United States Project‑class | |||||||
|
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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I have just done a fairly random check and tag of project related categories - and very few seemed to be tagged - anyone into raising bots to do the rest at all? or is the number of categories to large for the idea of a bot? curious if anyone is interested - it really helps project management to have categories tagged. Maybe in the end it is a manual job if the number has been estimated - as I do understand some bots hang up on larger numbers Satu Suro 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Also someone has very wisely narrowed some tagging on the Supreme Court categories - I would appreciate if anyone has any lead/link on an overall USA category tree at all Satu Suro 00:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The current US-related WikiProjects template needs to be updated to make fools like self understand the inactives and the merges - for more clarity as to tag what - anyone in for a template upgrade? Satu Suro 00:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Connecticut. Thanks! – Juliancolton | Talk 13:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
A bunch of US stamp images have been nominated for deletion over the last few days. 70.29.210.174 ( talk) 03:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Helo everyone! You may be interested in checking out Africana womanism. Thank you! The Ogre ( talk) 12:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Commission_for_Environmental_Cooperation#Bullshit.2FPOV_nonsense. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is the need for that? (Is there an urgency?, considering each article reflects the original text?) Does it promote American "self-centrism"? I mean, how about other countries' constitution? Why this needs to be in separate articles? Why not merge them into the whole US Constitution article? Why does they have their own article, especially that they are repeating on every mother articles, or why is there a need to explain each section, each article of the US Constitution?-- JL 09 Talk to me! 09:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello all. I'm posting this because I'd like to put Virginia back up for Featured Article Candidate, and hope that the third time's the charm. I'm looking for any suggestions editors here might have with the article before I do that. Also, since its been a while since I navigated the FAC, any suggestions from someone whose done it more recently, as it keeps getting more difficult. I am aiming for the end of next week, so please let me know before then if there's anything. Thanks guys!-- Patrick { oѺ∞} 19:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Does this Project have an SOP dictating Medal of Honor recipients' biographical articles fall under it and should be of "High" importance? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion may be of interest to project members: Talk:List of United States Senators in the 18th Congress by seniority#disputed. - Rrius ( talk) 05:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The present article covers only the National Economic Council in the U.S. White House. However, there was another National Economic Council that existed in the mid-20th Century as an advocate for libertarian thought. Can someone who knows the history of the earlier National Economic Council write up something on it as disambiguation? I know that Rose Wilder Lane wrote book reviews for the National Economic Council in the 1950s.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RDCushing ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Household income in the United States has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 15:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Pennsylvania has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101 People Who Are Really Screwing America. Cirt ( talk) 06:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I am disenchanted with the current overall outline of the Revolutionary War. It may have served well originally to chronicle this like all other wars: Napoleonic or Civil War or whatever, by outlining a series of battles, won or lost, etc. etc.
But the American Revolutionary War was more like a guerrilla war. It was necessary for Washington to learn to husband his resources, fighting only when he was absolutely sure he could win. This was serious problem with no money, horrible soldiers, lousy training, etc. etc. That is the story of the war, plus maybe Lexington, Bunker Hill, Brooklyn Heights, Saratoga, Monmouth, and Yorktown; with Trenton and Ticonderoga thrown in for comic relief (okay cannons from Ticonderoga). But the rest should be outlined with emphasis on getting the troops through the winter, always a major problem, getting them trained, finding capable officers, etc. etc. The story is one less of battles won, then morale, logistics and politics. Right now there is "no room" in the outline for such "trivialities." No room for barely managing to preserve the army's integrity at Morristown in 1779-1780. The battles were "all over with" in the north, and the outline is therefore complete. End of story. The outline and emphasis needs serious restructuring at the highest level from someone who can grasp the entire war. The articles are already written. So it's "just" a matter of re-writing the highest level articles to reflect reality and not some bureaucratic focus on battles, mostly lost by Americans, not untypical during a guerrilla conflict.
And, oh, the templates reflect that emphasis also. Don't know how to "correct" this. "All" Wikipedia wars have battle templates, almost meaningless here, along with battles generally in the Revolution, the ones mentioned above excepted. Student7 ( talk) 23:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject United States members are invited to help improve the Marijuana Reform Party article, which needs much attention. Along with WP Cannabis, members of WP Political Parties and WP New York are welcome to improve the article in any way possible. Hopefully we can all work together to upgrade the article status within the next 2 weeks. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss how the article can be improved. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I came across this article at the end of the NPP backlog: Historical U.S. Census Totals for Penobscot County, Maine. I think it falls foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY as it lists census statistics: it isn't an encyclopedia article about a notable topic. There's a whole series of these articles for Maine. Opinions? Fences& Windows 20:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Redheylin ( talk · contribs) has proposed a possible merge of articles North Carolina v. Alford (1970 Supreme Court of the United States case), with the form of guilty plea it spawned, Alford plea. Discussion is at Talk:North_Carolina_v._Alford#Contradiction_tag. Thank you for your time, Cirt ( talk) 14:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleagues
This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday 14 December to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.
On behalf of the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Interested editors may wish to comment on this article's content and sourcing. Nick-D ( talk) 18:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone might like to merge this new stub into something else? PamD ( talk) 11:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've found the area code listing for cities to be extremely useful. I help at WikiProject Wisconsin, and we haven't had the area codes added to the city infoboxes. How did other states add this? Did a bot do it? Someone use an AWB? Where did they come up with the database to fill the fields? Royal broil 01:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The United States Census Bureau released its estimate of 2009 state populations yesterday. I've updated the U.S. state population data from the Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009. Yours aye, Buaidh ( talk) 18:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit of an unusual idea, but I thought it would be worth noting United States Congressmen wounded or killed in the line of duty. Only one has actually been killed, but I know various others have been wounded. Is this WP-worthy? Any help filling out other examples in the article? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 08:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've formed a new category to collect all the articles (and new subcats) dealing with the hunting of bison (primarily American buffalo). Since bison/buffalo hunting was closely tied into the history of Western Expansion in the United States, I've tagged it for this project. I'd appreciate any input on building the category, and also as to whether it should be re-named, as though the American buffalo is technically a bison, it is far better-known by the term "buffalo", and labeling the category "Bison hunting" might hurt more than it helps. Alternately, folks could try and add a few pages on hunting European bison ( wisent, etc) to round it out. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 18:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Defenceman has come up for renaming again, see Talk:Defenceman
76.66.197.17 ( talk) 04:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 04:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I have noted that there is a lot of inconsistency in how metro areas are referred to across different articles. There are some editors who stick very strictly to first referring to a metro area by its OMB designation (e.g. "Chicago-Naperville-Joliet-Gary"), and only afterward possibly mentioning the area's common name (e.g. "Chicagoland"). Other editors use the common name almost exclusively, except when specifically referring to government statistics about the area.
Has any policy statement ever been discussed? Not that it is a huge deal but looking at different articles across WP there is a good deal of inconsistency, which (to me) seems a little confusing.
Thanks.
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 04:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
In some state election templates, people have inserted city elections. There are a number of problems with this.
1) City politics are not intertwined with each other, much less the state. Legislator election is different since they will interact with each other statewide. But if city x does one thing, and city y does another, who cares? Really. There is no interaction.
2) It appears a way to "promote" ( WP:PR) city politics to a statewide audience who, to tell the truth, doesn't much care in Modesto, what Lemon Grove does. So it is of scant interest and is off WP:TOPIC for a statewide audience, which the template was aimed at.
3) Some states have a lot of cities. It is just clutter in what was supposed to have been a state only template.
4) Elections are often held at different times, so there is even less interaction with statewide politics. This was done deliberately at the city level to avoid issues at the statewide level from "messing up" city elections. This is fine, but the reverse should also be true. City elections shouldn't mess up a state template.
5) There would be absolutely no point in inserting each city separately in a template for cities only. Because there is no interaction between them. It is this that reveals the charade of inserting them into another template. No one cares about city elections except people in that city only. People looking at a state template do not care.
Let's take city elections out of state election templates. Let them perform their local WP:BOOSTERism in some other fashion. Student7 ( talk) 12:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Need some help in sorting List of hydroelectric power stations/Temp into regional lists in List of power stations in the United States. Can anyone help? Examples on how it should be done can be found here. Feel free to contact me on my talkpage if anything. Thanks. Rehman( +) 07:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Over the past month or so I have been going through all the Medal of Honor related articles varifying their assessment status, makingn notes and creating a page to track it. This is not a formal project, just smoething that I created to give myself a starting point to start building up the content of the Medal of Honor related articles. I though I would post this out here as well in case others are interested as well. If you look at this page Medal of Honor assessments other than Amerian Civil War (ACW) you will find tables oif all of the Medal of Honor recipients other than those for the ACW with their assessment and some rough notes. This page reflects the same for the ACW Medal of Honor recipients and this page reflects those that still need to be created. The ones who are lined out are already done, although some are still stubs and need work. Just a few notes about the state of the articles in general:
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. -- Kumioko ( talk) 21:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The first link for citation #37 at page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States is dead. The specific paragraph in question is quoted below:
Figures for before 1929 have been reconstructed by Johnston and Williamson based on various sources and are less reliable. See
http://eh.net/hmit/gdp/GDPsource.htm for more information about sources and methods.
Alternate source is needed.
-- ExtraTrstl ( talk) 06:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Syrian American/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 03:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
On every single template, the assessment comes up with additional jibberish, something on the order of:
dwmlkdsfrhfjendchwsz,mdxcfvghgtfrdxfcvghgfcvbhgtfdcfvbghgytfcvgbhf by rohaan
This needs to be fixed ASAP Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a move discussion potentially relevant to participants at this project: Kazimierz Pułaski → Casimir Pulaski at Talk:Kazimierz Pułaski#Requested move (2). - Rrius ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Made a Paralympics task force: Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Paralympics. Please edit and/or join, and help improve Paralympics articles related to the United States. Bib ( talk) 14:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Please, go make your voice heard in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse scientific method! Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 12:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you.
Why doesn't the US C use the race of Caucasian? instead of White-white is not a race, and why deferieinate between races and just do a body count? ---- ____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.153.242 ( talk) 15:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The current article Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee is not very good. It contains just a few sentences which are not sourced very well. I've written a more developed alternative version, updated now that it has been created and is in the news. This version can be found on my user page here. I would update this myself now but I am affiliated with one group listed in the Controversy section (ALG) so I am hoping that another editor see this as an improvement and move it over. Please make this change at your convenience. Or if there is consensus it is OK for me to add it, I can do that, but I thought it would be better to ask. I first asked about this at the Wikipedia Help desk but they sent me here. And there is no one editing the TPSAC page, it has only been edited once, so there is nobody there to ask. Thanks. -- As in liberty ( talk) 19:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I was recently informed by an editor that there is no need to add the WPUS talk page banner if the MILHIST banner is there with the US task force checked as yes. Personally I do not agree and wanted to get clarification. Is it appropriate to use the WP United States Banner on US related articles or is it enough to use the MILHIST template with the US Task force option. -- Kumioko ( talk) 13:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Your comments would be greatly appreciated at an Afd for an American musical ensemble here. Neelix ( talk) 21:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The following AfD may be of interest to editors here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sessions of the United States Supreme Court - Rrius ( talk) 01:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Greetings. I've expanded Blackbeard to the point where its almost ready for FAC, but another editor highlighted a minor problem. Blackbeard died at Ocracoke Inlet (presently in North Carolina) in November 1718. Given that the state of North Carolina didn't exist then, which article should I link to? The Province? Parrot of Doom 14:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
At Diane Wood, part of this project, a discussion is occurring as to the of necessity of including 13 references in the lead for the proposition that a person has been mentioned as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court. - Rrius ( talk) 01:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
"The U.S. Department of Justice compiles statistics on crime by race, but only between and among people categorized as black or white. There were 111,490 white and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2005. Out of the 111,490 cases involving white victims, 44.5% (49,613) had white offenders and 33.6% (37,461) had black offenders, while the 36,620 black victims had a figure of 100% black offenders, with a 0.0% estimation for any other race based on ten or fewer sample cases."
This is unnecessary, biased and inflammatory, it was copied and pasted from stormfront, why did they only post 2005 and ignore the other statistics?, either post all of them or don't post anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empyrium ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
When used as a modifying noun, the word "state" (also "city", etc.) is never capitalized. For example, the city of New York is in the state of New York. How come every single US state article says, "the State of _________"? People need to take care to be grammatically correct. I watch only a small number of state articles because editors always capitalize this word. But it'd be nice if other editors could sort of help and lowercase this word when appropriate. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 18:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Talk:Washington#Requested move which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 18:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I tried to add under "US State" under a new subtitle "Budgets" the following information from the Washington Post: "In 2010 six states had budget deficits exceeding those of Greece, then in international news for being close to bankruptcy.Faiola, Anthony (27 April 2010). "Small city in Italy just one of many around globe facing crushing debt". Washington, DC: Washington Post. pp. A1.." This article is too antiseptic for real world data like this. It clearly doesn't belong in the "United States" article either which is about the federal government. There is currently no article for intermediate information in between federal government, and a state (singular). There needs to be one for the collective states for comparative cultural, etc. information that can't go in the other articles. Student7 ( talk) 02:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Will US conduct census this year?-- Bojan Talk 07:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to know are there any good speeches about what the people said about The Haymarket riots in 1886? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.190.235 ( talk) 19:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I came across this placename in the article for USS De Soto (1860). However, there appears to be no such place. There are three Grand Views mentioned in Google but none of them are obviously the Grand View mentioned in the article. Anyone have an idea what the correct name/state might be? Gatoclass ( talk) 03:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, are there already plans or even projects to update all the municipalities, CDPs and what ever when the new census data will be published? I guess this will need a pretty difficult bot project. -- h-stt !? 13:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking through the president articles, I was appalled that a good amount of them were only B-Class articles. I propose that we systematically work on them to get many more of them up to being at least GAs. -- Iankap99 ( talk) 00:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I notice the Spanish Wikipedia article es:Ciudades de Estados Unidos - It doesn't seem to have an English equivalent (it has no interwiki to any English article). Should we create one here? Or is there already one? WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.
Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 32 articles to be referenced. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.
Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope ( talk) 16:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
In this article on the USPHSCC, the end of the second paragraph in the HISTORY category ends with President Grover Cleveland signing an Act into law that formally established the modern Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. The third paragraph jumps nearly 100 years into the late 1980's to early 1990's with Hurricane Hugo and the Loma Prieta Earthquake. Can someone please clean this up and differentiate who's officers or what office it was that helped the victims of those two natural disasters?
Prmetalman ( talk) 02:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)prmetalman
If anyone wants to find out when a post office opened or closed, a user pointed me to www.usps.com/postmasterfinder which is a database having that info WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Names like List of Puerto Ricans, List of Argentine Americans, List of German Americans, etc. should be put under the project's scope. Not only that, but I think they should all be renamed. There is no such thing as a list of all German Americans, and not every single one is notable enough for an article. I propose that "List of" be renamed to "List of distinguished" so the titles can accurately describe what the list encompasses. (i.e.) " List of distinguished Puerto Ricans" Feed back ☎ 19:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI, 200 Greenwich Street has been requested to be renamed as Two World Trade Center. See Talk:200 Greenwich Street.
70.29.210.155 ( talk) 04:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI, a bunch of US-related portal link templates have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 23.
70.29.210.155 ( talk) 04:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how these templates work so that I can fix a broken link.
Reference # 1 on this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_motto
The URL is incorrect. It has
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html
It should be
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml
Grandmakr (
talk) 06:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I want to invite anyone who's active here and has an interest in public policy to join WikiProject United States Public Policy, which is just starting up. We've got some cool things planned, including working with students and their professors for several public policy courses.-- Sross (Public Policy) ( talk) 12:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Opinions are needed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings, which might potentially influence the naming conventions for a wide swath of United States-related articles. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Please don't take offense to the following statement but...Is this still an active project? I was about to add my name to the members list and I noticed that it doesn't seem to be very active as a project (individual editors are plenty active though). Before I did I thought I would ask before I add my name to a Wikiproject that has been left to languish. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
That's the edit comment put onto a change in Conservapedia by someone who seems to want to remove references to America or American even though it is referred to as an American encyclopaedia rather than a USA one in the sources. Would you like to point out to them whatever it is the general policy is about this sort of thing as I'm sure it can't be the first time. Dmcq ( talk) 23:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I found a source that talks about variations of fundamentalist Christianity and Southern racism. - Leonard, Bill J. " A theology for racism: Southern Fundamentalists and the civil rights movement." Baptist History and Heritage. Northern hemisphere Winter 1999. WhisperToMe ( talk) 02:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
AFD discussion, is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Miller (South Carolina politician) (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 22:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the United States articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI, there is a proposal for a WikiProject North America, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/North America
76.66.193.224 ( talk) 04:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject United States/Archive 5! We would like to invite your WikiProject to help with the Smithsonian Institution collaboration, an outreach effort which aims to support collaboration such as Wiki-Academies, article writing, and other activities to engage the Smithsonian Institution in Wikipedia. Because of the Scope of your project, your project has been nominated to be part of our WikiProject Embassy, a place for WikiProjects to help Editors participating in the Smithsonian Collaboration improve articles, find materials, and create partnerships for the future. We hope that you will nominate an Ambassador for our participants to contact. Thanks!!! |
FYI, Canadian American has been requested to be renamed. It apparently revolves around rules of grammar... 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 04:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that there seem to be a large number of US related WikiProjects that are either Inactive, Defunct or have minimal activity. I would like to recommend redirecting the talk pages of these to the WikiProject United States talk page. This will allow a more timely response to questions and suggestions. In truth some can probably just be eliminated completely but this could be a start to that. Below is a list of some of the projects this suggestions relates too. I won't do this if the consensus is that everyone is happy with the status quo but I think that we need to clean up what seems to be a WikiProject frenzy gone way out of control. There are obviously some very active projects these relate too that these could be directed to (Politicians, government, etc). I would like to hear any comments and or suggestions that folks may have.
US Geography:
US Education related:
US Sports related:
General:
US (semi active):
-- Kumioko ( talk) 01:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
-- Kumioko ( talk) 14:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The article List of cemeteries in the United States needs to be broken up into 50 articles. There must be over 1000 cemeteries in Massachusetts alone!- 96.237.8.162 ( talk) 22:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I sure hope you don't just delete it! The general coverage of cemeteries is woefully inadequate. My real current interest is in a List of Cemeteries in Boston. I am trying to work my way down from the almost empty existing skeleton structure. If you take away what is there, then there will not even be anything for people to build on... Not only does WP not cover cemeteries very much, there also don't seem to be any other good complete lists anywhere else online of Massachusetts cemeteries.- 96.237.8.162 ( talk) 00:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I have taken the last few days to revamp, reorganize and expand the information on the project page. I modelled it after the MILHIST Project page. Here is the link to see what the page could look like Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Main. I have ssplit some of the information out into separate pages for easier access and added a couple new categories. Here are the new sections I have created so far.
I would like to ask for all of you to vote your support or oppose on the new layout. I also need feedback on how to make it better. Feel free to make changes on your own but if its a major change please post a note here first. -- Kumioko ( talk) 12:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
So i guess we should fine a place for the new section "
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States#Image requests".. I would guess in the new project look move it to
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/To do after some rewording and linking...after looking and reading closer .. i think it should be deleted.
Moxy (
talk) 03:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Since there was knowone screaming in opposition Implemented the New page layout. If anyone has any comments please let me know. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Republic of Texas (1861) has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 04:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I have started a proposal to merge three United States related Noticeboards into one due to all three having no or extremely limited activity in the last year. I believe this will invigorate the noticeboard if we keep any of them at all. I propose merging:
into
Please provide comments (including support or oppose). Comments are necessary to ensure that this does not intefere with ongoing efforts. If no comments are received in 7 days I will assume there is no problem and proceed with the merger. -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you think the image gallery at People of the United States violates Wikipedia policy? I think the gallery adds to the article and would like to find some way to keep it. See [ talk page] for details.-- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 00:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
As I continue to rebuild this project I am proposing to allow Xenobot to tag articles in this project scope and auto-assess them if possible. I am posting this message to gather comments prior to intiating this task. I will leave this out here for at least 7 days prior to moving ahead and I will post comments on several of the other US related project pages soliciting comment. Based on the comments gathered I will proceed from there. Here are some things to consider:
Question: Does Xenobot have the capacity to not tag for C-class? Milhist doesn't use it (though that may change in the future), and I am concerned that if it attempts to do so there could be some problems from a milhist project standpoint. TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
(deindent) I assume that you going to omit articles that are already in children WikiProjects like WikiProject Michigan since they are automatically included in this WikiProject by inheritance. Royal broil 23:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
|subject=
used in {{
WikiProject U.S. Congress}}. They currently have Person, people, place, and Event I think. I would include Education, Government and Sports (possibly more later). Along with these my plan was to start coordinating with WPMILHIST US, ACW and AW task forces (by sharing membership lists, to do lists and the like) as well as the active child projects under WPUS.The problem with the seventh point is that if I dont place the WPUS banner because they already fall into a state then I must apply the same logic to the other Projects as well such as WPUS Government, Politicians, presidents, presidential elections, Congress, governors, etc. There are so many projects there is very little wiggle room left. Additionally, by the same logic if WikiProject Miami is on an Article then there would be no need for WikiProject Florida but after reviewing them the majority have both. Another good example that comes to mind is if an article has Wikiproject Biography then why would we also put WikiProject MILHIST Biography task force. Using the same logic you used wouldn't it be inferred? In addition to what I have stated above here are some more bullets about why its good to bannerize other than use as a watchlist:
In the end if consensus is that only the child project banners should remain then this Project will be defuncted because the scope would be eliminated. In regards to he one comment about coordinating. With the the way WP works I find it very unlikely that we could get three projects to agree on something let alone all of them. For the most part I have followed the structure of WPMILHIST and I continue to use it as a guide (as well as several other projects) adapting them to fit the needs of this project. As a little extra info, I currently employ 5 different bots doing different tasks related to the project (just to clarify their not mine). In addition to that I am eying the use of several others to cleanup articles, auto-assess, autotag, expand, etc. Additionally I have created a bot account which I intend to use to do this like Newsletters, Project invites/Membership requests, cleanup, assessment,etc. So at this point I have only scratched the surface but as I gain momentum you will begin to see the project and the articles in its scope grow and expand. I intend to employ every bot and technique available to enhance, cleanup and buildup the articles related to this project. As I mentioned before I am still trying to get my arms around the monster. -- Kumioko ( talk) 05:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, the usage of Plymouth is up for discussion, see Talk:Plymouth#Proposed_Move.
76.66.199.238 ( talk) 05:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:List_of_named_ethnic_enclaves_in_North_American_cities#Name_-_move.3F. Skookum1 ( talk) 17:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Southern United States has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumioko ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 October 2010
There is a discussion at Talk:Plymouth, requesting that it become a disambiguation page. I don't believe that the English city is the primary topic, as Plymouth, Massachusetts (including Plymouth Colony) and Plymouth (automobile) are more well-known in the U.S. and Canada. OSX ( talk • contributions) 21:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
As I work to reinvigorate Wikipedia:WikiProject United States I have found a number of US related Wikiprojects that are inactive and no longer functional. I would like to archive some of them and redirect them to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States along with any pages that might link to them. In performing this housecleaning I believe it will help us to refocus our efforts on the projects that are active. I am giving editors the opportunity to make comments before I do however. The following 4 projects are the ones I would like to close out:
I have chosen these 4 because only one of these links to anything. There are no templates (including no talk page banner), no bots generating stats and with the exception of state capitals (it has 62 pages) none link to any articles (although some link to some user pages or Wikiprojects as part of the US WikiProjects template) which can be easily removed. Please let me know what you think about this idea. I will leave this discussion for at least the next 7 days. -- Kumioko ( talk) 04:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
If there are no existing banners, there's little to be lost, is there? And apart from the cities one, they sound rather specific for wikiprojects (check out the Pakistan wikiprojects if you want to see that approach really gone mad...) However, I would suggest that merging projects have a notice up for at least a month, barring projects that never really got off the ground in the first place. Unless there's a particular reason to move fast, it's better to take it slow. Rd232 talk 18:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It appears that some editors are concerned about tagging articles that belong to a US related subproject but I would like to get an idea of what the consensus is. Primarily, if and in what cases this project should tag articles. Below are 3 times when I think this project should tag an article as WPUS:
If anynone else has ideas I am open to hear them. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
So how does the Starship Enterprise meet these new criteria?-- Chaser (away) - talk 03:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
According to Write-in candidate and the Washington Post, the first write-in candidate to win a US Senate seat, was in 1946, and not Strom Thurmond, but the Strom Thurmond article says he was the first to do so... 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 15:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Just curious if there are (heh) any US politician pages that are going through rough times now that the silly season is done. I helped watch over the Palin article after the '08 elections, and I imagine there are a few like that now. Volunteering to help with responding to "editprotected" and so on. -- SB_Johnny | talk 21:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Last surviving United States war veterans was renamed to Last North American veterans by war, but still is a US list. 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 07:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello!
As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary on January 15 and our new project: Contributions. I'm posting across these Wikiprojects to engage you, the community, to work to build Wikipedia by finance but also by content. We seek donations not only financially, but by collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.
Visit the Contribution project page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. ⇒ DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 20:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Eastern Mountain Coal Fields task force |
An invitation to join us! | |
You're invited to be a part of the Eastern Mountain Coal Fields task force, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Eastern Kentucky Coal Field region of Kentucky. To accept this invitation, click here! |
Hello, WikiProject United States! We are looking for editors to join the Eastern Mountain Coal Fields task force, an outreach effort which aims to support the development of articles relating to Eastern Kentucky in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!
J654567 ( talk) 00:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Guys, if we are committed we could get all presidents up to GA level systematically. If we work together on the most recent one that isn't GA, each one would take a week tops. Would anybody like to do this with me? We can do it starting from the most recent, that would be Bill Clinton-- Iankap99 ( talk) 01:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Let me first thank you for your consideration in taking this up. Yes I know that several are, as my statement was to get all presidents up to GA. I asked the U.S. presidents before this one, but I'll drop a note by all of them. Take your time with your current projects. I am very unfamiliar with MILHIST, where would I drop a line and on what operations are active? I'll submit Clinton for Peer Review now. EDIT: There already was a peer review. It's listed in the milestones. Thanks-- Iankap99 ( talk) 02:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's hoping the project will eventually address the (archived report) 769 dead links to the US State Department. -- CliffC ( talk) 18:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The article Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution gets nearly 4000 page views per day. It is, however, barely more than a stub and needs some serious expansion. Towards this end, I have decided to unprotect the article in the hopes that it will receive some random kindness from strangers. Considering that most of the people viewing this article are students, however, I'm under no illusions that it will be free from vandalism. Please add this article to your watchlist so that we can quickly revert any vandalism that occurs. Thanks! Kaldari ( talk) 01:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
For people looking for 1990 census maps...
It seems like this collection has the .ARC mapping data: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/pl1990.html
WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
What plans exist for updating entries dependent on census data when Census 2010 data becomes available? Is someone working on a bot for that? Also, when that is done, it would be good to put in better information on nearby cities. In rural areas, that boiler-plate sentence in entries for towns, "The Town of X is in the Y part of the county and is southwest of Z." just isn't very useful. I have ideas about how this could be done better.
Does anyone have plans to make a bot that deals with issues like these? -- Pleasantville ( talk) 20:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI Portal:United States of America has been nominated for deletion, see WP:RFD. 76.66.194.212 ( talk) 05:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Last North American veterans by war. Since you had some involvement with the Last North American veterans by war redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 76.66.194.212 ( talk) 07:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
There is of course no requirement to do this but I would like to offer a proposal to all the United States related projects that I think would be beneficial to many. Rather than try and coordinate 75 or more conversations I am starting this here and I will post a message to the projects of the weekend.
I would like to suggest consolidating some of the United States related WikiProject Banners under the WikiProject United States banner. The projects themselves would still operate as they do, completely seperate in scope and control from WPUS it would just allow 1 template to do what is currently done by 75-100. I know that some of the WikiProjects like United States Public Policy and US roads use special fields in their template and wouldnt be suitable for this consolidation but after revewing all the templates related to WPUS most of the state templates and many of the others use the same standard fields. This would offer several advantages:
As an example of what this could look like please see here Template:WikiProject United States/sandbox. Most of the main US related projects are added but again some would need to be removed because of special field considerations that dont apply to the rest. Please let me know if you have any comments, suggestions or if you think your project woudl be interested in this. -- Kumioko ( talk) 22:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Oregon}}
is already a template of some sort forced upon us based on some common template code somewhere, with some deficiencies handling regional photo requests. Would, for example, your proposal suggest changing our 10,000+ tagged articles from {{
WikiProject Oregon}}
to {{
WikiProject United States|state=Oregon}}
or some such? —
EncMstr (
talk) 05:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
So far as WikiProject Cleveland is concerned, we'd prefer to not to be included in said consolidation. As we feel each WikiProject has a certain sense of TLC attended to its own set of articles, we'd like to keep ours the way it is. By no means would I dissuade you from adding articles to your own WP-USA which might also fall into our our project's scope, but with all due respect, we'll be keeping our project the way it is, thanks. Ryecatcher773 ( talk) 05:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, looking at the Canada pages I think I understand what it's about now. It seems like the main advantage is really having a one-line banner that lists all the projects and a single assessment. Maybe it's because I don't deal much with the admin/code/whatever side of things, but phrasing it as "consolidating templates" doesn't really convey that.
Mostly I think that makes sense. One Hawaii-related issue is that WP:Hawaii also deals with things that predate the US annexation, and so don't really fall under the scope of WP:USA (the thing I mentioned above was regarding the use of diacritics in Hawaiian-language words, which a few people have violent objections to for some reason, but they seem to have abated). KarlM ( talk) 07:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Canada: Ontario / Ottawa / Music Project‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Canada Project‑class | |||||||
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= {{WikiProject United States presidential elections|class=FA|importance=Top|category=no|USPresidents=Yes|USPresidents-importance=Mid|category=no}}<nowiki> {{WikiProject Barack Obama|class=FA|importance=Top|category=no}} {{WikiProject U.S. Congress|class=FA|subject=person|importance=High|category=no}} {{WikiProject Illinois|class=FA|importance=high|category=no}} {{WikiProject Hawaii|class=FA|importance=Mid|category=no}} {{WikiProject Kansas|class=FA|importance=Mid|category=no}} {{WikiProject Chicago|class=FA|importance=Top|category=no}} }}
As an outsider, and not belonging to any of these groups I must say I heavily support moving to the WPCanada model. I have thought for a longtime that this should atleast happen on a city/state level. Because its somewhat rediculous to have banners for both Chicago and Illinois on a talk page. When one banner would do and could still convey the same information. So to do this on a national level I would probably support as well. - DJSasso ( talk) 17:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
This conversation seems to be rubbing folks the wrong way so let me suggest this. Another avenue to consider is adding topics relating to US things: These topics could include things like American Sports, American Education, American people, etc. This would allow these articles to be "tagged" as WPUS without giving the appearance that WPUS is trying to consume the other projects. It doesn't accomplish all the same goals I had intended but does this seem like a reasonable compromise? -- Kumioko ( talk) 18:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it is an unfortunate idea. For example, Kumioko left a pointed message at WikiProject Washington Metro asking why we don't do article assessments by class and importance. The fact is that we do not, so we would not be compatible with your proposed templates, because there is no consensus to do such assessements at this time. Racepacket ( talk) 13:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems there is a lot of confusion over what this really means to current projects such as Syracuse, New York. While the Canadian project is nice, I guess my problem is understanding what is different about that project and the current United States project? The Syracuse pages will still have their own project and also will be part of the New York project. Will either of those banners be removed from our pages? -- Nconwaymicelli ( talk) 08:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
If anyone wants to see what it looks like take a look at Talk:Nye County, Nevada. We are working to add the U.S. counties project. Previously only 135 of about 3200 counties were tagged and the project had virtually no activity. The banner also did not support assessment, importance or several other things which WPUS does. I have tagged about 2000 of the previously untagged articles and by the end of the weekend should have the rest. Then we can delete this template and hopefully move to the next one. Whichever that may be. The project page remiains. The identity and culture of the project remains. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello
Kumioko. I've rated 5000 or so articles for
WikiProject Connecticut, so I know a bit about template mayhem. Here are my reservations about this plan. I've read this entire thread, the first point is an expanion on some of the other posts.
1. I agree with
KarlM regarding Hawaii, and
Rmhermen about ratings... there are many articles which are:
a. of variable importance between a project and the United States. For example, the
Charter Oak is a Top article for Connecticut, it's probably a Low for the US. How does that get settled? Judging by
talk:Quebec French, the states will get overruled.
b. articles which are important to the state and have nothing to do with the US such as
Fort Hoop. Or for that matter, any articles about a state before joining the Union (Colonial New England, Hawaii, Alaska, pre-Mexican War California, et al).
c. quite a few articles overlap states such as
talk:Connecticut Western Reserve. Seeing "supported by" instead of state ratings actually makes templates less useful.
2. Then there is the problem of actually getting people to do this...
a. I have found many articles that were never rated (3000+). It's taken me a couple of years to do it. I have no desire to see all those edits reduced to "supported by", especially when they change to no longer be from a Connecticut POV.
b. I would stop rating articles totally for Connecticut if the US template only said ""supported by", or if all ratings had to match.
3. I find the
WikiProject Canada example to be misguided in terms of scale.
WikiProject Canada has about 66,000 articles, all of which (as far as I can tell) are "fed" by the various sub-projects such as
Wikiproject Nova Scotia.
Wikiproject United States has 28,000... but that doesn't include the wide majority of state articles.
WikiProject Connecticut has 6,800 of which 12 overlap... while
WikiProject Texas has 21,000 of which 743 overlap with
Wikiproject United States! My point here is that the US, being a country with ~10x Canada's population, a longer history as a country and a (let's just say) "a more dynamic role in world affairs" simply has more articles. If you added all the states together and subtracted those that overlap with
Wikiproject United States, I think you're going to find that the
Wikiproject United States ends up with well over 200,000 articles. IMO not only would this be a massive undertaking, it would be pointless without every state being onboard. Best,
Markvs88 (
talk) 22:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand your concerns and let me start by saying that if a project doesn't want this its no problem they don't have too. Right now I am concentrating my efforts on projects that are inactive or defunct (like US Counties which has been completely integrated) and projects that do want to (District of Columbia (Washington DC) is almost done and Superfunds will probably be next. Since you have several concerns let me attempt to answer each:
I have submitted a proposal at the Village pump regarding tagging non article items in Wikipedia. Please take a moment and let me know what you think. -- Kumioko ( talk) 01:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Category:American people of German-Jewish descent, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. IZAK ( talk) 13:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Category:German Jews who emigrated to the United States to escape Nazism, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. IZAK ( talk) 13:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Note, there is a WikiProject NASA under development. It is currently being discussed under the WP:Space reorganization plan at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Space/2010_Reorganisation. As it is a US government agency, you might want to also discuss this. 65.94.45.167 ( talk) 07:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Please consider participating in the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. cities discussion. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 05:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal for a WP:CSA ... that might also be considered for conversion to a task force of WP:USA. 65.93.12.43 ( talk) 07:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The usage of Birmingham Airport is up for discussion, see Talk:Birmingham Airport, West Midlands . 65.94.44.124 ( talk) 05:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I found:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Since WolterBot is no longer active, we now have a WikiProject cleanup listing, which shows that there are 30.7% of United States-related articles are needing cleanup. Zoinks! JJ98 ( Talk) 01:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, in addition to the points covered above: I think I've seen a discussion on how to use bots to update the articles on populated places, once the 2010 census data will be published in February 2011. Do you know where it is discussed and how far the planning has proceeded yet? Would an international task force be useful, that includes bot owners from other Wikipedias as well, as they have the same needs? TIA -- h-stt !? 12:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
SORT has been requested to be renamed Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, see Talk:SORT
65.95.13.158 ( talk) 10:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The usage of Mr. Kennedy is under discussion, see Talk:Mr. Kennedy. 65.95.13.158 ( talk) 06:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The vast majority of articles on English Wikipedia are about the United States. Do you really plan on tagging millions of articles? Why not just create a "Wikiproject Earth" and tag every article? Gigs ( talk) 17:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (sexual neologism). -- Cirt ( talk) 13:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Its been almost 3 months so its time for another weeks long discussion on the status of Find a grave. Here is a link to the discussion that is currently taking place, Again. on the external links noticeboard. Find a grave and IMDB. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
A vote is currently being held at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard as to wether we should ban the use of the Find a grave site and the thousands of links we have to it on articles. Please take a moment and place your vote. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of trouble with updating the rankings of states by population with the new census data. I just noticed it in the Wisconsin and New York articles. They list both the old population ranks from 2000 and 2010, such as this:
Population Ranked 3rd in the US
- Total 19,378,102 (2010 Census)[2]
- Density 408.7/sq mi (157.81/km2) Ranked 7th in the US FluffyWhiteCat ( talk) 09:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
An issue has come up that relates to North American Chinatowns and the use of Pinyin in relation to them, see Talk:Chinatown, Houston. As most North American Chinatowns were established by Toisanese, or later Cantonese diaspora groups, and Pinyin is a Mandarin transcription, there are issues of language to deal with. 184.144.170.217 ( talk) 06:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject United States to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 01:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! The " online ambassador" program, run by individual universities in collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation, needs more users. The program essentially has professors assigning college students to edit Wikipedia articles on American Public Policy ( WP:USPP). We, the online ambassadors, assist these students in learning how to edit, how to format their articles, and how to nominate them at DYK. It doesn't take an exorbitant amount of your time. Please consider applying. It's a great program, and you will have fun doing it. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I updated the archive from 60 days to 15. Know that the project is getting more active I think we should shorten the duration and 15 days seems reasonable at this time. -- Kumioko ( talk) 23:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Are we going to continue to use the current barnstar of National Merit on the WikiProject page, or do we want to upgrade to the new version? — Ed! (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
I know that everyone is very busy but there are a couple of ongoing tasks that could use some more help if anyone would like to pitch in. I have been mostly doing these myself up till now but since we have an updated member list now with a pretty large pool of editors I thuoght I would solicite some help if anyone has some extra time. Here are a few of the ongoing tasks I have been working on that could use some help and a few that I haven't been able to get to yet if anyone would like to pitch in:
There are other things as well and if anyone has ideas please let me know. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget about cleanup listings... Smallman12q ( talk) 13:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I must question the 2010 census; there are approximately 150 people living in twenty square miles using a Post Office box that did not receive a census questionnaire for 2010. As this is an example in rural Texas I would suggest that the population count is off by tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands. This should not surprise me. I worked as a sub-contractor for the Federal Government for years and have as of this writing not witnessed anything done that was not politically motivated. Since the majority of the Federal Government is on the East Coast it is extremely East Coast (suburb)biased, and completely lacks any understanding of rural America. This is my experience for the second straight census, and my opinon of the people working in the Federal Government after working around them for fifteen years. Dtexasracer ( talk) 02:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I have a question for the group regarding the tagging of articles in the Scope of WikiProject United States and WPMILHIST task forces for the American Civil War, US and American Revolutionary War. Although there are some WPUS articles that have both banners I am currently not tagging articles with WPUS if they have the US related Military History taskforce flags. This poses one problem however in that the MILHIST project does not use an importance or priority field. I would like to solicite opinions on wether we should also tag articles in the scope of MILHIST US/ACW and ARW so that we have them in our scope as well as being able to assign them an importance. -- Kumioko ( talk) 15:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest one way of pulling folks together is reactivating the collaboration at Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW - this would be good to get folks to work together on those big articles which it is hard to bring up to GA or FA alone....12:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, have spruced up the collaboration page now and moved it to Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. There is already a nomination for Chesapeake Bay there which is not a bad and quite modest article to start off with. I think it can sit there for three rounds and see what happens. Template:Collab-us is where the current successful collaboration is listed, and slots into Template:USCOTM as well as other collaboration noticeboards/templates. There are instructions there anyway. I'll have a think about and nominate a couple of choices that'd be good just to get the ball rolling, which anyone else is open to as well. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.
The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, so I noticed that there are various articles on historians and historical methods related to the United States, but not an overarching article concerning the historiography of the United States. In that spirit, I have the beginnings of an article at User:Purplebackpack89/Historiography of the United States. I'd like to get more imput before I mainspace it. Edits are welcome Purple backpack89 21:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
New article, created, at Beyond the First Amendment. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 21:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The CC code in box 12. Does the employer have the rite to fire you after the 52 weeks are over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.14.155 ( talk) 18:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
This talk page is now appoaching 250K (the WP max is 500K) which is going to make this page hard or impossible to view for many viewers. I recommend we do a new section that sums up the Scope issue thus far and a separate section that sums up the Importance reclassification debate and archive the old topics as well as some of the other unrelated banter. I would do it myslelf but it would surely be taken the wrong way by some. Any takers? -- Kumioko ( talk) 15:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as "scope", the WikiProject guidelines referenced above provides good guidance -- guidance that ALL WIKIPROJECTS must comply with. It says:
WikiProject banners should not be used to duplicate the category system or portals. If an article is only tangentially related to the scope of another WikiProject, then please do not place that project's banner on the article. For example, washing toys for babies reduces transmission of some diseases, but the banners for WP:WikiProject Health, WP:WikiProject Biology, WP:WikiProject Virus and/or WP:WikiProject Medicine do not need to be spammed to Talk:Toy.
No further clarification is necessary on our projects page. We don't tag articles with only a tangential relationship to the United States. I don't think anyone could logically argue that, for example, California is only "tangentially related" to the United States.
What happens if ANY PROJECT erroneously places a tag on an article that is not "tangentially related" to the United States? This is what the guidelines say:
However, on occasion, someone clearly places the wrong banner on an article. When this happens, it is polite to ask either that individual or that project why the banner was placed. Doing so reduces the likelihood of inter-project animosity, and also could potentially help the article in some way. For example, a project's scope may have expanded to include the article; they might now be willing to work on the article. Also, particularly when a bot is being used to tag articles, the article may have been tagged because it is miscategorized. In instances like these, like in all others, civility, respect for others, and clear, unambiguous communications are to be greatly valued.
Seems simple enough. No indication that a BETTER SOLUTION would be to change the mission statement of the offending project over the objection of the ACTUAL MEMBERS of that project. Bad feelings are being created to solve what is, to this point, a non-existent problem that simply ASSUMES BAD FAITH on behalf of this project. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 23:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
United States Project‑class | |||||||
|
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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I have just done a fairly random check and tag of project related categories - and very few seemed to be tagged - anyone into raising bots to do the rest at all? or is the number of categories to large for the idea of a bot? curious if anyone is interested - it really helps project management to have categories tagged. Maybe in the end it is a manual job if the number has been estimated - as I do understand some bots hang up on larger numbers Satu Suro 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Also someone has very wisely narrowed some tagging on the Supreme Court categories - I would appreciate if anyone has any lead/link on an overall USA category tree at all Satu Suro 00:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The current US-related WikiProjects template needs to be updated to make fools like self understand the inactives and the merges - for more clarity as to tag what - anyone in for a template upgrade? Satu Suro 00:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Connecticut. Thanks! – Juliancolton | Talk 13:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
A bunch of US stamp images have been nominated for deletion over the last few days. 70.29.210.174 ( talk) 03:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Helo everyone! You may be interested in checking out Africana womanism. Thank you! The Ogre ( talk) 12:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Commission_for_Environmental_Cooperation#Bullshit.2FPOV_nonsense. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is the need for that? (Is there an urgency?, considering each article reflects the original text?) Does it promote American "self-centrism"? I mean, how about other countries' constitution? Why this needs to be in separate articles? Why not merge them into the whole US Constitution article? Why does they have their own article, especially that they are repeating on every mother articles, or why is there a need to explain each section, each article of the US Constitution?-- JL 09 Talk to me! 09:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello all. I'm posting this because I'd like to put Virginia back up for Featured Article Candidate, and hope that the third time's the charm. I'm looking for any suggestions editors here might have with the article before I do that. Also, since its been a while since I navigated the FAC, any suggestions from someone whose done it more recently, as it keeps getting more difficult. I am aiming for the end of next week, so please let me know before then if there's anything. Thanks guys!-- Patrick { oѺ∞} 19:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Does this Project have an SOP dictating Medal of Honor recipients' biographical articles fall under it and should be of "High" importance? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion may be of interest to project members: Talk:List of United States Senators in the 18th Congress by seniority#disputed. - Rrius ( talk) 05:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The present article covers only the National Economic Council in the U.S. White House. However, there was another National Economic Council that existed in the mid-20th Century as an advocate for libertarian thought. Can someone who knows the history of the earlier National Economic Council write up something on it as disambiguation? I know that Rose Wilder Lane wrote book reviews for the National Economic Council in the 1950s.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RDCushing ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Household income in the United States has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 15:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Pennsylvania has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101 People Who Are Really Screwing America. Cirt ( talk) 06:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I am disenchanted with the current overall outline of the Revolutionary War. It may have served well originally to chronicle this like all other wars: Napoleonic or Civil War or whatever, by outlining a series of battles, won or lost, etc. etc.
But the American Revolutionary War was more like a guerrilla war. It was necessary for Washington to learn to husband his resources, fighting only when he was absolutely sure he could win. This was serious problem with no money, horrible soldiers, lousy training, etc. etc. That is the story of the war, plus maybe Lexington, Bunker Hill, Brooklyn Heights, Saratoga, Monmouth, and Yorktown; with Trenton and Ticonderoga thrown in for comic relief (okay cannons from Ticonderoga). But the rest should be outlined with emphasis on getting the troops through the winter, always a major problem, getting them trained, finding capable officers, etc. etc. The story is one less of battles won, then morale, logistics and politics. Right now there is "no room" in the outline for such "trivialities." No room for barely managing to preserve the army's integrity at Morristown in 1779-1780. The battles were "all over with" in the north, and the outline is therefore complete. End of story. The outline and emphasis needs serious restructuring at the highest level from someone who can grasp the entire war. The articles are already written. So it's "just" a matter of re-writing the highest level articles to reflect reality and not some bureaucratic focus on battles, mostly lost by Americans, not untypical during a guerrilla conflict.
And, oh, the templates reflect that emphasis also. Don't know how to "correct" this. "All" Wikipedia wars have battle templates, almost meaningless here, along with battles generally in the Revolution, the ones mentioned above excepted. Student7 ( talk) 23:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject United States members are invited to help improve the Marijuana Reform Party article, which needs much attention. Along with WP Cannabis, members of WP Political Parties and WP New York are welcome to improve the article in any way possible. Hopefully we can all work together to upgrade the article status within the next 2 weeks. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss how the article can be improved. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I came across this article at the end of the NPP backlog: Historical U.S. Census Totals for Penobscot County, Maine. I think it falls foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY as it lists census statistics: it isn't an encyclopedia article about a notable topic. There's a whole series of these articles for Maine. Opinions? Fences& Windows 20:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Redheylin ( talk · contribs) has proposed a possible merge of articles North Carolina v. Alford (1970 Supreme Court of the United States case), with the form of guilty plea it spawned, Alford plea. Discussion is at Talk:North_Carolina_v._Alford#Contradiction_tag. Thank you for your time, Cirt ( talk) 14:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleagues
This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday 14 December to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.
On behalf of the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Interested editors may wish to comment on this article's content and sourcing. Nick-D ( talk) 18:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone might like to merge this new stub into something else? PamD ( talk) 11:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've found the area code listing for cities to be extremely useful. I help at WikiProject Wisconsin, and we haven't had the area codes added to the city infoboxes. How did other states add this? Did a bot do it? Someone use an AWB? Where did they come up with the database to fill the fields? Royal broil 01:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The United States Census Bureau released its estimate of 2009 state populations yesterday. I've updated the U.S. state population data from the Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009. Yours aye, Buaidh ( talk) 18:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit of an unusual idea, but I thought it would be worth noting United States Congressmen wounded or killed in the line of duty. Only one has actually been killed, but I know various others have been wounded. Is this WP-worthy? Any help filling out other examples in the article? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 08:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've formed a new category to collect all the articles (and new subcats) dealing with the hunting of bison (primarily American buffalo). Since bison/buffalo hunting was closely tied into the history of Western Expansion in the United States, I've tagged it for this project. I'd appreciate any input on building the category, and also as to whether it should be re-named, as though the American buffalo is technically a bison, it is far better-known by the term "buffalo", and labeling the category "Bison hunting" might hurt more than it helps. Alternately, folks could try and add a few pages on hunting European bison ( wisent, etc) to round it out. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 18:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Defenceman has come up for renaming again, see Talk:Defenceman
76.66.197.17 ( talk) 04:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 04:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I have noted that there is a lot of inconsistency in how metro areas are referred to across different articles. There are some editors who stick very strictly to first referring to a metro area by its OMB designation (e.g. "Chicago-Naperville-Joliet-Gary"), and only afterward possibly mentioning the area's common name (e.g. "Chicagoland"). Other editors use the common name almost exclusively, except when specifically referring to government statistics about the area.
Has any policy statement ever been discussed? Not that it is a huge deal but looking at different articles across WP there is a good deal of inconsistency, which (to me) seems a little confusing.
Thanks.
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 04:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
In some state election templates, people have inserted city elections. There are a number of problems with this.
1) City politics are not intertwined with each other, much less the state. Legislator election is different since they will interact with each other statewide. But if city x does one thing, and city y does another, who cares? Really. There is no interaction.
2) It appears a way to "promote" ( WP:PR) city politics to a statewide audience who, to tell the truth, doesn't much care in Modesto, what Lemon Grove does. So it is of scant interest and is off WP:TOPIC for a statewide audience, which the template was aimed at.
3) Some states have a lot of cities. It is just clutter in what was supposed to have been a state only template.
4) Elections are often held at different times, so there is even less interaction with statewide politics. This was done deliberately at the city level to avoid issues at the statewide level from "messing up" city elections. This is fine, but the reverse should also be true. City elections shouldn't mess up a state template.
5) There would be absolutely no point in inserting each city separately in a template for cities only. Because there is no interaction between them. It is this that reveals the charade of inserting them into another template. No one cares about city elections except people in that city only. People looking at a state template do not care.
Let's take city elections out of state election templates. Let them perform their local WP:BOOSTERism in some other fashion. Student7 ( talk) 12:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Need some help in sorting List of hydroelectric power stations/Temp into regional lists in List of power stations in the United States. Can anyone help? Examples on how it should be done can be found here. Feel free to contact me on my talkpage if anything. Thanks. Rehman( +) 07:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Over the past month or so I have been going through all the Medal of Honor related articles varifying their assessment status, makingn notes and creating a page to track it. This is not a formal project, just smoething that I created to give myself a starting point to start building up the content of the Medal of Honor related articles. I though I would post this out here as well in case others are interested as well. If you look at this page Medal of Honor assessments other than Amerian Civil War (ACW) you will find tables oif all of the Medal of Honor recipients other than those for the ACW with their assessment and some rough notes. This page reflects the same for the ACW Medal of Honor recipients and this page reflects those that still need to be created. The ones who are lined out are already done, although some are still stubs and need work. Just a few notes about the state of the articles in general:
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. -- Kumioko ( talk) 21:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The first link for citation #37 at page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States is dead. The specific paragraph in question is quoted below:
Figures for before 1929 have been reconstructed by Johnston and Williamson based on various sources and are less reliable. See
http://eh.net/hmit/gdp/GDPsource.htm for more information about sources and methods.
Alternate source is needed.
-- ExtraTrstl ( talk) 06:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Syrian American/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 03:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
On every single template, the assessment comes up with additional jibberish, something on the order of:
dwmlkdsfrhfjendchwsz,mdxcfvghgtfrdxfcvghgfcvbhgtfdcfvbghgytfcvgbhf by rohaan
This needs to be fixed ASAP Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a move discussion potentially relevant to participants at this project: Kazimierz Pułaski → Casimir Pulaski at Talk:Kazimierz Pułaski#Requested move (2). - Rrius ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Made a Paralympics task force: Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Paralympics. Please edit and/or join, and help improve Paralympics articles related to the United States. Bib ( talk) 14:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Please, go make your voice heard in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse scientific method! Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 12:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you.
Why doesn't the US C use the race of Caucasian? instead of White-white is not a race, and why deferieinate between races and just do a body count? ---- ____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.153.242 ( talk) 15:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The current article Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee is not very good. It contains just a few sentences which are not sourced very well. I've written a more developed alternative version, updated now that it has been created and is in the news. This version can be found on my user page here. I would update this myself now but I am affiliated with one group listed in the Controversy section (ALG) so I am hoping that another editor see this as an improvement and move it over. Please make this change at your convenience. Or if there is consensus it is OK for me to add it, I can do that, but I thought it would be better to ask. I first asked about this at the Wikipedia Help desk but they sent me here. And there is no one editing the TPSAC page, it has only been edited once, so there is nobody there to ask. Thanks. -- As in liberty ( talk) 19:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I was recently informed by an editor that there is no need to add the WPUS talk page banner if the MILHIST banner is there with the US task force checked as yes. Personally I do not agree and wanted to get clarification. Is it appropriate to use the WP United States Banner on US related articles or is it enough to use the MILHIST template with the US Task force option. -- Kumioko ( talk) 13:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Your comments would be greatly appreciated at an Afd for an American musical ensemble here. Neelix ( talk) 21:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The following AfD may be of interest to editors here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sessions of the United States Supreme Court - Rrius ( talk) 01:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Greetings. I've expanded Blackbeard to the point where its almost ready for FAC, but another editor highlighted a minor problem. Blackbeard died at Ocracoke Inlet (presently in North Carolina) in November 1718. Given that the state of North Carolina didn't exist then, which article should I link to? The Province? Parrot of Doom 14:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
At Diane Wood, part of this project, a discussion is occurring as to the of necessity of including 13 references in the lead for the proposition that a person has been mentioned as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court. - Rrius ( talk) 01:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
"The U.S. Department of Justice compiles statistics on crime by race, but only between and among people categorized as black or white. There were 111,490 white and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2005. Out of the 111,490 cases involving white victims, 44.5% (49,613) had white offenders and 33.6% (37,461) had black offenders, while the 36,620 black victims had a figure of 100% black offenders, with a 0.0% estimation for any other race based on ten or fewer sample cases."
This is unnecessary, biased and inflammatory, it was copied and pasted from stormfront, why did they only post 2005 and ignore the other statistics?, either post all of them or don't post anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empyrium ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
When used as a modifying noun, the word "state" (also "city", etc.) is never capitalized. For example, the city of New York is in the state of New York. How come every single US state article says, "the State of _________"? People need to take care to be grammatically correct. I watch only a small number of state articles because editors always capitalize this word. But it'd be nice if other editors could sort of help and lowercase this word when appropriate. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 18:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Talk:Washington#Requested move which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 18:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I tried to add under "US State" under a new subtitle "Budgets" the following information from the Washington Post: "In 2010 six states had budget deficits exceeding those of Greece, then in international news for being close to bankruptcy.Faiola, Anthony (27 April 2010). "Small city in Italy just one of many around globe facing crushing debt". Washington, DC: Washington Post. pp. A1.." This article is too antiseptic for real world data like this. It clearly doesn't belong in the "United States" article either which is about the federal government. There is currently no article for intermediate information in between federal government, and a state (singular). There needs to be one for the collective states for comparative cultural, etc. information that can't go in the other articles. Student7 ( talk) 02:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Will US conduct census this year?-- Bojan Talk 07:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to know are there any good speeches about what the people said about The Haymarket riots in 1886? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.190.235 ( talk) 19:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I came across this placename in the article for USS De Soto (1860). However, there appears to be no such place. There are three Grand Views mentioned in Google but none of them are obviously the Grand View mentioned in the article. Anyone have an idea what the correct name/state might be? Gatoclass ( talk) 03:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, are there already plans or even projects to update all the municipalities, CDPs and what ever when the new census data will be published? I guess this will need a pretty difficult bot project. -- h-stt !? 13:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking through the president articles, I was appalled that a good amount of them were only B-Class articles. I propose that we systematically work on them to get many more of them up to being at least GAs. -- Iankap99 ( talk) 00:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I notice the Spanish Wikipedia article es:Ciudades de Estados Unidos - It doesn't seem to have an English equivalent (it has no interwiki to any English article). Should we create one here? Or is there already one? WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.
Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 32 articles to be referenced. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.
Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope ( talk) 16:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
In this article on the USPHSCC, the end of the second paragraph in the HISTORY category ends with President Grover Cleveland signing an Act into law that formally established the modern Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. The third paragraph jumps nearly 100 years into the late 1980's to early 1990's with Hurricane Hugo and the Loma Prieta Earthquake. Can someone please clean this up and differentiate who's officers or what office it was that helped the victims of those two natural disasters?
Prmetalman ( talk) 02:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)prmetalman
If anyone wants to find out when a post office opened or closed, a user pointed me to www.usps.com/postmasterfinder which is a database having that info WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Names like List of Puerto Ricans, List of Argentine Americans, List of German Americans, etc. should be put under the project's scope. Not only that, but I think they should all be renamed. There is no such thing as a list of all German Americans, and not every single one is notable enough for an article. I propose that "List of" be renamed to "List of distinguished" so the titles can accurately describe what the list encompasses. (i.e.) " List of distinguished Puerto Ricans" Feed back ☎ 19:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI, 200 Greenwich Street has been requested to be renamed as Two World Trade Center. See Talk:200 Greenwich Street.
70.29.210.155 ( talk) 04:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI, a bunch of US-related portal link templates have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 23.
70.29.210.155 ( talk) 04:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how these templates work so that I can fix a broken link.
Reference # 1 on this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_motto
The URL is incorrect. It has
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html
It should be
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml
Grandmakr (
talk) 06:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I want to invite anyone who's active here and has an interest in public policy to join WikiProject United States Public Policy, which is just starting up. We've got some cool things planned, including working with students and their professors for several public policy courses.-- Sross (Public Policy) ( talk) 12:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Opinions are needed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings, which might potentially influence the naming conventions for a wide swath of United States-related articles. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Please don't take offense to the following statement but...Is this still an active project? I was about to add my name to the members list and I noticed that it doesn't seem to be very active as a project (individual editors are plenty active though). Before I did I thought I would ask before I add my name to a Wikiproject that has been left to languish. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
That's the edit comment put onto a change in Conservapedia by someone who seems to want to remove references to America or American even though it is referred to as an American encyclopaedia rather than a USA one in the sources. Would you like to point out to them whatever it is the general policy is about this sort of thing as I'm sure it can't be the first time. Dmcq ( talk) 23:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I found a source that talks about variations of fundamentalist Christianity and Southern racism. - Leonard, Bill J. " A theology for racism: Southern Fundamentalists and the civil rights movement." Baptist History and Heritage. Northern hemisphere Winter 1999. WhisperToMe ( talk) 02:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
AFD discussion, is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Miller (South Carolina politician) (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 22:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the United States articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI, there is a proposal for a WikiProject North America, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/North America
76.66.193.224 ( talk) 04:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject United States/Archive 5! We would like to invite your WikiProject to help with the Smithsonian Institution collaboration, an outreach effort which aims to support collaboration such as Wiki-Academies, article writing, and other activities to engage the Smithsonian Institution in Wikipedia. Because of the Scope of your project, your project has been nominated to be part of our WikiProject Embassy, a place for WikiProjects to help Editors participating in the Smithsonian Collaboration improve articles, find materials, and create partnerships for the future. We hope that you will nominate an Ambassador for our participants to contact. Thanks!!! |
FYI, Canadian American has been requested to be renamed. It apparently revolves around rules of grammar... 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 04:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that there seem to be a large number of US related WikiProjects that are either Inactive, Defunct or have minimal activity. I would like to recommend redirecting the talk pages of these to the WikiProject United States talk page. This will allow a more timely response to questions and suggestions. In truth some can probably just be eliminated completely but this could be a start to that. Below is a list of some of the projects this suggestions relates too. I won't do this if the consensus is that everyone is happy with the status quo but I think that we need to clean up what seems to be a WikiProject frenzy gone way out of control. There are obviously some very active projects these relate too that these could be directed to (Politicians, government, etc). I would like to hear any comments and or suggestions that folks may have.
US Geography:
US Education related:
US Sports related:
General:
US (semi active):
-- Kumioko ( talk) 01:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
-- Kumioko ( talk) 14:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The article List of cemeteries in the United States needs to be broken up into 50 articles. There must be over 1000 cemeteries in Massachusetts alone!- 96.237.8.162 ( talk) 22:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I sure hope you don't just delete it! The general coverage of cemeteries is woefully inadequate. My real current interest is in a List of Cemeteries in Boston. I am trying to work my way down from the almost empty existing skeleton structure. If you take away what is there, then there will not even be anything for people to build on... Not only does WP not cover cemeteries very much, there also don't seem to be any other good complete lists anywhere else online of Massachusetts cemeteries.- 96.237.8.162 ( talk) 00:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I have taken the last few days to revamp, reorganize and expand the information on the project page. I modelled it after the MILHIST Project page. Here is the link to see what the page could look like Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Main. I have ssplit some of the information out into separate pages for easier access and added a couple new categories. Here are the new sections I have created so far.
I would like to ask for all of you to vote your support or oppose on the new layout. I also need feedback on how to make it better. Feel free to make changes on your own but if its a major change please post a note here first. -- Kumioko ( talk) 12:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
So i guess we should fine a place for the new section "
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States#Image requests".. I would guess in the new project look move it to
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/To do after some rewording and linking...after looking and reading closer .. i think it should be deleted.
Moxy (
talk) 03:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Since there was knowone screaming in opposition Implemented the New page layout. If anyone has any comments please let me know. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Republic of Texas (1861) has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 04:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I have started a proposal to merge three United States related Noticeboards into one due to all three having no or extremely limited activity in the last year. I believe this will invigorate the noticeboard if we keep any of them at all. I propose merging:
into
Please provide comments (including support or oppose). Comments are necessary to ensure that this does not intefere with ongoing efforts. If no comments are received in 7 days I will assume there is no problem and proceed with the merger. -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you think the image gallery at People of the United States violates Wikipedia policy? I think the gallery adds to the article and would like to find some way to keep it. See [ talk page] for details.-- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 00:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
As I continue to rebuild this project I am proposing to allow Xenobot to tag articles in this project scope and auto-assess them if possible. I am posting this message to gather comments prior to intiating this task. I will leave this out here for at least 7 days prior to moving ahead and I will post comments on several of the other US related project pages soliciting comment. Based on the comments gathered I will proceed from there. Here are some things to consider:
Question: Does Xenobot have the capacity to not tag for C-class? Milhist doesn't use it (though that may change in the future), and I am concerned that if it attempts to do so there could be some problems from a milhist project standpoint. TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
(deindent) I assume that you going to omit articles that are already in children WikiProjects like WikiProject Michigan since they are automatically included in this WikiProject by inheritance. Royal broil 23:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
|subject=
used in {{
WikiProject U.S. Congress}}. They currently have Person, people, place, and Event I think. I would include Education, Government and Sports (possibly more later). Along with these my plan was to start coordinating with WPMILHIST US, ACW and AW task forces (by sharing membership lists, to do lists and the like) as well as the active child projects under WPUS.The problem with the seventh point is that if I dont place the WPUS banner because they already fall into a state then I must apply the same logic to the other Projects as well such as WPUS Government, Politicians, presidents, presidential elections, Congress, governors, etc. There are so many projects there is very little wiggle room left. Additionally, by the same logic if WikiProject Miami is on an Article then there would be no need for WikiProject Florida but after reviewing them the majority have both. Another good example that comes to mind is if an article has Wikiproject Biography then why would we also put WikiProject MILHIST Biography task force. Using the same logic you used wouldn't it be inferred? In addition to what I have stated above here are some more bullets about why its good to bannerize other than use as a watchlist:
In the end if consensus is that only the child project banners should remain then this Project will be defuncted because the scope would be eliminated. In regards to he one comment about coordinating. With the the way WP works I find it very unlikely that we could get three projects to agree on something let alone all of them. For the most part I have followed the structure of WPMILHIST and I continue to use it as a guide (as well as several other projects) adapting them to fit the needs of this project. As a little extra info, I currently employ 5 different bots doing different tasks related to the project (just to clarify their not mine). In addition to that I am eying the use of several others to cleanup articles, auto-assess, autotag, expand, etc. Additionally I have created a bot account which I intend to use to do this like Newsletters, Project invites/Membership requests, cleanup, assessment,etc. So at this point I have only scratched the surface but as I gain momentum you will begin to see the project and the articles in its scope grow and expand. I intend to employ every bot and technique available to enhance, cleanup and buildup the articles related to this project. As I mentioned before I am still trying to get my arms around the monster. -- Kumioko ( talk) 05:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, the usage of Plymouth is up for discussion, see Talk:Plymouth#Proposed_Move.
76.66.199.238 ( talk) 05:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:List_of_named_ethnic_enclaves_in_North_American_cities#Name_-_move.3F. Skookum1 ( talk) 17:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Southern United States has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumioko ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 October 2010
There is a discussion at Talk:Plymouth, requesting that it become a disambiguation page. I don't believe that the English city is the primary topic, as Plymouth, Massachusetts (including Plymouth Colony) and Plymouth (automobile) are more well-known in the U.S. and Canada. OSX ( talk • contributions) 21:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
As I work to reinvigorate Wikipedia:WikiProject United States I have found a number of US related Wikiprojects that are inactive and no longer functional. I would like to archive some of them and redirect them to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States along with any pages that might link to them. In performing this housecleaning I believe it will help us to refocus our efforts on the projects that are active. I am giving editors the opportunity to make comments before I do however. The following 4 projects are the ones I would like to close out:
I have chosen these 4 because only one of these links to anything. There are no templates (including no talk page banner), no bots generating stats and with the exception of state capitals (it has 62 pages) none link to any articles (although some link to some user pages or Wikiprojects as part of the US WikiProjects template) which can be easily removed. Please let me know what you think about this idea. I will leave this discussion for at least the next 7 days. -- Kumioko ( talk) 04:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
If there are no existing banners, there's little to be lost, is there? And apart from the cities one, they sound rather specific for wikiprojects (check out the Pakistan wikiprojects if you want to see that approach really gone mad...) However, I would suggest that merging projects have a notice up for at least a month, barring projects that never really got off the ground in the first place. Unless there's a particular reason to move fast, it's better to take it slow. Rd232 talk 18:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It appears that some editors are concerned about tagging articles that belong to a US related subproject but I would like to get an idea of what the consensus is. Primarily, if and in what cases this project should tag articles. Below are 3 times when I think this project should tag an article as WPUS:
If anynone else has ideas I am open to hear them. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
So how does the Starship Enterprise meet these new criteria?-- Chaser (away) - talk 03:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
According to Write-in candidate and the Washington Post, the first write-in candidate to win a US Senate seat, was in 1946, and not Strom Thurmond, but the Strom Thurmond article says he was the first to do so... 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 15:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Just curious if there are (heh) any US politician pages that are going through rough times now that the silly season is done. I helped watch over the Palin article after the '08 elections, and I imagine there are a few like that now. Volunteering to help with responding to "editprotected" and so on. -- SB_Johnny | talk 21:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Last surviving United States war veterans was renamed to Last North American veterans by war, but still is a US list. 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 07:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello!
As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary on January 15 and our new project: Contributions. I'm posting across these Wikiprojects to engage you, the community, to work to build Wikipedia by finance but also by content. We seek donations not only financially, but by collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.
Visit the Contribution project page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. ⇒ DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 20:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Eastern Mountain Coal Fields task force |
An invitation to join us! | |
You're invited to be a part of the Eastern Mountain Coal Fields task force, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Eastern Kentucky Coal Field region of Kentucky. To accept this invitation, click here! |
Hello, WikiProject United States! We are looking for editors to join the Eastern Mountain Coal Fields task force, an outreach effort which aims to support the development of articles relating to Eastern Kentucky in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!
J654567 ( talk) 00:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Guys, if we are committed we could get all presidents up to GA level systematically. If we work together on the most recent one that isn't GA, each one would take a week tops. Would anybody like to do this with me? We can do it starting from the most recent, that would be Bill Clinton-- Iankap99 ( talk) 01:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Let me first thank you for your consideration in taking this up. Yes I know that several are, as my statement was to get all presidents up to GA. I asked the U.S. presidents before this one, but I'll drop a note by all of them. Take your time with your current projects. I am very unfamiliar with MILHIST, where would I drop a line and on what operations are active? I'll submit Clinton for Peer Review now. EDIT: There already was a peer review. It's listed in the milestones. Thanks-- Iankap99 ( talk) 02:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's hoping the project will eventually address the (archived report) 769 dead links to the US State Department. -- CliffC ( talk) 18:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The article Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution gets nearly 4000 page views per day. It is, however, barely more than a stub and needs some serious expansion. Towards this end, I have decided to unprotect the article in the hopes that it will receive some random kindness from strangers. Considering that most of the people viewing this article are students, however, I'm under no illusions that it will be free from vandalism. Please add this article to your watchlist so that we can quickly revert any vandalism that occurs. Thanks! Kaldari ( talk) 01:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
For people looking for 1990 census maps...
It seems like this collection has the .ARC mapping data: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/pl1990.html
WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
What plans exist for updating entries dependent on census data when Census 2010 data becomes available? Is someone working on a bot for that? Also, when that is done, it would be good to put in better information on nearby cities. In rural areas, that boiler-plate sentence in entries for towns, "The Town of X is in the Y part of the county and is southwest of Z." just isn't very useful. I have ideas about how this could be done better.
Does anyone have plans to make a bot that deals with issues like these? -- Pleasantville ( talk) 20:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI Portal:United States of America has been nominated for deletion, see WP:RFD. 76.66.194.212 ( talk) 05:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Last North American veterans by war. Since you had some involvement with the Last North American veterans by war redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 76.66.194.212 ( talk) 07:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
There is of course no requirement to do this but I would like to offer a proposal to all the United States related projects that I think would be beneficial to many. Rather than try and coordinate 75 or more conversations I am starting this here and I will post a message to the projects of the weekend.
I would like to suggest consolidating some of the United States related WikiProject Banners under the WikiProject United States banner. The projects themselves would still operate as they do, completely seperate in scope and control from WPUS it would just allow 1 template to do what is currently done by 75-100. I know that some of the WikiProjects like United States Public Policy and US roads use special fields in their template and wouldnt be suitable for this consolidation but after revewing all the templates related to WPUS most of the state templates and many of the others use the same standard fields. This would offer several advantages:
As an example of what this could look like please see here Template:WikiProject United States/sandbox. Most of the main US related projects are added but again some would need to be removed because of special field considerations that dont apply to the rest. Please let me know if you have any comments, suggestions or if you think your project woudl be interested in this. -- Kumioko ( talk) 22:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Oregon}}
is already a template of some sort forced upon us based on some common template code somewhere, with some deficiencies handling regional photo requests. Would, for example, your proposal suggest changing our 10,000+ tagged articles from {{
WikiProject Oregon}}
to {{
WikiProject United States|state=Oregon}}
or some such? —
EncMstr (
talk) 05:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
So far as WikiProject Cleveland is concerned, we'd prefer to not to be included in said consolidation. As we feel each WikiProject has a certain sense of TLC attended to its own set of articles, we'd like to keep ours the way it is. By no means would I dissuade you from adding articles to your own WP-USA which might also fall into our our project's scope, but with all due respect, we'll be keeping our project the way it is, thanks. Ryecatcher773 ( talk) 05:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, looking at the Canada pages I think I understand what it's about now. It seems like the main advantage is really having a one-line banner that lists all the projects and a single assessment. Maybe it's because I don't deal much with the admin/code/whatever side of things, but phrasing it as "consolidating templates" doesn't really convey that.
Mostly I think that makes sense. One Hawaii-related issue is that WP:Hawaii also deals with things that predate the US annexation, and so don't really fall under the scope of WP:USA (the thing I mentioned above was regarding the use of diacritics in Hawaiian-language words, which a few people have violent objections to for some reason, but they seem to have abated). KarlM ( talk) 07:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Canada: Ontario / Ottawa / Music Project‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Canada Project‑class | |||||||
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= {{WikiProject United States presidential elections|class=FA|importance=Top|category=no|USPresidents=Yes|USPresidents-importance=Mid|category=no}}<nowiki> {{WikiProject Barack Obama|class=FA|importance=Top|category=no}} {{WikiProject U.S. Congress|class=FA|subject=person|importance=High|category=no}} {{WikiProject Illinois|class=FA|importance=high|category=no}} {{WikiProject Hawaii|class=FA|importance=Mid|category=no}} {{WikiProject Kansas|class=FA|importance=Mid|category=no}} {{WikiProject Chicago|class=FA|importance=Top|category=no}} }}
As an outsider, and not belonging to any of these groups I must say I heavily support moving to the WPCanada model. I have thought for a longtime that this should atleast happen on a city/state level. Because its somewhat rediculous to have banners for both Chicago and Illinois on a talk page. When one banner would do and could still convey the same information. So to do this on a national level I would probably support as well. - DJSasso ( talk) 17:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
This conversation seems to be rubbing folks the wrong way so let me suggest this. Another avenue to consider is adding topics relating to US things: These topics could include things like American Sports, American Education, American people, etc. This would allow these articles to be "tagged" as WPUS without giving the appearance that WPUS is trying to consume the other projects. It doesn't accomplish all the same goals I had intended but does this seem like a reasonable compromise? -- Kumioko ( talk) 18:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it is an unfortunate idea. For example, Kumioko left a pointed message at WikiProject Washington Metro asking why we don't do article assessments by class and importance. The fact is that we do not, so we would not be compatible with your proposed templates, because there is no consensus to do such assessements at this time. Racepacket ( talk) 13:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems there is a lot of confusion over what this really means to current projects such as Syracuse, New York. While the Canadian project is nice, I guess my problem is understanding what is different about that project and the current United States project? The Syracuse pages will still have their own project and also will be part of the New York project. Will either of those banners be removed from our pages? -- Nconwaymicelli ( talk) 08:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
If anyone wants to see what it looks like take a look at Talk:Nye County, Nevada. We are working to add the U.S. counties project. Previously only 135 of about 3200 counties were tagged and the project had virtually no activity. The banner also did not support assessment, importance or several other things which WPUS does. I have tagged about 2000 of the previously untagged articles and by the end of the weekend should have the rest. Then we can delete this template and hopefully move to the next one. Whichever that may be. The project page remiains. The identity and culture of the project remains. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello
Kumioko. I've rated 5000 or so articles for
WikiProject Connecticut, so I know a bit about template mayhem. Here are my reservations about this plan. I've read this entire thread, the first point is an expanion on some of the other posts.
1. I agree with
KarlM regarding Hawaii, and
Rmhermen about ratings... there are many articles which are:
a. of variable importance between a project and the United States. For example, the
Charter Oak is a Top article for Connecticut, it's probably a Low for the US. How does that get settled? Judging by
talk:Quebec French, the states will get overruled.
b. articles which are important to the state and have nothing to do with the US such as
Fort Hoop. Or for that matter, any articles about a state before joining the Union (Colonial New England, Hawaii, Alaska, pre-Mexican War California, et al).
c. quite a few articles overlap states such as
talk:Connecticut Western Reserve. Seeing "supported by" instead of state ratings actually makes templates less useful.
2. Then there is the problem of actually getting people to do this...
a. I have found many articles that were never rated (3000+). It's taken me a couple of years to do it. I have no desire to see all those edits reduced to "supported by", especially when they change to no longer be from a Connecticut POV.
b. I would stop rating articles totally for Connecticut if the US template only said ""supported by", or if all ratings had to match.
3. I find the
WikiProject Canada example to be misguided in terms of scale.
WikiProject Canada has about 66,000 articles, all of which (as far as I can tell) are "fed" by the various sub-projects such as
Wikiproject Nova Scotia.
Wikiproject United States has 28,000... but that doesn't include the wide majority of state articles.
WikiProject Connecticut has 6,800 of which 12 overlap... while
WikiProject Texas has 21,000 of which 743 overlap with
Wikiproject United States! My point here is that the US, being a country with ~10x Canada's population, a longer history as a country and a (let's just say) "a more dynamic role in world affairs" simply has more articles. If you added all the states together and subtracted those that overlap with
Wikiproject United States, I think you're going to find that the
Wikiproject United States ends up with well over 200,000 articles. IMO not only would this be a massive undertaking, it would be pointless without every state being onboard. Best,
Markvs88 (
talk) 22:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand your concerns and let me start by saying that if a project doesn't want this its no problem they don't have too. Right now I am concentrating my efforts on projects that are inactive or defunct (like US Counties which has been completely integrated) and projects that do want to (District of Columbia (Washington DC) is almost done and Superfunds will probably be next. Since you have several concerns let me attempt to answer each:
I have submitted a proposal at the Village pump regarding tagging non article items in Wikipedia. Please take a moment and let me know what you think. -- Kumioko ( talk) 01:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Category:American people of German-Jewish descent, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. IZAK ( talk) 13:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Category:German Jews who emigrated to the United States to escape Nazism, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. IZAK ( talk) 13:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Note, there is a WikiProject NASA under development. It is currently being discussed under the WP:Space reorganization plan at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Space/2010_Reorganisation. As it is a US government agency, you might want to also discuss this. 65.94.45.167 ( talk) 07:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Please consider participating in the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. cities discussion. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 05:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal for a WP:CSA ... that might also be considered for conversion to a task force of WP:USA. 65.93.12.43 ( talk) 07:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The usage of Birmingham Airport is up for discussion, see Talk:Birmingham Airport, West Midlands . 65.94.44.124 ( talk) 05:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I found:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Since WolterBot is no longer active, we now have a WikiProject cleanup listing, which shows that there are 30.7% of United States-related articles are needing cleanup. Zoinks! JJ98 ( Talk) 01:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, in addition to the points covered above: I think I've seen a discussion on how to use bots to update the articles on populated places, once the 2010 census data will be published in February 2011. Do you know where it is discussed and how far the planning has proceeded yet? Would an international task force be useful, that includes bot owners from other Wikipedias as well, as they have the same needs? TIA -- h-stt !? 12:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
SORT has been requested to be renamed Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, see Talk:SORT
65.95.13.158 ( talk) 10:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The usage of Mr. Kennedy is under discussion, see Talk:Mr. Kennedy. 65.95.13.158 ( talk) 06:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The vast majority of articles on English Wikipedia are about the United States. Do you really plan on tagging millions of articles? Why not just create a "Wikiproject Earth" and tag every article? Gigs ( talk) 17:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (sexual neologism). -- Cirt ( talk) 13:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Its been almost 3 months so its time for another weeks long discussion on the status of Find a grave. Here is a link to the discussion that is currently taking place, Again. on the external links noticeboard. Find a grave and IMDB. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
A vote is currently being held at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard as to wether we should ban the use of the Find a grave site and the thousands of links we have to it on articles. Please take a moment and place your vote. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of trouble with updating the rankings of states by population with the new census data. I just noticed it in the Wisconsin and New York articles. They list both the old population ranks from 2000 and 2010, such as this:
Population Ranked 3rd in the US
- Total 19,378,102 (2010 Census)[2]
- Density 408.7/sq mi (157.81/km2) Ranked 7th in the US FluffyWhiteCat ( talk) 09:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
An issue has come up that relates to North American Chinatowns and the use of Pinyin in relation to them, see Talk:Chinatown, Houston. As most North American Chinatowns were established by Toisanese, or later Cantonese diaspora groups, and Pinyin is a Mandarin transcription, there are issues of language to deal with. 184.144.170.217 ( talk) 06:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject United States to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 01:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! The " online ambassador" program, run by individual universities in collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation, needs more users. The program essentially has professors assigning college students to edit Wikipedia articles on American Public Policy ( WP:USPP). We, the online ambassadors, assist these students in learning how to edit, how to format their articles, and how to nominate them at DYK. It doesn't take an exorbitant amount of your time. Please consider applying. It's a great program, and you will have fun doing it. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I updated the archive from 60 days to 15. Know that the project is getting more active I think we should shorten the duration and 15 days seems reasonable at this time. -- Kumioko ( talk) 23:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Are we going to continue to use the current barnstar of National Merit on the WikiProject page, or do we want to upgrade to the new version? — Ed! (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
I know that everyone is very busy but there are a couple of ongoing tasks that could use some more help if anyone would like to pitch in. I have been mostly doing these myself up till now but since we have an updated member list now with a pretty large pool of editors I thuoght I would solicite some help if anyone has some extra time. Here are a few of the ongoing tasks I have been working on that could use some help and a few that I haven't been able to get to yet if anyone would like to pitch in:
There are other things as well and if anyone has ideas please let me know. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget about cleanup listings... Smallman12q ( talk) 13:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I must question the 2010 census; there are approximately 150 people living in twenty square miles using a Post Office box that did not receive a census questionnaire for 2010. As this is an example in rural Texas I would suggest that the population count is off by tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands. This should not surprise me. I worked as a sub-contractor for the Federal Government for years and have as of this writing not witnessed anything done that was not politically motivated. Since the majority of the Federal Government is on the East Coast it is extremely East Coast (suburb)biased, and completely lacks any understanding of rural America. This is my experience for the second straight census, and my opinon of the people working in the Federal Government after working around them for fifteen years. Dtexasracer ( talk) 02:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I have a question for the group regarding the tagging of articles in the Scope of WikiProject United States and WPMILHIST task forces for the American Civil War, US and American Revolutionary War. Although there are some WPUS articles that have both banners I am currently not tagging articles with WPUS if they have the US related Military History taskforce flags. This poses one problem however in that the MILHIST project does not use an importance or priority field. I would like to solicite opinions on wether we should also tag articles in the scope of MILHIST US/ACW and ARW so that we have them in our scope as well as being able to assign them an importance. -- Kumioko ( talk) 15:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest one way of pulling folks together is reactivating the collaboration at Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW - this would be good to get folks to work together on those big articles which it is hard to bring up to GA or FA alone....12:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, have spruced up the collaboration page now and moved it to Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. There is already a nomination for Chesapeake Bay there which is not a bad and quite modest article to start off with. I think it can sit there for three rounds and see what happens. Template:Collab-us is where the current successful collaboration is listed, and slots into Template:USCOTM as well as other collaboration noticeboards/templates. There are instructions there anyway. I'll have a think about and nominate a couple of choices that'd be good just to get the ball rolling, which anyone else is open to as well. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.
The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, so I noticed that there are various articles on historians and historical methods related to the United States, but not an overarching article concerning the historiography of the United States. In that spirit, I have the beginnings of an article at User:Purplebackpack89/Historiography of the United States. I'd like to get more imput before I mainspace it. Edits are welcome Purple backpack89 21:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
New article, created, at Beyond the First Amendment. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 21:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The CC code in box 12. Does the employer have the rite to fire you after the 52 weeks are over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.14.155 ( talk) 18:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
This talk page is now appoaching 250K (the WP max is 500K) which is going to make this page hard or impossible to view for many viewers. I recommend we do a new section that sums up the Scope issue thus far and a separate section that sums up the Importance reclassification debate and archive the old topics as well as some of the other unrelated banter. I would do it myslelf but it would surely be taken the wrong way by some. Any takers? -- Kumioko ( talk) 15:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as "scope", the WikiProject guidelines referenced above provides good guidance -- guidance that ALL WIKIPROJECTS must comply with. It says:
WikiProject banners should not be used to duplicate the category system or portals. If an article is only tangentially related to the scope of another WikiProject, then please do not place that project's banner on the article. For example, washing toys for babies reduces transmission of some diseases, but the banners for WP:WikiProject Health, WP:WikiProject Biology, WP:WikiProject Virus and/or WP:WikiProject Medicine do not need to be spammed to Talk:Toy.
No further clarification is necessary on our projects page. We don't tag articles with only a tangential relationship to the United States. I don't think anyone could logically argue that, for example, California is only "tangentially related" to the United States.
What happens if ANY PROJECT erroneously places a tag on an article that is not "tangentially related" to the United States? This is what the guidelines say:
However, on occasion, someone clearly places the wrong banner on an article. When this happens, it is polite to ask either that individual or that project why the banner was placed. Doing so reduces the likelihood of inter-project animosity, and also could potentially help the article in some way. For example, a project's scope may have expanded to include the article; they might now be willing to work on the article. Also, particularly when a bot is being used to tag articles, the article may have been tagged because it is miscategorized. In instances like these, like in all others, civility, respect for others, and clear, unambiguous communications are to be greatly valued.
Seems simple enough. No indication that a BETTER SOLUTION would be to change the mission statement of the offending project over the objection of the ACTUAL MEMBERS of that project. Bad feelings are being created to solve what is, to this point, a non-existent problem that simply ASSUMES BAD FAITH on behalf of this project. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 23:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)