoldRingChip 16:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't reply! (This was not on my watchlist.) I'm sure it does. Int21h (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

THOMAS will redirect to Congress.gov in November

THOMAS will redirect to Congress.gov in November 2013. I think our links will still work, but maybe we should think about changing to Congress.gov. Int21h (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Also see the Linking to Congress.gov webpage. Int21h (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to use Congress.gov

I propose we use Congress.gov instead of THOMAS, which is being transitioned and deprecated. I have updated {{USBill/sandbox}} and the testcases. As an aside, we should probably check for required parameters and display a <strong class="error"> usage message when they're missing. Int21h (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done sorta Int21h (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation template

I updated this to use a citation template, since it's frequently used as a citation. feel free to change the particular citation template or how the parameters are mapped. I used {{cite web}}, but there are others. Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Extra spaces after use of template

I see some issues with the template - mostly that it inserts several extra spaces afterwards. Also, if there are spaces between entries and separators, it can cause the template to behave oddly.--Larrybob (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Can you show an example, please, so it can be debugged?—GoldRingChip 10:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Bills in state legislatures

I wonder if there is a template for bills in state legislatures? I tried to use this one but it of course doesn't work. ImTheIP (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Template:USBill → Template:U.S. bill – Move will add spacing, fix capitalization, and use the more common punctuation format. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose; the punctuation in the template name does not show up in the text, so there's no advantage to including it. The short and to-the-point USBill is much simpler and easier to use. TJRC (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  Would you at least support a move to {{US bill}}? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  No. This is a solution in search of a problem. There are a large number of templates in this family, most of which allow citation in simplest form, without worrying about spaces and dots: {{UnitedStatesCode}}, {{UnitedStatesCode2}}, {{USStat}}, {{USStatute}}, and twenty or so others. There are a small number (three: {{US House Vote}}, {{US Senate Vote}}, and {{Federal Register}}) that have embedded spaces; the overwhelming majority do not.

  The template name does not show up in article text. If it did, the proposal would make imminent sense. But the convenience of the editors is more important than aesthetics of the undisplayed template name. And it obviously introduces inconsistency with the other template names. TJRC (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  I can't find the relevant policy (although I remember it being referenced before at some point), but my understanding is that templates are supposed to have names that use proper grammar and clear language, even if they have shortcuts (which will continue to exist) that don't. The vast majority of templates on Wikipedia follow that rule, and in my view the entire group here should be moved accordingly for consistency.

  I take your point that it's a tiny issue. I was going to just do the move boldly (since it was easier than creating the redirect), but for some befuddling reason it's move-protected, and when I made the request, it was challenged. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  I still don't see a good reason to change it; it's better as-is for the reasons stated above, and changing it impacts uniformity. If you feel strongly about it, rather than do an isolated RM, I think it would be much better to follow the Requesting multiple page moves path at WP:RM to keep the templates consistently named. TJRC (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  Uniformity to general template naming practices supersedes uniformity at a local level. I took interest in fixing this one template, but anyone who wants to is free to take on the broader project. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support assuming redirect is kept. (t · c) buidhe 19:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose only because I think it is more important to have consistency across the category. Sdkb, perhaps you would consider a proposal that deals with all the templates at once? --Bsherr (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's more effort than I'm willing to put into this, sorry, but I would welcome it if anyone wants to put it forward. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. This change would make more work for editors and there appear to be no benefits at all. Even worse, the alleged justification is vacuous: "I can't find the relevant policy (although I remember it being referenced before at some point." Maybe if someone could find and cite such a policy we could evaluate whether it applied here, but since that hasn't happened, it's like a dirty trick of an argument. jhawkinson (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Many, many template best practices are not documented, because there is no template guideline. Rather, the relatively small community of editors who work regularly with templates are familiar with the consensus. Sdkb is correct that we try to name templates naturally now and, for evidence of this consensus, one should look at probably hundreds-now page moves to the former. If there is a volunteer to write the guideline, I'm sure we'd all be grateful. --Bsherr (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Bsherr: I think this is documented on WP:TPN: "Template names are easiest to remember if they follow standard English spelling, spacing, and capitalization (also see the naming conventions for articles)." ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{USBill|89|HR|8030|which=89}}

has associated page, but no link:

• https://www.congress.gov/bill/89th-congress/house-bill/8030

also, for: {{usstat|80|92}} which points to:

• https://uslaw.link/citation/stat/80/92

and mentions:

• https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/89/hr8030

should also point to:

• https://www.congress.gov/bill/89th-congress/house-bill/8030

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Nominations

I propose that this template be modified to allow nominations as a new type, given that they seem to follow a similar URL structure. For example, I would like this template to be modified to replace citations like this:

• {{cite web |title=PN1679 — Lisa DeNell Cook — Federal Reserve System 117th Congress (2021-2022) |url=https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/1679 |website=US Congress |access-date=17 March 2022}}

with something like this:

• {{USBill|117|pn|1679}}

I'm not sure where the bill type shortcodes originated, so I don't know if "pn" is appropriate or some other shortcode. I am furthermore unsure of the scope of the URL fragment "https://www.congress.gov/nomination/", but we should probably ensure that our bill types match, or are strict subsets of, the congress.gov URL scheme. Daask (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)