Talk:List of United States representatives from Pennsylvania

Size split?

Split - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split alphabetically. Thoughts? Suggestions?--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that this another of those er. crufty lists. If you want to split then knock yourself out. Op47 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Seeing no consensus to split after several years, this discussion is closed (for now at least).—GoldRingChip 18:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of United States Representatives from Pennsylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828203008/http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml to http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Table not working

Not sure what's happening here. the last 279 or so entries (beginning with Charles Pratt sorted alpha) doesn't show up properly, each entry shows like 'Template:Sortname', 'Template:Party shading', and so forth. When resorting by years, also fails toward the bottom of the list. Checked with three browsers, same deal. Checked several other states, seems to be working OK. I'm not familiar with this table template, not sure the problem. I tried editing some of the member name links, nothing changed. Anyone know why?Are1718 (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it happened, but when AnomieBOT added dates to all the data missing templates something went wrong. I'm reverting to the edit before that and blocking AnomieBOT from this page for now. Hopefully we can figure out what went wrong. Emk9 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Emk9: You forgot to ping me or post on the bot's talk page, but I noticed the new addition of bot exclusion. The problem is that the article has too many templates, so when the dates were added it caused the page to exceed the post-expand include size. There are a few ways you might fix it, e.g. splitting the page into multiple pages, supplying the data so it's no longer missing, or just letting an empty cell indicate "missing data" instead of using a template 1006 times to say so. Anomie⚔ 00:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had suspected it might be due to the number of templates or something since I couldn't find anything wrong at the point the table broke, but I definitely should have let you know in case it was a bug. Emk9 (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for that. I was clueless couldn't see what was wrong from the page itself.Are1718 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Anomie and SUM1: Honestly, I can't figure out how the bot broke it. All that it did was put the dates into {{dm}}, it didn't add any templates. In fact, I then added them myself manually and it broke the page again (I didn't save it this time). Recently, user:SUM1 made some modifications to {{dm}}… maybe that's the reason? —GoldRingChip 01:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip: Yes, this is indirectly my fault. I added the date option to {{Data missing}}, in line with other inline templates. I figured out why from the page's source code. The page is too damn long. It hit the "post-expand include size limit" of 2,097,152 bytes. I'm not sure I could've foreseen (or would've expected to foresee) a situation in which an article has so many transclusions of a relatively benign, small template I was editing that it nears the article size limit. Maybe split the article into versions by century or something. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Anomie had already given you your answer above. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually what I'm saying is that adding the date parameter made a large difference in the page-too-long problem. It went from a Post-expand include size of 1,288,411/2,097,152 bytes to 2,097,152/2,097,152 bytes, which is presumably just reporting the maximum, so it's probably more than that. That's a 63% increase just because of just adding the date parameter, without any additions of templates. So, therefore, the page isn't too long on its own… it's too long when the date parameter is in the DM template. What added inclusions were part of the date parameter in the newly-written DM template? —GoldRingChip 14:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It's probably the fact that transclusions without parameters are cached, so 1006 instances of {{dm}} only count once while 1006 instances of {{dm|date=...}} count 1006 times. Anomie⚔ 22:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Splitting the list

I don't foresee addition of all the missing data happening anytime soon, and I expect that deletion of the Dm templates is not desired by most. Resolution of the list's excess size (first suggested here in late December 2012), would thus involve splitting it. Rather than by name, my own preference is by century. Sorting by start date is available in the current list, though a split based on the end of service seems to make the most sense. A name suffix of "in the XXth century" could be added to earlier lists. Other thoughts? Concurrence? —ADavidB 11:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree. Let's solve the above problem first. Other similar states, like NY, CA, don't have this problem. List articles usually are not violative of "too big" rules. —GoldRingChip 14:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)