This template is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Parts of this template (those related to number of seats) need to be updated. Please help update this template to reflect recent events or newly available information. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (January 2021)
@Swpb: What is the purpose of this template? Based on that purpose, should it include non-voting delegates? Either way, an explanation could perhaps be added for future editors/users to understand. Thanks. —GoldRingChip 16:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My original purpose was to feed Module:NPVIC status (one of the only places DC counts), but I thought it could have wider value. For almost all purposes that matter, Congress has 435 seats, and no non-voting delegates are counted. I would keep DC in the template with a value of 0 because many people assume it does have a voting representative. I've added what I think should be sufficient explanation. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 17:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I don't think this template has a purpose other than NPVIC. In fact, that's the only article that links to this template. Perhaps this template should be copied into the body of National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and then deleted, since it appears otherwise orphaned. —GoldRingChip 18:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well it wouldn't be into the article, but the module. But I'm still inclined to imagine someone else may find it useful in the future. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 18:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
