This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

In classifying a regional mall, perhaps the best example in Texas would be Town East Mall in Mesquite located on the east side of the Dallas - Fort Worth area the way it reportedly attracts 20 million customers a year from the surrounding North Texas area, from East Texas, further out from Louisiana, and even further from Arkansas. When speaking about things regional in Texas, one is most likely going to be talking about the Dallas - Fort Worth area. In contrast, the malls located in the Houston area are going to tend to be more localized in scale. In other words, the building of the more regional type of malls in the Dallas area did not have as much of an impact on the existing business of its urban stores located within Dallas proper. That is not the case with shopping in Houston as the more localized business of its malls tended to have an impact on the business of the urban stores located within Houston proper. I'm not claiming that Houston doesn't have regional malls. I think the Katy Mills Mall, the Woodlands Mall, and the San Jacinto Mall are all regional shopping centers attracting outside customers to the Houston metropolitan area. But, by and large, the smaller Houston market doesn't have the same amount of regional shopping that has been built up around the significantly larger regional market surrounding Dallas - Fort Worth. By regional in scale, think about the new Nebraska Furniture Mart now being constructed within the city of The Colony, about the huge Texas Motor Speedway that was built north of Fort Worth, about the Deloitte University built in Southlake, about the Grapevine Mills Mall built in Grapevine, as well as about the huge Gaylord Texas Convention Center and Resort constructed on Lake Grapevine, and about all those other numerous regional attractions and resorts that have since been built up around them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle Emanuel Watkins ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shopping Centers ? -- 76.65.131.217 ( talk) 04:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

To avoid Wikipedia:Original research, consider: "How do newspapers and magazines classify these malls?" WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we get some editors to look at the recent discussion on the talk page of the USA article. We seem to have a slue of new editors fighting and could use a few experienced editors to help out and guide them. -- Moxy ( talk) 04:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Which thread did you have in mind? There are a number of them covering various topics, all of which were started in October 2013. Stats on that talk page has had over 4,000 viewers in the last month. — Maile ( talk) 15:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say all of the new ones. I have joined one and see we have an old-timer with stats knowledge there now aswell. -- Moxy ( talk) 04:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've created the above, but not being too familiar with US politics I'd appreciate someone checking it over. -- S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A good start! I removed the duplicate references because replicated beneath the reflist ones. Once you cite them in the article they are already referenced and need not be duplicated again. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 00:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Is University, Mississippi redundant to University of Mississippi? Is Mississippi State, Mississippi redundant to Mississippi State University?

WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the locale stubbies ought to be redirects to the respective university itself. I see you did just that to one two years ago, and someone undid the redirect today. Weird edit. — Maile ( talk) 00:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WhisperToMe According to the US Census bureau both places are census-designated places. ACase0000 ( talk) 16:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Fuck (film)

Fuck (film) is a candidate for Featured Article quality — comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt ( talk) 18:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm new to this page and I was just looking around the Project to see what was going on and things that could be contributed to and worked on and I found this section on the To Do list tab titles 'Good article nominees' It seems to be a list of links to United States related articles but there is really no indication as to what these articles are being nominated for. I'm just looking for some clarification. Cheers Rawlem ( talk) 18:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

These all mean they are in the process of a review: Featured Article candidates, Featured list candidates, Good Article nominees. Those are specific review criteria processes going on. The Feature Article candidates will end up on the Main page of Wikipedia if they pass the review process. Good Articles only end up on the front page if after passing review they are separately nominated at Did you know If you click on any of those candidates undergoing review, then go to their talk page, you will find a link to click on the review in progress. This is a list of Good Article nominations in progress: Wikipedia:Good article nominations. This will help you learn about the Featured Article process: Wikipedia:Featured articles. Both of those processes have specific criteria and guidelines to follow. Perhaps those articles are listed on the "To Do" list for anyone who cares to do the review, or otherwise is familiar enough with the subject matter or processes to help edit the finer points remaining on the articles. — Maile ( talk) 20:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think though that the To-Do list should be a little more specific as to why these documents are 'Good article nominees'? I was scanning through the nominated documents, sure they're good documents but I don't understand why they are specifically "Good." So I was wondering if there is a set of requirements that pages meet in order to be classified as good article nominees? Thanks AhmedTElkholy ( talk) 23:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Basically anything that someone believes meets or can be simply edited to meet Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarification for new editors. Projects don't nominate. Individual editors nominate, usually their own work. A bot matches the nominations to the project banner on the article talk page and posts with the appropriate project. If you go to Wikipedia:Good article nominations, it tells you what the criteria is for passing a GA review. If those articles pass the review, you'll see at the very top of the article itself that it's a "Good article". — Maile ( talk) 00:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is ongoing about the lead to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. Please help form a consensus at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Proposal for lead-- Mark Miller ( talk) 12:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I started a request for comment at Edward Snowden#added videos. All views are welcome. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 06:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Category:Targeted killing

I've gone ahead and created Category:Targeted killing, a category to encompass articles related to the topic of Targeted killing.

Suggestions for additional articles to add into the category would be appreciated, feel free to add them yourself or suggest them at Category talk:Targeted killing.

Cheers,

— Cirt ( talk) 01:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add our event venue to the Wikipedia listing of Round Top Antiques Week. We have a 35,000 sq ft venue in Warrenton in the heart of the antiques week. We also have a winter show the same weekend as The Big Red Barn. Thank you for adding The Lone Star Gallery to the description. 66.68.113.7 ( talk)Kaci VanCoutren —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe my husband was on the ship "picaway" in1946 for the testing of the nuclear weapon. Would like to conttact other soldiers who was there. His name is James Cooper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.0.134 ( talk) 18:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't really the best place to ask about that. You will probably find that the VFW, VA and Labor department are better points for information. For what its worth though most of the soldiers and sailors who were there have all died. Many of them due to complications or long term effects of Radiation exposure. The Labor department has a lot of info on that. 108.45.104.69 ( talk) 18:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:LGBT state legislators in Arizona‎ and 33 other sub-categories of Category:LGBT state legislators of the United States, all of which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for merger to their parent categories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign supporters, 2012#RFC: Should a list of endorsements include people who quietly donated?
Thank you. Binksternet ( talk) 06:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I was just looking to see where ADM(archer daniels midland) ranked in the largest agriculture companies and found that they aren't even listed, yet they have 89 billion in sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.27.230 ( talk) 16:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Portal:Star Trek

Miyagawa and I have nominated Portal:Star Trek as a featured portal candidate.

Commented would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Star Trek.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt ( talk) 02:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Fundingmoney is adding lists of incumbent governors (well, so far just their states) to all such articles: see this one here, which I reverted. I brought it up on their talk page but since they're doing it on so many articles I think it should be discussed here. I'm loath to press mass rollback on these presumably good-faith edits, but I see no valid reason for bloating every one of those articles with such lists: governors simply aren't important enough in the grand scheme of things. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 04:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it was a bad idea to add it, but the government articles themselves could simply have been done in a better fashion on a single page. Perhaps a larger dedicated page to the USA government in X would be better, listing all the major figures down to the governors. Would make sure the article is not bloated and that an entire snapshot of "what was" for readers. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:USA is a parent project for many other projects, but it seems that its specific usage and thus tagging, administration and operation is all dependent upon every other Wikiproject to use and be under WP:USA in order for WP:USA to operate effectively OR for every other Wikiproject not under the USA, but still about the USA to be tagged with WP:USA to have it show up as being part of the project. The end result is a half-finished system and its simply sluggish - anyone want to move forward with a rally or split of the functionality related to the WP:USA banners? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that I once suggest the ability to have projects opt into some kind of super project to deal with over tagging. I still think that is a better way to go. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

But I do not think there is away to track them without their approval and joining into the larger project. So should we tag those which refuse with WP:USA for the technical aspect of tracking? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 14:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProjects have been forcibly added to banners in the past, and have had their banners orphaned and deleted by the offending "master wikiproject", without ever asking or informing the relevant wikiproject. WPUSA doesn't do that, but other projects have done that (particularly WPCANADA, which seems to think that advertising at WPCANADA is the same as advertising the subject at every Canada related wikiproject and that every member of those wikiprojects also read WPCANADA, or that banner changes need have no notice anywhere to anyone). -- 65.94.78.9 ( talk) 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of the projects that are currently supported by this project were added in order to attempt to breath some life into them because they were inactive. Most of the rest didn't want too. So all you need to do to remove them is remove them. You could leave a note on the supported projects talk page but I wouldn't wait more than a few days for a response. If you want to add one you also need to start a discussion and be prepared for a lot of hyperbole and argumentation about how the WPUS project is trying to take over. Personally I would just let the projects return to the dead state they were in before I tried to get people interested in them again. Too few if any want to collaborate anymore and its just not worth spending the time and agravation. Additionally, tagging articles that are already tagged with certain other projects is going to cause a fight. Some projects feel they own the articles and will not let other related projects tag them. Its up to you all though. Good luck. 138.162.8.58 ( talk) 14:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the need to tag everything with WPUSA. Being the parent project is just that, an organizational structure, where you can fall-up for advice and help, and if the project falls inactive, a place to merge it to. When they fall inactive, or do not want to maintain a separate banner, the WPUSA banner can be used and a taskforce activated. When articles of national importance are around, they should definitely acquire a WPUSA banner, or if the topic is a national topic. -- 65.94.78.9 ( talk) 23:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I went a bit overboard on the tagging to bring those that don't want WP:USA into some larger system... And my hand hurts from all the reverting of my USA tagging. @ Vegaswikian:, I don't think there will be much support for your idea after the push back I got. So that's going to be out. @ 65.94.78.9:, WP:USA is just too massive for most people. Its intimidating and its unfocused, the big idea of a Wikiproject to cover anything from the USA is I guess about as silly as having everything from Japan covered. Angelo-bias aside, one is a mess and the other is dead. @ 138.162.8.58:, you were right. Though I hate to have dead-unspecific Wikiprojects, Wikipedia has too few editors and too much push back against large overarching projects for it to work well. Moving on... should we just do an RFC to try and get a consensus to split WP:USA into a top-tier Wikiproject management project and break the template up? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 07:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Where would general things that aren't associated with any one state go? When I tag novels based on country, I do try putting them in specific states if I can. For instance State Fair (novel) is tagged "Iowa", NOT WP:US, because it is very much associated with Iowa. But AFAIK Gone With the Wind is not associated with any one state. WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    • They wouldn't go anywhere it seems unless you can get other Wikiprojects to split into regional/geo setting. And that is not going to happen. Some people say tag based on country of origin, like for smaller countries which really have no reasonable reason to have less coverage. Like China or Japan. China and India should have millions of articles by themselves. Both include articles like Door god. Egg balancing contains both WP:USA and WP:CHINA. They all contain basic "Chinese" things from food to films to books to people. USA is part of the angelo-centric bias, but what was done is not fundamentally different than the setup for the rest of the world's Wikiprojects. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 07:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
      • In other words, the tagging for the US WikiProject system is not going to change because other Wikipedians have the mentality "tag based on country of origin" and other countries won't change theirs, right? Does this mean the consensus is currently that anything related to the US should be either tagged WP-US or with that of a regional project? Does this mean the corresponding portals should also be added if the article is tagged with the said project. I'm trying to figure out with where the project stands on that matter. WhisperToMe ( talk) 08:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I caught a bit of hell about doing exactly that, tagging if its based on country of origin. The reason given for opposition was "Just because something is IN the United States does not make it relevant for that WikiProject, which should be about The United States, the country, the nation, its people as a whole, NOT about every thing in every state in it, every thing in every city in it. every film made in it, every sports team of every college in it. It's too damn much and a completely unreasonable interpretation of the purview of the Project." - Now, I understand the argument on its face. Because it doesn't seem to make sense, but when you have films not listed by anything other than "WP:FILM" how does WP:USA or someone else cross-check what's relevant and what's in USA? At its core, you'd either have to have a national type article alerts and tracking category or many Wikiproject tags to appropriately and quickly check for articles and notify them to an active Wikiproject. Some of the state Wikiprojects are effectively dead, but tagging them WP:USA is going to make many people mad despite the good faith attempts to monitor and watch them. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 14:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
          • I've been tagging based on country of origin for years, although I put sub-projects based on city and province/prefecture/state in place of national projects when possible. WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
            • I've been told that this is what should and is done. And WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN states that project's are allowed to tag, but the logical argument against is "over-tagging is disruptive". Now, I can see if we are tagging "toys" with tangentially related terms that would be a problem. Specifically, tagging "toys" with USA, CHINA, JAPAN and so forth would be bad - the reason would be like "countries that make toys" of course. What we need is either a technical solution to ensure WP:USA's functionality on the national whole level or to serious consider going like WP:BLP or WP:MILHIST. Milhist is an organized, but very complex project and BLP covers 3x WP:USA, covering all people. National tagging should be the final end (no North America or Europe or "Earth" Wikiprojects) because nationalities and not continents or the "European Union" forms an identity. And every other national Wikiproject operates in the same way, just horribly under utilized. If I spent few months doing just proper tagging, categorization and assessment on the entire Wikipedia you'd see a complex web of inter-connectivity between pages and projects. I remember that I had to ask several times to add the Article Alerts system to WP:ANIME. A change which allows for the entire project to be managed easier... face it, those who are bold and do work are the ones who write and improve Wikipedia. I'm all for cautious and careful advancement, but we need a clear way forward and everyone's opinion is important here. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@ WhisperToMe:: Above, you said "But AFAIK Gone With the Wind is not associated with any one state". Not getting involved in the larger discussion, but a novel set entirely in Georgia, focused on a historical event in Georgia (particularly Sherman's march to the sea), and by a Georgia author should be (and is currently) tagged as a WikiProject:Georgia article. Cdtew ( talk) 12:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if there's evidence it's that associated with Georgia like State Fair (novel) is with Iowa we can cut the Gordian knot and just use the State of Georgia portal and leave it as a WPGeorgia tagged article. Do you think the same should be done for all of the film adaptations, the novel sequels, and the film/TV versions of those? WhisperToMe ( talk) 12:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Surely it's a case-by-case basis; the film involved actors from New York and England, was likely shot on a soundstage in LA, so the film likely is a trickier situation. The novel, though, is purely Georgia in its setting, authorship, and literary context. Just nitpicking with your earlier comment. Cdtew ( talk) 15:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I added portals to Gone with the Wind (film). However a Wikipedian reverted the edit and told me "This has been discussed in the past. There is no consensus to add portals to film articles."

There is a problem: This article is also relevant to the WikiProject United States, so that project also must have a say in whether that article allows portals, yes? Does the WikiProject United States agree with not having portals in articles related to American films?

I do not think it is a good idea for one WikiProject to impose rules over its own articles like that because it affects other WikiProjects. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Video_games_developed_in_Japan for a conflict between the Video Game WikiProject and the Japan WikiProject

I also posted to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Cross_WikiProject_relations_and_decisions_about_portals WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I would ask for where this was discussed before. WikiProjects, per se, don't set such policies. It's very short-sighted to oppose the inclusion of appropriate portal links. When portals are visible and done well, they enhance articles by providing entry points for readers to find additional articles. Imzadi 1979  → 23:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I did ask the user where it was discussed before. Hopefully she can help illustrate the issue and provide the links WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

One benefit of WikiProjects is that they can each comprise a group of subject-matter experts that have expertise in a subject area. That's good for identifying reliable sources, content that should be included, etc. They should not deal with some structural items in articles, like the presence or absence of infoboxes, portal links, etc. The SMEs from WikiProjects should put together good portals so that they can be linked, but they should not ban portal links that make sense. Imzadi 1979  → 23:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This may add some clarification to the issue. One user said: *"I'm not even sure why you needed the message when you are the user who instigated the exact discussion being referenced with your portal abuse of barely related topics. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 23:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)" - This was the user who loudly opposed adding portals to Prometheus (2012 film). If this is the case, this needs to be made into an RFC as this will interfere with other WikiProjects' efforts. This is the set of portals DarkWarriorBlake is calling "abuse" - The old discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_46#Use_of_Portals_in_film_articles WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment The user who made the revert made a post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Cross_WikiProject_relations_and_decisions_about_portals in which her view is that each WikiProject can decide whether its own portals belong in articles (WP:Film can say that Portal:Film should not be added to articles) and that in the case of portals belonging to both WikiProjects (such as Portal:Film in the United States which belongs to this project and WikiProject Film) both projects together will have to decide how that portal is used. WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing is asking everybody to look at Wikipedia:Advice_pages#Advice_pages, arguing that "WikiProjects are not power centers; they're groups of people who happen to want to work together". I think the relevant part of the page he is linking begins with "However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope[...]" WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Do American novels (novels, films derived from novels, characters) fall within the scope of WikiProject United States? For instance, would Gone with the Wind be within this project's scope? If there is a dispute regarding the nationality of the novel and there are reliable sources describing the novel as "American" then would it be within the project's scope? Template:WikiProject United States explicitly has parameters for American film, American music, American animation, etc. so I would think novels are covered.

I started this discussion after a user responded in User_talk:SchroCat#Wrong_portal_removed. WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Due to the lack of response, does this mean that American (or those defined by reliable sources as "American") novels are a part of WikiProject United States? It would be odd for them not to be. WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The banner supports it, so in theory, anything relevant to the tagged subproject/taskforce is part of WPUSA. This is why instead of WPUSA directly assessing things, WPUSA should have a taskforce called "USA" for national topics, so that the only thing assessed is quality, not importance, while TF switches assess importance on their own. As it works now, yes, they all fall under WPUSA. -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 05:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor I'm speaking to on User_talk:SchroCat#Wrong_portal_removed believes that not every US novel should be tagged with the US WikiProject, believing that "There is no automatic reason for a novel,to fall into a country-wide portal: that's just overkill." It concerns with whether the Gone with the Wind series should be tagged as part of the United States WikiProject and whether US-related portals should be in articles related to the series. That's why I started this discussion. WhisperToMe ( talk) 11:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This issue was discussed previously when the project banner template was nominated for deletion earlier this year. -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 13:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_11#Template:WikiProject_United_States WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems like in this debate people asked "what to do about an article that isn't part of a smaller project?" and the answer seemed to be that it's still within the USA project. Is this a correct characterization of the issue? WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Things fall upward. Some countries are only covered by the geographic region wikiproject, the country doesn't have a wikiproject. If the article's topic doesn't have a more specific banner, and/or is covered by another project that is signed on with WPUSA, or is of national importance/coverage, then it would end up using WPUSA. (say the HQ campus of a federal agency headquartered in Maryland would get the WPMARYLAND banner and the WPUSA|USGOV=yes banner ) -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 01:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Due to decreased activity I have tagged this semi-active.

If I get no responses on here in 7 days it's becoming {{WikiProject status|inactive}} and it will be noticed everywhere.

WhisperToMe ( talk) 02:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi active is fine. Inactive is wrong. Considering the very much active talk page by posters other than yourself, it's very inaccurate to call it inactive. Activity here tops activity in many wikiprojects that are called "active" which see nary a missive in months, while we've got multiple threads in the last two months. -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 05:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep it as semiactive. If somebody responds to a query on a project page in a timely manner it is a sign that the project is still active. It was five days between the post about American novels and the declaration of being semiactive. WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. People only answer queries they are interested in. As is, this page has lots of activity, that no one answered your own query is not an indication that the wikiproject is inactive, just that no one was interested in answering your query. Considering the prior activity, with multiple responses in discussion threads, several threads with multiple participants, in the last month, it would seem that there is activity here. Semi-active or fully-active, but in no way inactive. If you go by the fact no one answered your query as a sign projects should be tagged inactive, I would say that every wikiproject is inactive, because there are discussion threads that elicit zero responses in every single one of them.

Regardless, 5 days is an inappropriately low threshold to decide a project is inactive. Some people only log in on weekends, and you'd inactivate a project before they next logged on. Further, this is the holiday period, and people go on vacation. -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 11:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Five days is considered a long time in internet cycles, considering that AFDs usually close in seven unless the closing admin thinks not enough ground has been covered (then it's a relist). Yes, it is the holidays, and yes, some people only check on weekends, but it's also the age of instant text messages and urgent e-mails from work while you are on vacation.

The whole reason I brought up the "novels" thing is because there is an editor who I am talking to who believes that an article on an American novel should not always be tagged with the US WikiProject, and that would mean removing WPUSA project tags from many articles on American novels or on novels identified by reliable sources as being American. I guess I should have explicitly stated why I raised the question.

Much of the whole "is this project active or not?" was prompted by this message from User:Kumioko on my talk page: User_talk:WhisperToMe#WikiProject_United_States. He saw that I had an inquiry on the talk page and it hadn't been answered in several days.

WhisperToMe ( talk) 11:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Have restored the template...pls dont kill projects because of what a disgruntled banned users had to say. Huge amount of people here and working on things...in fact huge project going on at USA article. -- Moxy ( talk) 03:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Who's banned? You seem to be inferring to me but I'm not banned..."yet", although I guess the disgruntled comment fits.:-) Kumioko ( talk) 03:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Soory meant to say disgruntled and "branded" user. You know I do like you but you got to admit you have quite the reputation here now. Lets just say we are simply not sure you are here to help build the encyclopedia or cause disruptions at this point. -- Moxy ( talk) 04:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

See related talk page: User talk:KumiokoCleanStart WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I used to believe in this project (Wikipedia and WPUS) but eventually the criticism and haters got the best of me and now I just don't care. Too many people don't want me to participate so the hell with it. That's why I just comment in discussions at this point. I'm going to try and walk away at the end of the month though, we'll see how long that lasts...but that's my goal. Maybe I can hold out till Easter without commenting this time. Kumioko ( talk) 04:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This was inappropriate. The standards for what constitutes semi-active are documented at the template. See Template:WikiProject status/doc. It's not "I didn't get an answer from WP:VOLUNTEERs within seven days". It's more like "There have been almost no discussions for months". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I should have checked the template documentation before tagging as semi-active (it says that it's "several months", but four months would be inactive so I'm guessing semi-active would be around 1-2), and perhaps I shouldn't have taken Kumioko's word for it (see related talk page: User talk:KumiokoCleanStart). From now on I'll follow the template documentation when tagging.

However the other person in the debate regarding whether novels should be within the USA WikiProject has characterized the number of responses within that many days as being weak: "One IP editor with little edit history responds after five days? Hardly a resounding consensus... " diff. (this response was in light on whether American novels or novels identified by reliable sources should be always tagged as part of the WP:US project) So, in light of this, what is the reasonable time for me or another Wikipedian to wait for a response regarding consensus on a matter like "Is such-and-such a part of this project"?

WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The main difference is not so much the length of time, but the number of discussions: "no" discussions for four months is inactive; "few" discussions for several months is semi-active. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject status/doc states: "Minor fiddling with formatting, automatic archiving, and unanswered messages to the WikiProject from outsiders ("Could someone with this project please help me with...") or from bots do not count as signs of project activity." However it's clear there were "answered" inquiries in the month of December so these ones do count towards project activity. WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• • This project is very important and extremely active. I did a ridiculous amount of work and categorization. The administrative back end needs a huge amount of work, but this project is most certainly not inactive or semi-active. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for not checking the documentation first. WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. We all make mistakes. And I think we need to do something about WP:USA's structure, I've said it for months. Though I need a real consensus to be formed. Both ways to fix the matter ended in push back - but things as they are is problematic and WP:USA is something many people rely on in the background. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 07:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth the result of tagging the project as Semi active spurred exactly the reaction that was hoped for. There was little activity here in the last couple months, Chris is really the only one doing any tagging and assessment on any scale. So now we have at least half a dozen people engaging in discussion. After wasting 3 years of my life trying to build the project I still think you all are wasting your time and I can see already the same problems forming that I ran into. No matter what scale you choose from large to small you are going to have some that say your tagging is innappropriate. It should also be noted that Biography is all encompassing and has a couple million articles, Milhist is all encompassing and has dozens of subprojects and hundreds of thousands of articles. In time, as you work with the project I think you will see why I did the things I did over time. Kumioko ( talk) 12:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that's just a bit biased to say there's been "little activity". This project has always had much much more activity than the vast majority of "active" wikiprojects on Wikipedia, even during the "little activity" period. -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 12:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that this was declared "semiactive" far too hastily. The poster only waited five days, one of which was Christmas. 2-3 weeks seems more appropriate. Furthermore, just because people aren't talking on the discussion board doesn't mean a project is inactive: work benefiting the project (such as assessing articles) can be done without utilizing the discussion board p b p 16:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes true, but merely working on articles in the projects scope, an occassional discussion nor a single editor tagging articles makes the project active. It wasn't active when I was doing stuff every day. This project has been semi active at best for over 2 years. There is no newsletter, there is no collaboration, there is very little maintenance to the project(s) outside bot maintenance, no one is updating the project(s) to do lists or scheduling drives like milhist does. Yes there is some minimal activity on the talk page but does that really mean this project is "active"? No. The last time this much discussion occured from this many individuals about this project was when Fram submitted it to TFD and the resounding vote was to break it up. That's when I finally gave up on the project completely. If there aren't enough people active in the project(s) to prevent it from being deleted from editors who aren't members of the project, then its not worth keeping. Kumioko ( talk) 21:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• The TFD was closed as No consensus. The later Bot request to demerge WPUS did not result in a bot. — Maile ( talk) 21:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually the reason it was a non consensus was because TFD isn't the place for breaking apart a Wikiproject. The intent can be viewed by reading through all the comments though. That message is clear. Even the majority of the Keep votes wanted the project broken up. The bot request didn't pan out because very few people these days do bots that make non cosmetic changes. You can get a bot to do statistics on the toolserver/wmflabs server or to archive mail, but try finding a bot to do actual meaningful and useful changes, tagging, assessment, etc. Not a one. And those that do are banned from the project with speed and efficiency. Its better just to let this project go inactive and devote time to improving or writing articles. Unless the intent is to follow the community wishes and break this project up into bits anyone who starts working on this project will eventually find themselves bludgeoned. Good luck! Kumioko ( talk) 21:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

A bot request can be a comestic change, it'd depend on exactly how the request was asked. If all importances are moved from |importance= to |USA-importance= and |USA=yes, this is a cosmetic change, and would prevent future uses of the banner from just assessing everything as some USA important topic. As for breaking apart the template. Substituting ((WikiProject some state name|class=X|importance=Z))((WPUSA|class=X|importance=Y)) for ((WPUSA|statename=yes|statename-importance=Z|class=X|importance=Y)) is also cosmetic. -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 01:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that this wikiproject implement the new "Draft"-class and categorize into Category: Draft-Class United States articles‎, for pages in the WP:Drafts namespace that was recently initiated. This would allow tracking of articles related to this wikiproject that are in draft form, which members of this wikiproject may wish to improve and move into the mainspace. -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 23:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Draftspace detection and auto-classification is working on implementing a Draft-Class. It's just a matter of getting the color and icon picked, I think. Imzadi 1979  → 00:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

We would still need to create the category, and add "DRAFT" to the class-mask on the banner. -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 01:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Fung, Brian. " The NSA refuses to deny spying on members of Congress." The Washington Post. January 4, 2014.

While I notified the sub-projects related to the US government, in case it didn't get through... WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Here is an RFC on whether to add Portal:Film in the United States to: Gone with the Wind (film) Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_add_Portal:Film_in_the_United_States_to_Gone_with_the_Wind_.28film.29 WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Is the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands " Capital Hill" or " Capitol Hill"? Please weigh in at Talk:Capital Hill, Saipan if you care. —  AjaxSmack  22:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Was the Emancipation Proclamation an executive order, a presidential proclamation, or both? Has the meaning of "proclamation" changed since the 19th century? If a U.S. president were to emancipate a group of people in the 21st century, would it now be called an emancipation order?

I bring up this hypothetical scenario because " executive order" and " presidential proclamation" both exist as articles, yet in their current form it is far from clear what the difference is between the two terms w.r.t the U.S. presidency. 68.165.77.241 ( talk) 22:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)/archive2‎.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Sion8, who ironically has an infobox saying he is an American, states on his userpage that "The word "American" in any language should not be used in the context to refer to a citizen or national of the United States of America." Examples shown to me on my talk page include [ [1]], [ [2]], [ [3]], [ [4]], [ [5]]) He doesn't seem to like "United States either as shown by [6] where he changes Flag of the United States to the redirect Flag of the U.S. after changing American government to United States government. Where he can't avoid 'American' he changes it to "U.S. American" [7]. Here [8] in the key to an image he changes U.S. to U.S.A. against our MOS and the fact that the article uses U.S. throughout. Given his userpage manifesto discussions seems futile. My question is do people find this acceptable? Dougweller ( talk) 09:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This editor seems to be aggressively pushing the point of view that "American" should refer to a citizen of the Americas and not a U.S. citizen; regardless of the merits of that point of view, it's POV-pushing and they're doing all of this without consensus (and I'm pretty sure "U.S. American" is a neologism). None of those changes strike me as acceptable, and that pattern of behavior seems to violate WP:NOTHERE. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction• Creation} 10:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

1. "changing American government to United States government" -- I would always make that change or another; never use "American government" knowing its target. I think the main article of the "series on politics and government of the United States" should be renamed Politics and government of the United States (reverse that redirect to Politics) and "American government" should redirect there too. No doubt some uses of redirects United States government, U.S. government, and so on, should be fixed.
2. Generally unacceptable. I do use U.S. American and U.K. British myself, but not in articles.
3. We do have editors who systematically undo American and British links to the people articles (as well as links to the country articles US and UK). Only a few years ago I learned perhaps wrongly to use such links. Is there a consensus to use them or not?

-- P64 ( talk) 17:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree about 1. Dougweller ( talk) 22:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Some of those edits that I made where a mistake (The sixth example was a mistake on my part, I guess the eighth one is also a mistake), others I fully agree with, but I do agree no consensus had been reached by the community at large; I do try to keep it where if is about the United States of American then I use "United States", "U.S.A." or "U.S." (and variations) and never "American" as noted by Dougweller. "U.S. American" doesn't seem to be a neologism (as in NOT made by me), because in [9] on the Wiktionary project, the quotes used as examples (with out the dots on the acronym) seem to date back as far as 2004 (it is actually where I got it from at lease two years ago). -- Sion8 ( talk) 07:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary now shows both 'US-American' and 'U.S. American' in 2004 use as nouns; 'US American' in 2007. It doesn't show or tell any use as an adjective.

Google translates US-amerikanischen -> American, German to English (eg, translate de:US-amerikanischen Film). It detects US American as English and translates US American -> US-amerikanische, English to a German adjective. -- P64 ( talk) 19:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine if you are personally not comfortable using "American" as being connected to the United States of America, but going around and replacing appropriate uses suggests that you have attained some sort of consensus to replace them, when, as you noted, none exists. There was consensus to move the article "People of the United States" to Americans, however. WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and countless reliable sources have "American" in the English language as almost always referring to a citizen of or otherwise related to the US ("American people", "American interests", "the American president", etc.). That's not a matter of opinion. It's reality.

The article American (word) discusses the use of the word beyond its connection to the US. The bottom line is that the use of "American" as a demonym for a citizen of the United States is very common in the English language, not only in the US but Europe as well (where the US is frequently referred to as America). On top of that, there is no other word or phrase that is used as frequently or widely accepted as a substitute for American as being connected to the United States. Whether that's "right" or not is irrelevant here. Wikipedia isn't the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In other words, until a majority of English-speaking reliable sources start using "American" more in the continental sense and/or another term becomes more prominent or accepted as a demonym for citizens of the United States of America, Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to use something else, regardless of the opinions of editors. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 07:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This article about civil disobedience to desegregate Mississippi beaches was posted at WP:AFC by an IP in a draft so well-composed we could publish it straight away. It has a few basic refs, but there are a number of books on GoogleBooks that discuss these events, so it could easily be expanded. Unfortunately, IPs are hard to get a hold of, so if someone else wants to jump in it'd be great to build it up, maybe find a Public Domain photo? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 15:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added Fuck (film) to TFA nominations, discussion is at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Fuck_.28film.29. — Cirt ( talk) 22:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Could anybody help to update it ? I wonder if it could be renamed as military contractors, which is less biased/ more neutral.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 04:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC).

• Chicago Options Associates

I've gone ahead and created a new article on Chicago Options Associates.

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page.

Cheers,

— Cirt ( talk) 08:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This list appears to use only median household income as an indicator of whether or not a community is "poor." Low median household income does not necessarily make a community poor. Other factors must be taken into account, such as poverty rate and cost of living. The term "poor" itself is subjective. Bms4880 ( talk) 22:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties
2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt ( talk) 01:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A quick scan of some issues of "Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper" on the Internet Archive http://www.archive.org showed that it has a lot of the images that are very useful/usable and was able to add portraits to a number of biographical articles lacking images. It also shows that a number of topics that need to be covered from the historic past are lacking (for instance I found fr:Thaddeus Hyatt in French alone). If someone has access to archives of this and other such pre-1923 illustrated newspapers, a lot could be gained by systematic image harvesting. Shyamal ( talk) 12:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Could use some fresh eyeballs and voices at this previously stale merge proposal, splitting the content at Opium Wars into the articles First Opium War and Second Opium War and turning the page into a dab between them, to avoid the existing content fork. —  LlywelynII 13:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Neelix ( talk) 20:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Neelix ( talk) 04:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Just want to note that the Fourth Amendment, currently a high quality GA, is trying to make the final push to FA. With a little hard work, we can turn that into a . More importantly, we can help educate the public about a very timely and important subject. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 02:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that there are no Indian reservations listed at Template:Whatcom County, Washington (the county has two), and looking at some others, it looks like some of these templates have them and some don't. These templates are all titles "municipalities and communities of...", and I'm not sure if Indian Reservations would be called municipalities, but they are absolutely communities. Adding them to each of these county templates that missing them would be a huge task, so it's probably best to determine if and how to do it before spending too much time. I personally suggest modeling after Template:Skagit County, Washington which has a subheading for reservations. Ego White Tray ( talk) 05:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As you say, these are communities, but not municipalities. I like the idea of adding Indian reservations to the template, where relevant. -- Orlady ( talk) 21:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Assistance request. There is a DRN which has run away before a volunteer took it on at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Puerto Rico. The issue revolves around including sourced material in the article narrative, whether to allow both sides of a controversy into the article narrative introduction. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 10:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The usage of Apollo Eleven (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Apollo Eleven -- 70.50.148.248 ( talk) 08:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, there is a notice at WT:MILHIST about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pennsylvania provincial conference 1776 -- 70.50.148.248 ( talk) 06:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

At Puerto Rico, there is an RfC Can the existence of the PR status controversy be admitted to the article? The DRN put forward by another editor was closed due to no volunteer. An RfC was recommended there. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 17:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 11:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Fuck (film) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 1, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite ( talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 1, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Fuck is a 2005 American documentary film by director Steve Anderson, which argues that the word is key to discussions about freedom of speech and censorship. The film provides perspectives from art, linguistics, society and comedy. Linguist Reinhold Albert Aman, journalism analyst David Shaw, language professor Geoffrey Nunberg and Oxford English Dictionary editor Jesse Sheidlower explain the term's history and evolution. The film features the last interview of author Hunter S. Thompson before his suicide. It was first shown at the AFI Film Festival at ArcLight Hollywood; it has subsequently been released on DVD in America and in the UK and used as a resource on several university courses. The New York Times critic A. O. Scott called the film a battle between advocates of morality and supporters of freedom of expression, while other reviews criticized its length and repetitiveness. Law professor Christopher M. Fairman commented on the film's importance in his 2009 book on the same subject. The American Film Institute said, "Ultimately, [it] is a movie about free speech ... Freedom of expression must extend to words that offend." ( Full article...)

UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Above was posted to my user talk page, posting here as well. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 23:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've created an article on the organization Free Expression Policy Project.

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be most appreciated, at Talk:Free Expression Policy Project.

Cheers,

— Cirt ( talk) 04:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth

I've recently gone ahead and created an article about the book, Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth.

Help with suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt ( talk) 01:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• The Houstonian (newspaper)

I've recently gone ahead and created an article about the newspaper, The Houstonian (newspaper).

Help with suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:The Houstonian (newspaper).

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt ( talk) 03:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I really want to know if there are any objections to the following change in the infobox for cities:

The city infobox should mention the city's rank in population among cities of the state. Currently, the infobox mentions the city's rank in population among cities of the United States. For example, with San Antonio, it gives the city a rank of 7, which means the seventh largest city in the United States. This change should give San Antonio a rank of 2, which means the second largest city in Texas. Any thoughts on this?? Georgia guy ( talk) 19:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have a list (partially complete) of US athletes at the 2014 Winter Olympics who need Wikipedia pages. The partial list is here. Thanks, Mat ty. 007 12:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I do I.T. work for William P. Hobby, Jr and he recently asked me how he might edit his own page in Wikipedia. He wants to do two things in particular:

1. Bold his book titles.

2. Add a section called, "Family Eponyms."

He didn't ask me to do it, but I was asked about how to do it. Knowing as little as I do about Wikipedia, this kind of editing would seem to fall on the bad side of WP:COI both for him to edit the page and for me to help him to do it.

Putting aside the book title boldenings (which smell a little too much like self-promotion), he is a fount of information about his family's history and he has a lot of ties within the universities around the state.

If this information was of general interest to the page, how might he get this information up there without running afoul of the policies?

Mwhalenhtc ( talk) 21:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I added a "Further reading" for his one book I could find. That's the format that should be used, rather than bolding. The one book is all I could find on him. But if he's written other books, he can put them there following that format. Books need ISBN number, author name(s), publisher, year, etc.
• I added a couple of External links I found to his official papers
• If I understand what he means by "Family Eponyms" he means buildings, streets etc. named after the Hobby family. That would be more appropriate to be added to the individual name under "Legacy", as it is on William P. Hobby. Ideally, it should be sourced. — Maile ( talk) 18:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The usage of Indian Scout (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Indian Scout (motorcycle) -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 08:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the Arizona SB 1062 article as it is was approved. It reads like an editorial. Claiming that one possible effect of the bill is the purpose and function of the bill is misleading. The actual text of the bill isn't even referenced - only other editorials from biased newspapers. The article should be cleaned up or taken down in order to prevent the public from being influenced by un-researched opinion on an encyclopedia website. Pkclan ( talk) 23:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that the bill's text has been added now. That's a start. Pkclan ( talk) 23:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article candidacy.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt ( talk) 05:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The usage of Plymouth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Plymouth -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 05:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Why does people on walfair get tax money. There getting my money all year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.130.24 ( talk) 03:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The usage of Massachusetts Minutemen and Minutewomen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:UMass Minutemen and Minutewomen -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 05:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The usage of Boston Minutemen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Boston Minutemen for the discussion -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 05:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've created a new article about the Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt ( talk) 22:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Is here: Talk:Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism#RFC:_Does_the_use_of_the_Islamophobia_template_in_this_article_violate_wikipedias_policy_on_NPOV.3F.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 23:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. I am looking for suggestions on how to improve the article Voting Rights Act of 1965, and I would be highly appreciative if folks from WikiProject United States could leave some comments about it on the peer review I requested at Wikipedia:Peer review/Voting Rights Act of 1965/archive1. The article was recently promoted to GA status, and it'd be fantastic to get it up to FA status. Thanks! – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 03:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi US team, I have adopted a help if I can approach to my first forays into wiki, I notice the "list of law clerks" 11 pages are in different formats and and not as usable as they could be, with the "main" list page huge and a bit clunky, I have placed on my user page a proposed format, with dummy data, which I can automate onto each of the appropriate pages if and when finalised (or finalized US spelling) this format uses much less byte data so should increase load time and potentially reduce the need to "split list" etc and adds more functionality, I am also suggesting at this stage to remove all "dead links" these add no value and take up further space, the links can be added back where and when appropriate.
Any help, comments, suggestions are all welcome.
Kind regards
The Original Filfi ( talk) 01:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars

I've created a new article on the book, Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars.

Help with researching additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars.

— Cirt ( talk) 08:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I need help at Talk:LR-87#Number of nozzles. TIA Andrewa ( talk) 10:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, I've tabulated the numbers of US articles needing coordinates at Category talk:United States articles missing geocoordinate data - previously there was no easy way to eg see that there were 3,309 articles needing geotagging in California, as it was spread over 59 subcategories. Hopefully that might inspire some people to have a go at reducing the backlog - it should be quite doable as the UK coord missings were "zeroed" a few years ago from a much worse position (relative to population). At least the US doesn't have the medieval lost buildings/events that the UK does, which take a lot of research to locate! Each state has typically only a couple of hundred, so it makes for a nice finite little sub-project; CA Wikpedians can tackle it a county at a time. You might want to have a look at WP:WikiProject Geographical coordinates before starting - Bing Maps is a bit easier to extract the numbers from than Google. Le Deluge ( talk) 13:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties was promoted to Featured Article quality.

Thank you very much to all who helped with this successful quality improvement project related to freedom of speech and censorship,

— Cirt ( talk) 00:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence

I've created a new article on the book, Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence.

Help with researching additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence.

— Cirt ( talk) 04:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you do, but I am a bit out of my league in this department. Looks like you are doing great work! Keep it up! ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 14:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

The usage and scope of Declaration of Independence (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:United States Declaration of Independence -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 06:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I have nominated Portal:New York City for Featured Portal status. Please engage in discussion at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:New York City. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Please consider commenting at the above page regarding the nomination of the NYC portal for featured status. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear sir , We want to convey our motive or theme to you and long time our ngo organisation trying to get fund from the donor agency but it takes long until now keep contact with you to get some information and advice or suggestion it will be good result and bright situation.

Anyhow, If you provide some suggestion to move our working way to make result then our NGO progress rapidly to reach to the goal point.

Hoping your nice and peaceful mind and god bless you all the times and getting result from you very soon.

Best regards, Majedur Rahman Khan President Youth Progressive Programme youthprogressive@hotmail.com Mobile: 88-01552301760 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.134 ( talk) 11:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There are currently two proposals one concerning city staff, and one concerning city officials on the issue of which form to use "American X", versus "X in the United States". Quite frankly, I thought there was already a consensus, or even a policy on this, but there appears to be some debate on the matter. Can we please get some input, so as to get the story straight?! It can't be one thing one day, and another on another day. Greg Bard ( talk) 16:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Adrianne Wadewitz
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianne Wadewitz

There is an ongoing deletion discussion taking place now about whether or not to have a biographical article about Adrianne Wadewitz on Wikipedia.

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianne Wadewitz.

For those newer to Wikipedia, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Notability.

— Cirt ( talk) 15:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided because this article is listed as being of interest to this project. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Where should I apply for a summer job on Martha's Vineyard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.144.60 ( talk) 19:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Latinos should be merged into/with Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexican-Americans, with a possible compromise name of Wikipedia:WikiProject Hispanic and Latino Americans, as a subproject of WPUSA. i dont know if we could make the Mex Am project a further sub project/task force. I also dont know if it all matters, as both are moribund, as is the portal ive revived. I sure dont know how to do any of this. anyone want to try to revive this at all? Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 05:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Somebody at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Florida listed Florida CDPs which do not yet have articles. Is there a bot which can create those pages? WhisperToMe ( talk) 10:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, there isn't an active bot that can create articles on CDPs. (A similar bot created articles on every place in the 2000 census, but the editor who wrote it hasn't been active in a while.) There's been some discussion at Wikipedia:2010 US Census over the past few years about addressing the new census data, though that page hasn't been active lately either. What's happened in practice is a number of editors have been manually updating everything, including the new CDPs; unfortunately, there haven't been enough people helping to get everything done yet. I'm one of the editors who's been working on new CDPs, on-and-off, so I might start a few of the missing articles. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction• Creation} 23:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, which is ranked by WikiProject United States as an article of "Top-importance", is currently a Featured Article Candidate (FAC). Feedback on the article's candidacy would be greatly appreciated! Please post feedback on the candidacy page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voting Rights Act of 1965/archive1. Please note that FAC reviewers are not required to review or offer feedback on every aspect of an article. Thank you! – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 17:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A discussion has begun in order to gain a consensus on whether to include or exclude material involving the CIA and weapons smuggling in the article. Please weigh in on the discussion at the talk page. This may also be a good time to reassess the rating on the article. Thank you.-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 22:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

An artifact of the way Wikipedia links places to maps that is particularly relevant to counties and similar areas is that Google maps will not show the county (area) boundaries. The standard lat/log link to the Geohack page results in a Google map link to a point rather than the area with a pink boundary representing the border of the county. The map with boundaries is often useful and a link so one did not have to copy/paste would be convenient. Fholson 12:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fholson ( talk • contribs)

I think a lot of unecessary stuff has been added to the article, Sally Banes. Apparently some of the codes have been wrongfully added, though they weren't needed. OccultZone ( Talk) 10:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

In an unusual manner for Wikipedia, the current US Senate campaigns now have extremely extensive (i.e. complete sets) of "hypothetical polling" results (in some cases more than 37K of such data, in addition to up to 12K of normal polls), in addition to each new poll as they come out (that is, one or more new polls each week). I fear this is "data for the sake of data" and that we should restrict such polls, ephemeral as they are, to only covering the most significant ones, and not up to two hundred polls in one article (The NC 2014 one, for example).

Ought there be a uniform standard here as to how much "data" should be placed in a single article? Ought it be restricted to polls of some reasonably major significance? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I propose no guideline but yes, it's like listing decades of daily weather reports in a city article. Jim.henderson ( talk) 01:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm citing this from 1976 (I think it's since been repealed) in an article. It claims to be the Code of Federal Regulations, but appears to be Title 23 of the United States Code. Which is it, and how do I cite it? 23 C.F.R. 661 (1976)? -- NE2 06:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried asking at WP:USRD or WP:LAW ? -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 07:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

USRD has no particular understanding of the law. LAW is a good idea though - I went here because it's the only project template on the talk page. -- NE2 07:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria ( talk) 14:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

See talk:Mexico–United States association football rivalry where it is contended that this article should be called Mexico–United States football rivalry (this uses "football" to mean "soccer") -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 05:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if there's any US v Mexico in (American) football ? -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 05:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The above list, noted as being within this Wikiproject's scope, was a mess. It was overlong, had no sectioning at all, and included many entries that were not, in fact, "wars" at all. I attempted an extensive clean-up, including pruning some obvious non-wars, and creating three sections, at what I thought were fairly logical demarcations of American history: The Revolution, The Civil War, and World War II. If you take a look at the history of the article, you'll see that one user keeps reverting wholesale all of the work I did on the list. At first he did so with a really odd edit summary ("Considering the was no regime change from from the revolution to the Civil war, it doesn't make sense to add borders stating 'From the Revolution to the Civil War'. Had the Confederacy won the civil war, this would be appropriate"), but now he's simply reverting my work on the list without even the barest edit summary, as if I were vandalizing the article or something. I even took out the benign sections that seemed to offend him, but he still reverted sans edit summary. Please take a look at what I've been trying to do, and let me know if I'm far afield in my work. Lithistman ( talk) 13:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Don't be surprised by another editor reverting your massive un-discussed deletions to long standing content. Looking at Category:Wars involving the United States, I see many 'wars' that you seem to be deleting from the list. So the category structure does not support what you are doing. 'War' seems to be very broadly defined here. At the very least, you need to create another list with the items you do not call wars (and get some acceptance from others for the concept and the new name). Then each list must cross reference to the others. We need more/better lists not the simple removal of items from a list. Hmains ( talk) 17:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

  Then the title of the article needs to be changed. A "war" is a very specific thing. Perhaps it should be called "list of military conflicts" or something to that effect. The fact that the list is both overlong and overbroad has been a point of discussion at the talkpage. I simply endeavored to clean it up a bit, and make it more manageable. Did you actually look at the article history? At first, the user seemed to object only to the sections, but in the process of reverting those, he restored all the pruned content. His rationale made almost no sense as well. And finally, why does there need to be a comprehensive list of every single time the United States has been remotely involved (some engagements on the list didn't even involve direct use of the country's military) over its history? Lithistman ( talk) 20:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

One further note: I actually HAVE discussed what I was planning on the talkpage. I did so in a thread that was actually started by you. I incorporated both your suggestion of sectioning, as well as the IP's suggestion of pruning the obvious non-wars from the list. Lithistman ( talk) 21:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I still say: "At the very least, you need to create another list with the items you do not call wars (and get some acceptance from others for the concept and the new name). Then each list must cross reference to the others. We need more/better lists not the simple removal of items from a list." Lists are good. Make them. Hmains ( talk) 01:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not that I do not call them wars, it's that they are, quite objectively, not wars, period. And my focus, for now, is this list, and making it good and accurate. Perhaps UV, the one who for a time insisted on simply reverting the entire pruning (but has now stopped doing so) would be interested in doing so. Lithistman ( talk) 04:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The definition of a "war" depends on who's in the discussion. A constitutional scholar may insist that the term only applies to conflicts involving declarations in compliance with the Constitution. However to someone in the military, except for some legal issues, "war" is largely about whether an organized, identifiable, armed group is trying to kill/capture you. The U.S. continues to be involved in conflicts that look to the person in combat like "war", produce casualties, change boundaries and governments, but will never meet the "declaration" criteria because there is no "state" overtly involved to be the subject of a "declaration".
It is certainly reasonable to identify, categorize, and/or list as a part/subset of the broader wars those which meet a "constitutional declaration".
SBaker43 ( talk) 21:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in reviewing the Major League Soccer good article nomination? The nomination has been pending for more than 100 days. Barryjjoyce ( talk) 19:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Kleargear
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kleargear (2nd nomination)

Discussion about whether or not to delete article for Kleargear, discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kleargear (2nd nomination). — Cirt ( talk) 20:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Per d:Wikidata:Bot_requests#US population, Wikidata soon should start to import demographic data about the United States. I noticed that some articles like Manhattan and Los Angeles County provide the 2013 population figure in the infobox while other give 2010 (2010 is a census, so probably more reliable). We can import both to Wikipdata, but I am wondering, which one should be considered the "preferred" one, that is the one that will be returned by default when someones looks for a simple population figure ? (other years will still be accessible, but it will require a little bit of Lua programming). -- Superzoulou ( talk) 21:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say the official 2010 census data is the preferred one. I believe in 2000 someone had a program that updated all the U.S. articles according to 2000 census data. But when it came to 2010, it just kind of became up to individual editors to update individual pages, which means it's not uniform across Wikipedia. A lot of smaller cities/geographic areas in the U.S. have not been updated since 2000. — Maile ( talk) 21:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks, I hope smaller cities can soon update their data from Wikidata :). -- Superzoulou ( talk) 06:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Freddie Aguilar is also considered a one hit-wonder in the States. Please, correct this information!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JomartheGreat ( talk • contribs) 13:24 23 July 2014

This topic is about a Filipino folk singer and not related to this WP United States. Please address your concerns on the talk page of the article. — Maile ( talk) 13:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Pleas add information about this country to this articles-- Kaiyr ( talk) 13:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

I recently submitted the article Briarcliff Manor, New York to the list of featured article candidates. I am actively following its review, and will be glad to take criticism and advice, and I welcome you to edit the article directly. Would any members of this WikiProject take some time to assist in the article review? Thank you.

Respectfully,
-- ɱ (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Odd spam of some sort in this article.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mayors_of_Mesa,_Arizona — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.154.240 ( talk) 05:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. Thanks. -- Bamyers99 ( talk) 15:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to call to your attention this "discussion" that I have tried to get going on the Top-importance Article "Americans" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Americans#Total_Population_of_Americans

Thank You, an anon ( 70.176.70.213 ( talk) 03:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC))

Would there be any objection to supporting the already commonly used Future class in the WP US template? This is used for articles that are being written about a subject (I assume always an event) that occurs in the near future. I've been informed on the template page that the change to support it is about as simple as it gets. Thoughts? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I also just found an earlier discussion of this. It seems the objection then was that the Future assessment wouldn't get updated on a timely basis -- but that applies to any quality assessment as far as my experience goes. Also, like expressed in that discussion, I think individual projects should get to decide whether they use it. WP US enabling it isn't making any specific project do any particular thing with regards to this class. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the point to FUTURE class, even if it occurs in the future, it still can be rated as stub start etc class (though not GA or FA), so it is more problematic, as it removes quality information. -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 04:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

IMO, FUTURE and LIST should be separated from quality assessment, since they are not quality information, they are type information. The Banner should instead include a "pagetype=" evaluator to indicate the type of page attached (ie. TEMPLATE, LIST, FUTURE, etc); though I know that any such discussion would need to go through WP1.5 or WP2.0 and possibly WPCOUNCIL -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 04:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, I am not seeking opinions on the usefulness or appropriateness of Future-Class. It exists and all I am looking for is support from the project banner. Individual projects can decide if it is useful for their project. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a separate discussion (IMHO), but a pagetype parameter might be a good idea. You're right that WP US cannot decide that on its own. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Stevietheman, I don't know how active WPUS is to discuss supporting this. I see this talk page has over 200 watchers. I wasn't around when this project started up, but I think Kumioko was pretty much the architect of the assessments, and he is no longer active on Wikipedia. Personally, I'm not knowledgeable on the subject matter. I think it would be helpful for others if there were some detail here as to exactly what Future class is. From Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment A topic where details are subject to change often. The article covers a future topic of which no broadcasted version exists so far and all information is subject to change when new information arises from reliable sources. With multiple reliable sources there might be information that contradicts other information in the same or other articles. And for anyone who wants examples of what such articles would be there is Category:Future-Class articles. — Maile ( talk) 13:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've read about the controversies surrounding WP US and WP Louisville never really outright agreed to the merging. It was done just because it was inactive/semi-active around the time of Kumioko's request. Now, I'm working to bring the project back to life, and I would prefer that the project have settings that are widely supported except by this particular banner. As a programmer and one who understands template development fairly well, it wouldn't take much work to conduct an unmerging. But I don't want to do anything that drastic over this specific issue. However, if WP US can't do the simple thing to enable this class, it's not looking good for the future of WP Louisville's inclusion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• You guys know that your template already support Future-class, right? ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 16:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Enlighten us a little more Salvidrim!. I just tried to change an existing WPUS article from a C class to a Future class, and all that did in reality was change the C to question marks. I tried just "F", "Future" and "future"....just questions marks appeared. — Maile ( talk) 16:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked on the template page, and this is really the equivalent of flipping a switch. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My mistake; I was told it was enabled since the Category page had been created, but it has never been added too Template:WikiProject United States/class; however that indeed is no more complicated than "flipping a switch". ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 17:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WOSlinker, you are the last sysop to edit the WPUS template mentioned right above here. You would seem to be a good person to offer some informed assistance here. Please advise if you can enable "Future" class for WPUS and all the individual projects associated with WPUS. If not, please advise on how to proceed on this. — Maile ( talk) 17:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Since there wasn't any objections, I've added it. -- WOSlinker ( talk) 17:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I just tested this on a Texas article, and it works fine. — Maile ( talk) 17:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Support or Oppose Future class in the WP US template

How about opening it up to Support or Oppose, and let anyone interested say so here. — Maile ( talk) 16:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Support - Mostly, because it won't hurt to have the Future class option on the template. It already exists as one option on Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. As described above by Stevietheman, it seems to me to be just an additional assessment option on the WPUS template. Nobody here is obligated to assess anything as any class. We don't exactly have a stampede of volunteers assessing articles anyway. So, let's add the option. — Maile ( talk) 16:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Support - Supporting is the equivalent of flipping a switch and causes no damage to anything, nor does it require any adaptation work by included projects (although if they choose to use it, a new assessment category has to be created for their project, but that's a snap. :) ). This is basically supporting an assessment class that is already widely supported, whether if makes perfect sense on its merits or not. Individual projects can decide to use it or not use it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

 DoneCompleted Per WOSlinker above, the feature was enabled on the template. The word "Future" has to be completely typed out (not case sensitive) when assessing an article as such. — Maile ( talk) 17:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks to you and everyone! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi- This newly-written article is currently a Featured List Candidate. Any constructive comments, feedback, or reviews (positive or otherwise) are welcome. Thanks.-- Godot13 ( talk) 23:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lang-en-US ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 08:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There is an on going discussion in WikiProject Latinos on whether or not WikiProjects Latinos and Mexican-American should be merged WikiProject United States and to be renamed WikiProject Hispanic and Latino Americans. Erick ( talk) 12:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#2011 License revocation. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Asian-American Medal of Honor recipients#Asian American. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the subject city subarticle be moved to Louisville Metro. Please read all the arguments made so far and participate if you have a chance. Thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Affluence in the United States#Good article review request. I think the article has strayed from its purpose, but I may be considered biased. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I found a university that i couldn't find in the list that appear in this ohio universities list from wikipedia. Russ college of engineering and technology. more over there is in this page a list of universities of different areas, but there is no place for the industrial area. Another idea is that it can appear a link, that help people to find and shared information about different questions related with any university in ohio, maybe it is useful for the people who is looking for this type of information. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.11.117.139 ( talk) 11:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I have requested a move from Sabine Pass Light to Sabine Pass Lighthouse. Please weigh in on the request. Otr500 ( talk) 19:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked through the list and did not find J. H. Hardy listed. I found a document on ebay signed by him as Louisiana's secretary of state dated 6/15/1868 in the "92nd" year of our independence. If you google J.H.Hardy Louisiana secretary of state you will also find a reference to him in a NY Times article. Sundoc59 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundoc59 ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Secretary of State of Louisiana#List of Secretaries of State. It makes it easier when you provide the link. I did a quick check and I can find enough to start a stub article at the least.

James Hamilton (J.H.) Hardy was the Louisiana Secretary of State under Governor James Madison Wells. I am not sure what is going on with the list. Hardy was nominated for the office of secretary of state by the Democratic State Convention in New Orleans on October 3, 1865. He was elected November 6, by vote of 20,869 to 4,881. He served until removed from office a short time by General Joseph A. Mower on November 21, 1867. The order was rescinded by General Ulysses S. Grant on November 22, and he was reinstated December 19, 1867, by General Winfield Scott Hancock. This was likely political in nature as Governor Well was removed June 3, 1867, a little over 5 months earlier.

Hardy lost re-election in April 1868 and was removed from office a second time on June 27, 1868, by order of General Robert C. Buchanan. This is referenced here and publications as references "Acts Passed by the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana at the Session of the Second Legislature January 22, 1866 here, in Frence; here, 1867; here, and certified acts concerning "Black codes" in 1865 here.

I assume (yea I know about that) the J.H. could be a throw-off but I have no idea how other (unreferenced) names could be used in his place and he was omitted. Stanislas Wrotnoski (Democratic (Unionist)) 1865-1866 (can not be right) was probably an appointed (the Unionist part) replacement during the time Hardy was removed from office and George E. Bovee (Republican) 1866-1972 was voted in as his successor. I will have to look at this more to see what happened. HOWEVER, the information I am providing is references whereas what is in the article is not. Otr500 ( talk) 07:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Project members are invite to participate to this RfC regarding ceremonial seniority position. There has been a request for closure but there are not yet enough participants to assess consensus. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 02:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please? :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 17:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Participate here /info/en/?search=Talk:Americans#Poll Secondplanet ( talk) 16:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Afghanistan-Iraq War Memorials 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe someone in this project could catch an eye on this new article (Notability & neutrality evaluation). Iselilja ( talk) 07:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Most articles about United States cities list a FIPS 55-3 code in the infobox. However, these codes were withdrawn in 1998. Should we start removing this information from articles? — Stepheng3 ( talk) 16:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Pizza, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

The images from the book State Arms of the Union highlighted in Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876 (a newly featured list) have been nominated as a Featured Picture set. Comments/reviews are welcome through 27 September 2014.-- Godot13 ( talk) 05:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The usage of "Durham" is under discussion, see talk:Durham (disambiguation) -- 65.94.171.225 ( talk) 06:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I am an undergraduate student at Rice University who has decided to revise “Hunger in the United States” in order to raise the article’s status and improve the content. I know the article does not currently have a rating for both quality and importance for this WikiProject, but I hope my work will earn the article a GA rating and draw attention to the fact this article should be of high importance. Hunger in America affects millions of people; therefore, I believe the page should reflect the relevance of this social issue in the United States. Currently, the article as minimal information and does not provide readers a comprehensive view on hunger in the United States.

I plan to edit and modify the current sections as well as add new sections. Overall I want to fact check the page and add more current data. For the existing sections, I want to eliminate “21st century” and “20th century” because both provide historical information that can be organized under the section “History.” Also, I want to reduce the length of the page’s historical portion because I don’t think it should be the predominate feature of the article.

My revision to “Hunger in the United States” will mainly focus on adding new sections that reflect a holistic approach to discussing the topic. I plan to create a “Causes” section that highlights the believed influences or theories for the prevalence of hunger in the country. Also in a new “Effects” section,” I want to include subsections (geographical region, ethnicity, and children) that focus on hunger’s impact on the most affected social groups in the United States. I want to include a “Fighting hunger” section that is broken into two topics, governmental and private. Currently, the article does address the hunger relief options in America, but there is minimal information and the organization is not logical. I feel the topic of hunger relief deserves its own section instead of falling under the “21 century” section. This portion of the page would go in depth on sharing the various current hunger relief options as well as highlight what programs have been the most and least successful. I believe the page would benefit from a “Challenges to alleviating hunger” section that addresses the obstacles in conquering this social issue because the United States continually struggles to eliminate (or severely reduce) hunger. Finally, I think I can easily expand the “See also” and “External links” sections because such a broad topic like hunger connects to countless social issue topics and organizations.

There has been no activity on “Hunger in the United States” Talk Page and I know the page has not been of importance to this WikiProject, but I do believe this page needs editing. Do you all feel this is the right approach to revising the page? I feel I am proposing a neutral and logical proposal but if anyone sees any potential obstacles or issues with my plan please let me know. I am open to all suggestions, so please share with me your thoughts and any feedback. MBouchein ( talk) 23:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the usage of "American Landrace" is up for discussion, see Talk:Dutch Landrace -- 65.94.171.225 ( talk) 06:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear United States experts: I am not sure which more specific project might be interested in this. This old AfC submission has a slightly different title from the mainspace article. Google give far more hits for the title in the draft than for the title in mainspace. Are these really the same topic? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The RFC is here: Talk:2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq#RFC:_Military_intervention_against_ISIS_2014_in_Iraq Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 03:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm proposing the above as preferred terms of reference as a friend from the UK and based on the following:

1. Enemies of the United States typically refer to the nation as America.
2. The United States only constitutes one of many countries in the Americas and only about one third of the total population.
3. Amerigo Vespucci was and explorer of South America and the West Indies.
4. Hawaii is arguably better defined as constituting a part of the United States rather than as representing a part of America.
5. The primary reference to the country and is the United States. This is fairly well represented through many of the categories and articles connected to Category:Government in the United States and I would personally propose that this reference may be beneficially applied in other topics as per support from WP:UCRN.
6. The term "United States" conveys a message of unity in specific ownership of a single nation while 50 countries across two continents share the roots of "American" terminologies.
   

Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My article submission Regiment of Riflemen (United States) was accepted last night and assigned to this WikiProject. It's rated as a C-Class and I'd like to see it get the tender loving care to make it up to B-Class. I'll also be asking Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to adopt and review the effort. Thanks.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My name is Anita Torres and I personally tending to Tricia Aguirre's (Arise) Wikipedia page. I'm having a music video still of her from 2011 uploaded as well as finding more information/reliable sources on her daily. It's a fairly new page. Bottom Line:Her page needs to be left alone and NOT deleted. Having a Wikipedia page is a tremendous accomplishment for her as well as an honour. More information will be added as soon as possible. Please leave her page alone. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anita maria torres ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Would the "|listas=" parameter in WP:United States, interfere/conflict with the one in WP:Biography? Adamdaley ( talk) 22:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe so - the template documentation notes that it |listas= is not required if it is already present in a different template. It would also similarly conflict with DEFAULTSORT: I don't know if the first instance or the last would be the one that ends up "winning", though. –  Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 02:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Before making a bot approval request, I would like to inform everyone about the Hispanic and Latino Americans task force being revived as a task force for this project. I need to know if anyone objects to me making a bot request to update all the previous Latinos project banner to the Hispanic and Latino Americans task force as it is now part of this project. In regards, Erick ( talk) 03:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Affluence in the United States, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 18:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

According to the writer Ann Bausum speaking on WORT-FM community radio in Madison, WI on Oct. 15, 2014, the Sewall-Belmont house was not simply "deliberately saved." When Bausum was a girl her father was living in the house while teaching in a college there. When Bausum and her mother visited one time, he introduced them to the elderly Alice Paul who, instead of talking about her past, spoke about her present challenge. This challenge was a fight with a Congressional attempt to condemn the house to build the Hart Building. As Bausum tells it, the house's continued existence as a museum at one corner is a result of Alice Paul's immovability in the face of Congressional Power. (Stephen Mikesell, Madison WI) Singing Coyote ( talk) 18:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. — Cirt ( talk) 22:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject United States articles that would be affected by this action are these:

• Chuck E. Cheese's
• Matt Harding
• Id Software
• Nintendo

If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject United States' use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. - Thibbs ( talk) 15:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Several editors are arguing over what the first line of African American should consist of. As per custom, the first line is the definition. See the discussion at:

/info/en/?search=Talk:African_American#Antebellum.3F

Thanks. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 22:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated an article relevant to this project for WP:TFAR consideration, discussion at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/George B. McClellan. — Cirt ( talk) 20:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day all, Ulysses S. Grant, an article that may be of interest to your project, is currently undergoing a Military History project A-class review. A few more editors are needed to help review article, so I would like to invite participants from the US project to participate. The review can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ulysses S. Grant; please stop by and help review the article! Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:African American#Straw poll. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have created a new article on admission of states to the Union. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The usage of Worcester is under discussion, see Talk:Worcester -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 04:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Pizza, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

There has been a discussion at Talk:United States#Area in square miles —sorry, in a wall of three sections — whether to use the U.S. Census Bureau “State and other areas” which uses the MAF/TIGER database, shared by the USGS and Homeland Security. The first box on the first line reports 3,805,927 sq.mi. for the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas”. Some editors would like to see the figure of “50 states and DC” alone, which is available in a sub-chart.

In trying to find a resolution, I proposed a “Poll for two alternatives”, for reporting the total U.S. area in the info box.

• A. Report area including territories, footnote 50 states and DC area.

• B. Report 50 states and DC area, footnote area including territories.

The results are two A., three B, although one of the Bs says either way, and one of the Bs may be saying no footnote. Any comments are welcome. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 12:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

As you might have seen in the Signpost this week, there's currently a drive to go through the million 19th century images released by the British Library last year, and identify all the maps (and ground plans), with a view to their being georeferenced by BL volunteers, and then uploaded to Commons early next year. As I'm writing, over 5700 new maps have been identified, with 30.2% of the target books looked at -- but see the status page for the latest figures, and more information.

Some parts that may specifically interest this project are

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Synoptic index, USA

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Synoptic index/to do/United States

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Synoptic index/to do/United States history

The first page contains Flickr book page links for books that have largely been broken down by state; the remaining two overspill pages contain links for further books arranged chronologically.

Currently the central status page shows 866, 359 and 233 pink templated links for each of these respectively -- ie Flickr book pages still to be looked at. (Though there are lots of other parts the world still to be looked through as well).

Any help looking through these would be very much appreciated -- as well as the maps (and ground plans) for tagging, which is what it would be particularly good to achieve this week, you may well also find other interesting or useful non-map views that may be worth considering or uploading for articles on different places throughout the country.

Please also feel free to filter this message down to more local projects that may be interested. Thanks, Jheald ( talk) 21:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Many of the articles on the November 4 election need to be updated. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on talk:drone attacks in Pakistan. Uhlan ^talk 20:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

What was Mr. Surma's role, if any, in the now controversial NCAA sanctions imposed on Penn State, and the firing of Joseph Vincent Paterno - which even PA Governor Corbett - a voting member of the BOT at the time - has tried to distance himself from?

68.37.181.181 ( talk) 21:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Admission to the Union now has these sections:

1 The process of admission

2 Formation of states within the boundaries of existing states

3 Anticipated admission of new states under the Articles of Confederation

4 See also

5 Notes and references

There's still an immense amount on law and politics and history that is not there. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the template be caled {{ Protected areas of the United States}}? As far as can tell, these places are called "protected areas", not "Protected Areas"; and we don't capitalize page titles here except for the first word. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Several or many articles are part of the Wikiproject United States that are about politicians and their political positions.

In Wikipedia, we do not allow companies to self promote themselves by advertising their products. Likewise, politicians should not be allowed the same.

Listing of political positions is inappropriate for a number of reasons.

1. Any list can constitute original research, prohibited by Wikipedia.
2. Political positions are excerpts from material originating from the politician. It generally is not allowed to have political commentary regarding these positions. For example, some politician may actually have no opinion or desire for abortion or limiting abortion so listing a political position based on an statement made as a formality is inappropriate.

One example is President Obama's handling of Keystone XL, the pipeline. It is generally acknowledged that he is delaying it so as not to make one of two of his constituencies mad. The environmentalist oppose it. Union members want it. Yet, such an analysis would never be allowed on Wikipedia. Instead, his political position would be continued study, which portrays the situation inaccurately.

I move to disallow political positions for any WP:USA article. Eating Glass Is Bad ( talk) 20:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@ Eating Glass Is Bad:Any reason to limit this to the US? It seems to me to be equally applicable to politicians of any country; I'd recommend a wider discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You are correct but political positions sections are most common in articles of American politicians. Let's start somewhere. Eating Glass Is Bad ( talk) 21:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, editors should make sure that all articles about politicians cover their positions on major issues. Rjensen ( talk) 20:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Then the problem becomes what is a position taken just for show and what are the person's real political positions. If that gets started then the next logical step would be an editorial section, which is really outside of Wikipedia custom.

For the sake of equal coverage, let's take two example, one from each major political party. Some Republican politicians don't care too much about the gun issue so their real position is that they don't care. However, the party makes them release lukewarm opposition to gun control. Some Democrats are in favor of Keystone XL but they don't want to make President Obama mad so they don't say much.

Let's look at Harry Reid's article. It is original research to pick and choose positions. How about Senator Reid's position on immigration? How about gun control? How about Cuba relations? How about his position for free birth control pills but not free MRIs to detect lung cancer? Do we let the media choose which positions to report? Should 10 media reports be present before it can be reported or one is enough?

See, big can of worms. If the position is so prominent that it becomes a major section of his/her biography, then there can be a section about those events. However, if it is just a press release, then it is advertising as we don't allow corporate press releases to dictate Wikipedia article contents. Eating Glass Is Bad ( talk) 21:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• So, you want Wikipedia's articles on POLITICIANS to actively exclude any of their POLITICAL positions? That makes no practical sense at all. LHM ^{ask me a question} 23:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Eating Glass Is Bad: According to WP:NOTADVERTISING, "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for [a]dvocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Thus, so long as material on political positions is written objectively, it is not considered "advertising". Moreover, your assertion that "It is original research to pick and choose positions" is a mischaracterization of the term "original research", which per WP:OR "refer[s] to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." If a politician's positions are verifiable in reliable, published sources, then they are not original research. As to your underlying concern about Wikipedia "picking and choosing" positions to include in articles, which political positions to include—like any other material–is governed by Wikipedia's NPOV policies on Due and undue weight (specifically WP:BALASPS, in this case). If many reliable sources exist discussing a politician's views on gun control, few such sources exist discussing that politician's views on the environment, and almost no such sources exist discussing that politician's views on abortion, then material on Wikipedia discussing those views should roughly match that breakdown: a fair amount of material on the politician's gun control views, a small amount of material on the politician's environmental views, and little to no material on the politician's abortion views. Some Wikipedia articles may not achieve that balance, but the solution is to fix the material, not delete it. So long as Wikipedia's policies are being observed, there's no reason for political positions to be removed from this encyclopedia. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 00:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

So perhaps this should be done objectively? For politicians of the present time and those who worked within the last 20 years, there must be 10 citations to support an inclusion to Wikipedia's political positions. If they voiced an opinion, then it should be counted. Of course, that will create an edit war or intimidation against editors. Vice President Biden's political position on the flu was to stay away from planes, trains, and buses. This was widely reported. Yet write that and you will incur the wrath of the Biden followers on WP. (Actually, Biden is a funny guy....I love that "stay away from trains and planes" advice Eating Glass Is Bad ( talk) 18:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no requirement (or need for a requirement) that an arbitrary number of sources must support material for it to be included. Looking to WP:UNDUE and other policies for guidance and having deliberative discussions to reach consensus should be sufficient. Politically charged topics may always raise suspicions of political bias among editors (especially if consensus emerges that conflicts with your own view), but remember to assume good faith. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 19:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@ User:Eating Glass Is Bad: You are considering this from the wrong perspective. Instead of considering it from an advertising standpoint, consider it from a historical one instead. What history book would not cover the political positions of a politician it covered? What encyclopedic entry on Chamberlain or Churchill wouldn't cover the positions they took on, say, the war in Europe? Then consider that Wikipedia is one of those works - we should cover historians from an appropriate perspective - and if it is often "current" or recent history that is covered, well, we can't help that. Probably the lists and sections will need to be adjusted as a better historical perspective is achieved. But since Wikipedia is not finished, that's a problem we can deal with. –  Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 20:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The article titled Admission to the Union -- concerning the admission of new states beyond the original 13 states -- has evolved further since I first mentioned it here, but it is still less than complete. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it in a few days - maybe add some information regarding border disputes (the example I'm familiar with is the Honey War) to it. –  Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 03:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

In an instance where a place name is mentioned (i.e. Dayton, Ohio), should " US" or " United States" also be mentioned? This would result in "[Dayton, Ohio|Dayton]], Ohio, US" instead. Also what's the preferred usage, "United States" spelled out, or just "US"?-- Prisencolinensinainciusol ( talk) 21:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

What does WP:MOS say? In what context would this location long form be used?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 06:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The MOS would indicate that "US" can be used even on first/only mentions in the text, but unless the any of the other items are going to be abbreviated ("Dayton, OH, US"), it just looks wrong to shorten the country name alone ("Dayton, Ohio, US").

If the context of the city being in the United States isn't established in other ways, there are other ways to give that context. Things like "Dayton, Ohio, in the United States", or even "the American city of Dayton, Ohio". Personally, I would no longer pipe the links so that the state could be linked. Direct the readers to the most-specific link and don't link less-specific items. It also prevents a "blue river of links" from forming. In other words, if you needed to list all three jurisdictions, " Dayton, Ohio, United States" is my preference, but there are ways to avoid stringing all three together. Imzadi 1979  → 06:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:USPLACE says that "United States" being listed as a third jurisdition, should not be included if absolutely necessary. The context of my question is the inclusion of United States when indicating the location of a school like is included in this old article revision. @ Imzadi1979: Are there even any sitations where this would be needed? I know the BBC uses this usage a lot and I've used it sporatically as a way to globalize the wiki.-- Prisencolinensinainciusol ( talk) 00:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

In short, it should almost never be necessary to run all three jurisdictions together because we can add other contextual clues to the prose. I agree that it is a good idea to make sure a reader knows that a topic is located in the US for globalization reasons; many readers may not know that "Ohio" is a US state any more than many Americans may recognize "Victoria" as an Australian state or "Uttar Pradesh" as in India. The triple-jurisdiction construction is awkward, so I agree with the quoted guideline and would favor inserting other clues in the prose. Imzadi 1979  → 00:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Stongly disagree. Wikipedia is a worldwide site. How would you like to see an article about the ___ neighborhood which read, "___ is a neighborhood in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais." Huh, where the (expletive) is Minas Gerais? Maybe the Republic of Gerais? No! I once met a foreigner who heard of New York, Texas, and California but didn't know other states. Seeing "Minot, ND" or "Des Moines, IA" or "Atlanta, GA" would be as helpful as "Tulonwma, Mantiloca" (made up name). USA or United States should be required. Eating Glass Is Bad ( talk) 16:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Prefered is "USA". "US" is very much a usage in the United States. If not USA, then United States. Just because you, the reader, thinks "Dayton, Ohio, USA" is strange is only because it is not used in the U.S. much. However, it's used overseas a whole lot. Similarly, you see "Singapore, Singapore" a lot but that is just uninformed writers who assume it is always city, country, like "Paris, France". Eating Glass Is Bad ( talk) 16:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@ Eating Glass Is Bad: you totally misread my last comments. I support some mention of the United States, but I don't support "Dayton, Ohio, United States" if we can reword it to avoid that triple-jurisdiction construction, for example "the American city of Dayton, Ohio" or "Dayton Ohio, in the United States". As for "USA", the MOS actually says not to use that except in direct quotes or proper names, like "Team USA" at the Olympics. Also, we should not be combining abbreviated forms ("US") with unabbreviated ones ("Ohio") for consistency; either abbreviate both or neither ("Dayton, Ohio, United States" or "Dayton, OH, US"). Imzadi 1979  → 22:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There is an Request for Comments in process at Talk: United States concerning the scope of area and population figures for the United States. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel

I've started a new article on the book by Janice Dickinson — No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel.

Feel free to help out with additional secondary sources, and/or chip in with collaborative discussion at Talk:No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel.

Thank you, — Cirt ( talk) 06:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 ( talk) 05:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a Request for Comments at Talk: Bath School bombings concerning how the article should be named. Shearonink ( talk) 07:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. I'd like to invite interested editors to help clear out the backlog of thousands of uncategorized files at Media from the National Archives and Records Administration needing categories. The subjects range from military to political to agriculture and more, and proper categorization into multiple categories aids Wikipedia editors and the general public in finding appropriate media. Categorizing media works much like categorizing Wikipedia articles, although can be more specific (e.g. a black and white photograph of a female politician could be categorized under "Politicians from Maine" as well as "Black and white photographs of seated women facing left"), and like Wikipedia categorization, the most specific relevant categories should be used. More specific subsets of the National Archives images can be viewed at National Archives and Records Administration/Categorize. There are tools such as Cat-a-lot to help facilitate the categorization of large amounts of files. Cheers! --Animalparty-- ( talk) 21:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated Selena for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure about this article. It has problems that I cannot describe. I'm hoping that you can get involved and clean it up. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that for awhile, too, but I have no idea where to start. It is also noted to be of low importance on the Wikiproject's importance scale. Given that it was the impetus for the removal of one of the most powerful men in the world from his office, I would think it would be of high or top importance. - Location ( talk) 07:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Demographics of Filipino Americans#USVI. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Details can be found here: Talk:Texas Revolution — Maile ( talk) 16:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The name of the article Chrysler is under discussion, see talk:Chrysler -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 05:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Starting in 1919, President Woodrow Wilson asked his Vice President ("VPOTUS"), Thomas R. Marshall, to sit in on his cabinet. This is believed to be the first instance of a VPOTUS being considered at least minimally as part of a President's cabinet. Until recently, all VPOTUS were included in the cabinet navboxes. I recently took them out, but now I realize perhaps I should have had a discussion of the changes first. Please add your comments here. Thanks! — GoldRingChip 15:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa ( talk) 22:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of red-linked categories relating to populated places in America, e.g. Category:Unincorporated communities in Estill County, Kentucky. I propose to create some of these over the next few days, if there are no objections. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 22:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC).
22:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on Talk:PhinDeli Town Buford, Wyoming#Name change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utcursch ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If you know anything about this, please see my question at Talk:William Wiswesser and help there. Thanks. Pam D 18:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was in Canon City several years ago and at that time the buildings at Buckskin Joe were being removed and I was told they had been purchased by a gentleman from Eagle County, Colorado and were being moved there to his property. That was from one of the men working on the move. So the location information of Tabor's Store has probably changed. 174.24.104.240 ( talk) 05:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Mary A Best, Leadville, CO

I'd like to gain the communities attention to the Homeless veterans in the United States. It is in very poor shape for a subject which has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I hope others can help me improve this article. Thanks in advance for your time and effort.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an Rfc on mustang/Mustang capitalization going on at Talk:Mustang#Capitalization_RfC where we would be grateful for input. This project is listed on the article talk page. Thanks. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 11:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC going on at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Please comment. Kraxler ( talk) 15:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

United States has been nominated for Good article status and a review has been carried out. Interested editors are invited to assist with improving the article to the comments at Talk:United States/GA2. After these fixes have been made it will pass and become a Good article once again. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discourse) @ 09:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This nomination has now passed; United States is a Good article. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 21:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:Battle of Abu Ghraib#Future for this article. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 05:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case#Removal of an RS. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 04:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–14)#Propose merger. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

template:Electronics industry in the United States has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.40.137 ( talk) 11:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I write on behalf of my employer who is venturing into a new construction aspect - that of metal and steel construction. I am asked to research publications in which the company can advertise such services. The company in which my employer is partnering is located in Midwestern USA and is a manufacturer of metal and steel structures. Can someone respond to me at my email [ggaetano@ipqconstruction.org] with names of publications I can research and inquire advertising? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.253.178.61 ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 30 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTADVERTISEMENT, and WP:COI.

That being said this company might qualify for an article if it meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP notability guidelines. If so an article should be written using reliable sources that are non-primary, and in a neutral style that does not lead it towards reading like an advertisement.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really that sort of service, it's an online encyclopedia, not an advertising agency. You're asking for people to research for outlets for you to advertise in, that would be something for an ad agency to do. And this type of question isn't for Wikipedia either, try "Yahoo! Answers" or "Ask Jeeves" or "Ask.com" to ask that your questions. -- 65.94.40.137 ( talk) 06:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new at WP and just noticed incorrect info and a bad citation at /info/en/?search=Arizona_Superior_Court

Justice court has in fact jurisdiction of cases over property cases for less than $10,000 and I've seen many forcible entry and detainer actions in justice court. There's also a bad link in Ref. 1 "Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts. Retrieved 22 June 2014."

Hope I'm in the right place here, this sure is confusing. How can this be fixed? ChristineBaker1 ( talk) 02:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This can either be discussed on the talk page of the article of the page in question, or fielded at an appropriate Wikiproject per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification. That being said regarding this question it appears that the information is almost a direct copy from the first source. The first source appears to be a primary source and likely is a reliable source; that being said the section verified by this source might fall under WP:COPYVIO.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

And a clarification, the info isn't incorrect per se, but misleading and I think there need to be a link to AZ justice court so readers can see which cases must be filed in justice court. The second link in Ref 1 goes to "Creating Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts" - a page not yet created. ChristineBaker1 ( talk) 02:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTHOWTO.

Also is this the page the above editor is referring to?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Im a 45 year old man who use to race and due freestyle tricks as a kid. I am interested in opening up another track here in cadillac michigan and would like information regarding the same TerryTattoos ( talk) 18:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please address this question at WP:RD, and please read WP:NOTHOWTO.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 06:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Central Asian American has been nominated for merging with Template:Middle Eastern American. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 04:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

the meaning and usage of Ontario, CA is under discussion -- 70.51.200.101 ( talk) 06:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.12.176.103 ( talk) 08:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States#National March. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 07:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 07:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't like this list at all. I would prefer a list that includes only segments of the river that are either in or the border of the selected state for the list of longest rivers in each state. For example, the Kentucky section of this article starts with the Mississippi. This makes no sense because the Kentucky segment of this river is very short; it's simply the Missouri-Kentucky state line. (It is defined as the segment of the Mississippi River that is either in Kentucky or a state line where one of the states is Kentucky.) The Kentucky segment of the Ohio River is much longer. Any thoughts on what kind of state-specific river list would make sense?? Georgia guy ( talk) 17:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps there should be two articles - a List of longest rivers in the United States by state and a List of longest rivers in United States states, though I can't think of any title that would be both non-ambiguous and short ( List of longest rivers in the United States by state they pass through or List of longest rivers in United States sates by length within the state would be unfortunate names, imho). –  Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 00:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

List of rivers not in the state they form a border of would be short. Collect ( talk) 00:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It would, but wouldn't address the issue of long rivers that go through a state without forming the state's border. –  Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 00:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I am a student from Rice University in Houston, Texas, and I am looking forward to extensively editing the page on Affirmative action in the United States as part of a Wikipedia project for my Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities class. I would like to revise the current page and bring it to a "Good Rating" by adding new information, restructuring the article, and condensing current information. The page lacks a clear definition of affirmative action and needs more support in its arguments for and against affirmative action in the United States. The banner on the page lists multiple issues such as the need for the verification of sources. I would like to condense current information on the current page and add new sections/topics that help to create a more cohesive and encyclopedic entry on affirmative action in the United States.

I would appreciate any input in deleting and restructuring information on the page. I would like any advice on approaching the topic of editing the page and would be more than welcome to any feedback since this is only my second time working with Wikipedia. Please let me know if there are any questions, comments, or concerns before I start my project and edit the page.

Dwang41 ( talk) 06:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be one of these for every state. The two I sampled, Indiana and Louisiana, were over 95% redlinks. Why have them? John from Idegon ( talk) 07:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say there's a simple solution, that being to remove the redlinks. It's become plainly obvious the past 4–5 years that we've gotten farther and farther away from the notion of notability within an article's context. Regardless, acting as if we don't need to acknowledge the existence of something merely because no one has bothered to write an article about it leads Wikipedia further in the direction of being more a work of fiction than an encyclopedic information resource. Large portions of the encyclopedia have obvious enough credibility issues as it is. Lists in particular suffer from this problem, as many have been structured as more-or-less indiscriminate collections of links which impart no real information. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Please show link for articles you are referring to: List of law enforcement agencies in Louisiana and List of law enforcement agencies in Indiana. You might also add related [Category:Lists of United States law enforcement agencies]], [Category:Law enforcement agencies of Louisiana]] and [Category:Law enforcement agencies of Indiana]] so readers here can have a better idea of the overall scope. — Maile ( talk) 13:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I just nominated a 7 man police department in Louisiana for deletion. The article had been here for seven years and had less than a hundred edits, the last over two years ago. Its exactly what you'd expect it to be - nothing. A couple weeks ago, I nominated a volunteer fire department in Maryland that I could not find one single newspaper story on. Can we create a notability standard for public safety agencies? Also, see related discussion below. John from Idegon ( talk) 07:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It's helpful if you post the link for Morganza Police Department (Louisiana) and/or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morganza Police Department (Louisiana), so interested persons can find what you are referring to. — Maile ( talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I was editing from my cheapo phone which won't cut and paste. Thanks. The fire department is White Marsh Volunteer Fire Company and its deletion discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Marsh Volunteer Fire Company. My question absolutely does not concern those individual articles. It concerns the topic as a whole. John from Idegon ( talk) 18:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

AFD is a large, clumsy gun, better used for shooting bigger game than these pesky varmints. Year and a half ago I took care of New Rochelle Police Department with less fuss. Suggested a merger on the talk page, waited a day, put a non directional merge flag on the article, waited, flagged the municipality's parental article, waited, directionalized the flags with waits between, and finally merged it. I've done it a few times over the years, in cases such as some local fire company in Nassau County, New York; don't care to remember them all. Normally nobody objects in a week. When they do and are not easily persuaded, that's when to kick it up to AFD or, in my case, to give up and put my time into easier improvements. Jim.henderson ( talk) 10:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The naming of "Cougar" (should it be "Puma"?) is under discussion, see talk:Cougar -- 70.51.200.101 ( talk) 08:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated History of the Grand Canyon area for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan ( talk) 10:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated 1996 United States campaign finance controversy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 21#Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–14). Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that the is no credit given to Cold River Bridges LLC. For being the company that rebuilt this bridge after damage from Irene, and that it was completed in record time. Also there is no mention of the fact that it is presumably the longest single-spanning covered bridge (without piers) in the country, there are lots of interesting details about the daunting task of completing the project in such a short time, as well as some rather interesting details about the techniques/strategies that were pioneered by this company specifically for this project. 24.63.233.128 ( talk) 16:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTADVERT & WP:VER.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 09:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The primary topic of "Indian Chief" is under discussion, see Talk:Indian Chief (motorcycle) -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 05:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:REFUND where many New Jersey redirects such as {{ NJ-stub}} are under discussion -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 03:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, I just wanted to let everyone know there is now an IRC channel for WikiProject United States and related topics. The channel can be found at #WikiProject-United-States ^connect if anyone is interested. 96.255.237.170 ( talk) 21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi editors and contributors: There is currently a proposed WikiProject which would focus on the United States Constitution. If you want to support the creation of this WikiProject, or want to join it when it is created, please voice your opinion, comments and suggestions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/United States Constitution. Thank you! CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think there is much need for such a project. The scope is so small no more than a couple hundred articles would be affected, they are already covered in multiple other projects and most importantly there are already too many dead US related projects now IMO. 96.255.237.170 ( talk) 21:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

At least you responded to my inquire, Thank you CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I don't edit much anymore...too much drama on this site and not enough people wanting to build an encyclopedia. Case in point, they banned the person that was most active on keeping this project and most of the other US project running because he thought editors should be treated fairly and admins should be accountable when they intentionally misuse the admin tools. This project has been basically dead ever since and thousands of edits not getting done a month. Its really pretty sad. 96.255.237.170 ( talk) 21:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a problem 96.255.237.170! And talking about drama: Yes there can be drama, but editors like you and me need to keep Wikipedia as a encyclopedia, not gossiping on talk pages. This is not an appropriate place to talk about our personal experience with Wikipedia, so you may post on my talk page to continue this conversation. Also, you have many block logs. Is that why you said you think administrators abuse power? Talk to me if you need somebody to talk to. Back on subject: Yes, I think some WikiProjects have been dead recently, but this project I am proposing will be ran by only people who are active and kind people. I also will run the project, since I am active a lot. If you feel free to change your mind about not supporting this new wiki project, feel free to do so. Cheers! CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Korean American#Requested move 11 March 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Would someone mind adding the census information to Dove Valley, Colorado? Thanks WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"Cheyenne Mountain Complex" has been proposed to be merged into Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station; for the discussion, see talk:Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 01:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Indian American in infobox. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Spike Lee filmography is a FL and is currently under review here due to having reference issues along with navigation issues, if anyone would like to comment. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

On going discussion on conformity of President biographies. Please add your thoughts. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 22:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Interested project members are welcome to join WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to Hillary Rodham Clinton. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 18:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Another Believer:. I noticed you don't have a template or anything yet. Are you planning on creating a new template for that project or simply adding it as a supported project of WPUS. Let me know and I can help you implement whatever change you want. May I also suggest getting a list of articles together that should be included, you might also want to drop a note on WikiProject Feminism if you haven't already, there are likely some individuals such as Missvain that may be interested in this as well. I could see this being a good way of improving a lot of articles in in the next few months while her campaign is going on as well as allowing better visibility of vandals and manipulation. 96.255.237.170 ( talk) 21:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I was planning to start creating templates, article lists, banners, etc. over time, but was going to see what other project members might be interested in working on first. I would most certainly welcome any assistance re: WikiProject structure, templates, banners, etc. I also posted a note at WikiProject X inviting participants to use WP:HRC as a pilot for any new tools they may be working on, especially since this is a brand new project. I will be sure to notify WP:Feminism as well. Thanks for the suggestions! --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 22:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Its about time to go night night where I am so I'll draft out the template tomorrow and post it tomorrow evening when I get home from work unless someone beats me to it. If you check out the Members tab of this project you'll see a couple bots listed that might be useful. Also, once the project is created there are only a couple bots left that can do WikiPrject anner tagging and that's Anomiebot by Anomie and Yobot by Magioladitis. One of them may be willing to do a run once you refine the list of articles...if needed. Like I said, worst case scenario, even if this project doesn't gain steam, it will be a good way to monitor the article set while the campaign is going on. I envision a lot of vandalism and shenanigans. 96.255.237.170 ( talk) 02:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Another Believer: sorry it took so long but I dropped the code for your Wikiproject template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton. I tried to create the template but it wouldn't let me as an IP. Its just a basic outline and there is a lot that could be added but that should be enough to get started. There are still a few pages that need to be created but the red links on the template should lead you there. Please let me know if you need anything else. At least until someone blocks me for being an IP. 96.255.237.170 ( talk) 00:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Good luck to those involved in this endeavor, may I remind those participating of WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:BALANCE, and WP:NEU.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is advocating doing something like that, but I do think this would be a good way to keep an eye on related articles. She has been affiliated with some controversial stuff so its bound to attract spammers, trolls and vandals not to mention the likely opposing politician. 96.255.237.170 ( talk) 00:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States#Trends in local vs global inequality. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request‎ to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided because this article is listed as being of interest to this project. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock has been submitted for peer review in preparation for a run at featured article. If you are interested, please go the the peer review page and help out. Thanks, GregJackP  Boomer! 19:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Need someone to check John Coleman (news weathercaster), usually it is long term disrupted by socks of Sonic2030. Discussion can be found here. I find it clearer that the American Meteorological Society's position on global warming has no bearing on John Coleman's position on the issue and keeping this sentence at the end of this section makes the article appear polemical, as said by one other editor before. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Cambodian American in infobox. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a move request at Talk:Epping (disambiguation) that members of this project may be interested in. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 14:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As the nom in the TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_3 noted, without a main article, it is difficult to prove this is not a NPOV OR. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the theory is that it got all the land just to harvest poop. Which I believe is true. As my teacher found it out himself. Does anyone else have the same thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sege 510 ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The former Spanish territories were acquired primarily for their sugar production (Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Philippines, Guam) or for their extremely good harbors for use as coaling stations before ships converted to diesel then atomic power. American Samoa chose to be a U.S. territory over Germany or Britain. Cuba (Guantanamo Bay) and the Philippines (Subic Bay) were granted independence. U.S. Virgin Islands was purchased from Denmark, Northern Mariana Islands were acquired in political union following U.N. trusteeship from the Japanese.

Looking at a map, you can see that in the Pacific, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and American Samoa lie in an arc to the west of Hawaii. Marshall Island now has a military base as a listening post. At the eastern reaches of the Caribbean Sea, U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are located at the sea lanes approaching the Gulf of Mexico. No longer aliens, the 4 million islanders are classified as native-born Americans by the Census, they are U.S. citizens except the 55,000 U.S. nationals on American Samoa. They have protections of U.S. District Courts, no longer military tribunals. They all participate in regional and international trade, benefit from development programs sponsored by Congress, and their governors participate in the U.S. governors association.

They have elective self governance, no longer military governors appointed by the U.S. president. They have elective delegate Members of Congress who do not vote as state Representatives, but they have floor privileges and vote in committee, party caucus and make military academy appointments -- more privileges than the territorial delegates of Alaska and Hawaii before their statehood. Territorial residents do not vote for president. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 18:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@ TheVirginiaHistorian: You're a saint for giving this person a serious answer. Well done Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Just because the territories are not on the state end-of-course exam, that does not excuse the snide response from a lazy teacher -- although -- if the teacher said most of the uninhabited islets and atolls were acquired for guano fertilizer (bird poop), he would have been correct. It's hard to tell sometimes if the kids are listening...you cannot guarantee the take-away for lunch period when the kids share "lessons learned today". TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 10:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Depends on what majority. The majority of land, no, but the majority of islands are small and were acquired under the Guano Islands Act. After the Haber process became widespread, those islands returned to their former unimportance, but who knows; somehow, some day, they may turn out to be useful. Jim.henderson ( talk) 10:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Virginia exists, but doesn't seem to be referenced on the Members list page for WP United States. What's the reason for this? -- Mysterious Gopher ( talk), 22:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, some US related projects opted to use...or continue to use, their own WikiProject banner. Others such as Texas, Utah and Washington opted to use the one for WikiProject United States. It appears the Members list is the same. The ones on the members list here are the ones that use the WPUS banner. Since WikiProject Virginia doesn't, they have their own members list. I hope that helps. Giraffasaurus ( talk) 23:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

There was a very big brouhaha a few years ago, when someone tried to unify all the state and local wikiprojects under WPUSA, which didn't go well. Many people complained about not being consulted, and not wanting to be directed by a different wikiproject; so those that didn't want to be unified or included under the WPUSA banner are now not so enabled. -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 03:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

How do I add myself to one of the list of members? Nick2crosby ( talk) 19:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Click on the Members tab at the top of this page. — Maile ( talk) 19:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Walt Disney Company to be moved to Disney. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Boston Molasses Disaster to be moved to Great Molasses Flood. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Phylicia Rashād to be moved to Phylicia Rashad. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Potomac Avenue station to be moved to Potomac Avenue Station. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for City Hall Security to be moved to City Hall Security (Boston). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wawona to be moved to Wawona (ship). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for University Link extension to be moved to University Link Extension. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Fayetteville–Springdale–Rogers metropolitan area to be moved to Northwest Arkansas. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Squantum (Quincy, Massachusetts) to be moved to Squantum, Massachusetts. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for City of Boston Archives to be moved to Boston City Archives. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hard Scrabble to be moved to Hard Scrabble and Snow Town. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of youngest members of the United States Congress to be moved to Lists of the youngest members of the United States Congress. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for American mahjong to be moved to American Mah Jongg. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Josh Bell (outfielder) to be moved to Josh Bell (first baseman). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Sam H. Harris (producer) to be moved to Sam H. Harris. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Boston Marathon bombings to be moved to Boston Marathon bombing. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Justin Brown (wide receiver) to be moved to Justin Brown. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for State of Florida v. George Zimmerman to be moved to State v. Zimmerman. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Gods of Egypt (film) to be moved to Gods of Egypt. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for BBCN to be moved to BBCN Bancorp Inc.. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Kevin O'Malley to be moved to Kevin F. O'Malley. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#one of the most influential. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Definitely notable, could anyone assess this submission's quality? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

My name is Betty Sayers and I was born and raised in Summerfield, La. on a farm with now electricity, gas or running water. My children ask me to write about my childhood growing up during a time that will never be again. I have written all the fact but I need help filling in the details. I would love to have someone read what I have written and maybe help me. I am a senior living on my SS check each month. Can you help?

Thanking you in advance for your time and consideration.

Betty Sayers bettysayers06@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.193.41.228 ( talk) 22:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm writing to ask members of this WikiProject to review some proposed revisions I have for the Tipper Gore article. The article mainly focuses on Gore's early life and work with the PMRC. My suggestions include updating and expanding the article to discuss more of her career and work, in particular, adding in her activities as Second Lady and as an activist/advocate. I posted a note on the Talk page detailing all of my suggestions, but have not received a reply there yet. I don't want to edit the article myself, since I'm working on behalf of The Glover Park Group, friends of Tipper Gore. Because of my COI, I'm hoping others can take a look at my suggestions and make changes if they agree with them. I'll be keeping an eye out here and on the article Talk page for others' feedback. Thanks! Heatherer ( talk) 14:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Please offer me suggestions (or make changes yourself) for Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States. Please post suggestions on the article's Talk page under What is needed to make this an A-class article? I plan to submit the article for A-class consideration on 30 JUN 2015 to WP:MIL and WP:USA, the two WikiProjects associated with the article.

Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD 19:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Is really it necessary for counties to be listed with a "county, state" format like cities are? It would better satisfy WP:COMMONNAME, WP:UCN, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:CONCISE if counties articles were listed just as the county name.-- Prisencolinensinainciusol ( talk) 01:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at List of United States counties and county equivalents and sort by county name. -- Bamyers99 ( talk) 13:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

In the United States there are:

• 30 Washington counties and one Washington Parish
• 26 Jefferson counties and one Jefferson Parish
• 23 Franklin counties and one Franklin Parish
• 23 Jackson counties and one Jackson Parish
• 23 Lincoln counties and one Lincoln Parish

To name just the most common. I live in one of these counties, so please just leave them alone. Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I realize that there are several very common names, and as such these should probably be kept with a state disambiguation. However there are also uniquely named counties such as Los Angeles County, Dallas County, Hennepin County, and others that are very likely the most WP:COMMON usage of the name such as Fulton County, Cook County, Illinois, and Orange County, California. The latter case presents some issues with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, specifically in titling consistency that occur. The articles for Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority etc. aren't titled Los Angeles County, County Metropolitan Transportation Authority-- Prisencolinensinainciusol ( talk) 20:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

They're fine as is. Using the state names in the comma convention promotes consistency across the group of 3,000+ counties and their equivalents in the United States. This way no one has to look up to see if the name is unique, and it promotes geographic awareness because the state where the county is located is directly indicated. Imzadi 1979  → 00:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The non-unique names are probably the majority, so the unique names would look like they're breaking convention rather than following it (and I'm not sure the primary topic argument holds up when two of your examples don't have a primary topic). Even so, putting the state name after the county name is still a common usage, so I don't think WP:COMMONNAME indicates that we should move anything. Your argument about agencies named after the county doesn't really hold, since we don't do that for cities either; we have an article at Green Bay, Wisconsin, even though nobody calls their football team the "Green Bay, Wisconsin Packers". TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction• Creation} 03:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say the Packers example is actually an argument for why the city page should just be Green Bay.-- Prisencolinensinainciusol ( talk) 07:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Loup County is a unique county name. Do you know offhand where Loup County is? (No link peaking allowed.) Yours aye,  Buaidh  05:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Darn, I don't actually know where it is. Assuming you're using this to lead into an argument, that's not the point though. I could ask you where Malayer County or Vratsa Province are, and if you don't know it doesn't mean that the titles have to be suffixed with their respective countries. By extension this is why names aren't parenthetically disambiguated, however obscure they may be, unless they are the same with another subject.-- Prisencolinensinainciusol ( talk) 07:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

For anyone who's interested, I started another discussion over at the Places Naming Conventions talk page that can be found here.-- Prisencolinensinainciusol ( talk) 07:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read through this discussion. Omnedon ( talk) 12:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:First Battle of Bud Dajo#Merge proposal. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple occasions wherein the bottom navbox template is given a color theme to reflect its subject, such as school colors, or for whatever other reason. I have done such for the lists of Current U.S. Senators, List of Presidents, and List of Vice Presidents. The themes may be seen below. My contributions were swiftly undone without discussion, and I believe this is an unnecessary action. I would like to build a concensus, either in favor or opposed, of these themes. I believe they do no harm, and are fitting of their subjects. The argument was made in ex post facto discussion that they were 'distractions', with which I disagree. My case is that such is done for other such bottom templates, and they have remained so styled for years, such as this case: {{Template:United States Military Academy superintendents}}, which has existed for five years without quarrel.

Hopefully some consensus may be made in this matter. Thanks Spartan7W § 23:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is nothing wrong with the current colors. Besides, the VP one is confusing since the redlinks are actually links. GregJackP  Boomer! 06:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Senatorial; Support Presidential and Vice Presidential. The latter two match the position flags of each position. The former first does not.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Medal of Honor#Number of Medal of Honor awards. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm not sure if this is the venue to ask but... I'm currently working on updating List of cities and towns in Alabama to have more information, images, and a better lead with the goal of bringing it up to featured status similar to List of cities and towns in California. I have brought 8 such lists to featured status in the past, and hope to see Alabama there as well. I'm wondering if anybody has some free time, I need help populating the "city or town" column, the 2000 population column, and the % growth column. If there are any GIS wizards out there, Alabama could also use a simple map that shows what areas are incorporated, and which are not. Thanks for your help. Mattximus ( talk) 14:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia "List of Austrian Americans" ( /info/en/?search=List_of_Austrian_Americans ) contains an entry for Austrian-born philosopher Karl Popper. He was never an American citizen, nor did he live there for any length of time. Perhaps, someone might wish to delete his entry from that list. 91.115.249.129 ( talk) 17:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC) ^[1]

I have gone ahead and made the requested edit. I did not find any American nationality of Karl Popper in any reliable source.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 04:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

United States v. Ramsey (1926) has been nominated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Ramsey (1926)/archive1 for featured article. The case is about the Osage Indian murders in the 1920s and one of the first murder investigations of the Bureau of Investigations, which later became the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If interested, please stop by and add your comments, either for, against, or neutral. GregJackP  Boomer! 19:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Does WP:USPLACE article naming guideline apply to the U.S. territory of Guam ? See Talk:Dededo, Guam for the discussion -- 70.51.203.69 ( talk) 02:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.-- Lucas559 ( talk) 22:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, several articles in this project's scope were featured in a recent Wikimedia blog post, including SS Arctic disaster, Ezra Meeker (a pioneer and writer), and Joseph B. Foraker (a senator). I'd love to get your feedback! Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 10:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

See the talk page at press time of Template:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color. Before Eamonster's edit request on 25 June, the color was #3333FF ( ). The edit request, answered by MSGJ, changed it to #00A6EF ( ). The change was opposed by Mitchumch and Byzantium Purple, and I changed it back to the previous color based on the latter's edit request. Mitchumch, for one, thought there should have been a discussion first, so I'll ask all of you: which color should we have to represent the Democratic Party in infoboxes here? APerson ( talk!) 18:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for fulfilling the two requests. This template has 6575 transclusions throughout en.wikipedia. Given the massive impact of this edit, an active attempt should be made to notify editors across en.wikipedia. Is there a notification template that can be attached to Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color to perform that function? Mitchumch ( talk) 02:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles, like Title 9 of the United States Code, don't explain how notable each Title of US Code is. Shall we expand further or propose deletion? -- George Ho ( talk) 06:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

We should expand further. There are countless sources referencing each Title of the US code; all of them are indisputably notable subjects, even if their articles are not well developed at the present time. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 20:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This needs to be addressed at WP:LAW, not here. GregJackP  Boomer! 00:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:LAW thread here. postdlf ( talk) 18:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)