Hungaria family

"Fast acting committee - a contradiction in terms" (quote by unknown) Gorm 09:59, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A committee is a deliberative assembly subordinate to a larger deliberative assembly. It seems unlikely that a larger parent assembly would act as quickly as a smaller subdivision; so by definition, a committee is fast acting, when considered in context. In any case, it is not accurate to describe all committees as inefficient; although, many are. It would be better to describe what a committee is intended to be, with a note indicating how most committees normally function. Squideshi 23:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Major Problems

I really don't understand how this article could get to the state it is. It's so bad it almost seems like vandalism. I mean seriously, it sounds like committees are only used in communist dictatorships and banana republics and are solely used to detriment work. I'll try to fix it after sleep, if I have time, but this article shouldn't be hard to make a decent stub out of (and it's not like this is a niche topic!). Tagged with cleanup. Telso 10:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've rewritten the main part. I'm in two minds about the examples of famous committees, so I've left (most of) them. I haven't removed the factual accuracy tag (I removed the {{dubious}}, though) and it might still want a stub tag. --Squiddy 11:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It might be nice if whoever contributed to this could cite where the info came from. I'm not saying it isn't necessarily right, it just isn't credited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.58.16 (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Ad hoc" and "unofficial" are definitely not synonyms! The way that section is written it makes it look like Ad hoc committees are organised "under the table" and equated to "cabal", "junta", etc. Roger (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

New Famous Committee

I entered a new famous Committee, it has been formed in Melton Australia, It is farly well known in the Melbourne/Melton area. If you find it useless pls tell me before editing, at least give me a chance to explsin properly, as im not going to now because its a long story.-- One 00:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition to the article. Unfortunately it fails Wikipedia's notability guideline for organisations,which can be found here. To meet the standard for inclusion, an organisation should generally have been "the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." If the group you mention have been covered in reliable independent sources (such as major newspapers or media outlets), please feel free to re-add it along with references to prove your claim. Thanks. Euryalus (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As this clearly doesn

Propose merge-in of Conference committee

Having merged in Standing committee, and anchored and explained things like working and executive committees, I'm no longer feeling bold enough to merge in Conference committee since it is so US centric, and this article has no tagging indicating a interested governing wikiproject.

1. Nonetheless, since the proposed "redirect-to-be" is very terse and short, and I don't figure it for a topic with much in the way of expansion possibilities (Historic conference committee bills? Members? What??) and since Subcommittee can be subsumed, no reason it can't as well.
2. Moreover there's precedent since the article had already the Committee#Parliamentary committees section.
3. I've no idea of how extensive either term is used in the world, but if things get messy and unweildy, believe it's easier to split out a topic, than find stuff to add to what is essentially a dic-def.

• Note I've incorporated the page already in the article as a included page (acting as if were a template)... don't let that throw you!

That's me thinking // Fra 03:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)