Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Hello and welcome to the Wikipedia Project United States. I am very busy in my non-virtual life this morning (Pacific time) so please help me build this project and add to the main page. Thank you and once again Welcome! Signature^brendel 15:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject U.S. states - Matrix worksheet

We have a "worksheet" for coordinating U.S. state stuff at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states/Matrix. CQ 16:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you I will use the worksheet to expand the main project page and use it as a model in combination with a couple of other projects. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Household income in the United States up for FA

Hi, the GA Household income in the United States is up for FA status see the nomination here:[1]. Please tell me your thoughts righ here. Thanks. Signature^brendel 04:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Maps of US. States

Can someone tell me how these maps were created? I cant find the parameters on nationalaltlas.gov to reproduce them. I would like to have them in a bigger resolution on commons with a naming standard. --Huebi 08:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally i found them. I uploaded all of them into commons with the naming convintion Map_of_statename_NA.png in a size of 2100x1600 px. --Huebi 11:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry for not responding earlier but I'm on vacation currently and only check my watchlist briefly. Signature^brendel 17:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

New GA-American middle class

The article on American middle class just received GA status-after my vacation I will put it up for peer-review and try and nominated for FA. Also, the article Household income in the United States failed its FA nomination but remains a GA. Reasons cited were: The article lacks an explanation of how Census data is being used as well as chronological comaprsions. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

US Airforce Memorial

A section should be added to the USA Airforce article about the new Air Force memorial getting reading to open in Washington, D.C. From what I have heard and read, it will be something to behold and nearly all members of the Air Force from the top down are very happy with the final result. I would add the section, but I'm not a military aficionado like others. Reynoldsrapture 03:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

American Civil War

Anyone here interested in helping me start Wikipedia:WikiProject American Civil War? • CQ 18:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The American Civil War task force is now a "reality". Please join. • CQ 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured article review=

Poetry of the United States is up for Featured article review. Please go here to leave comments and help us maintain its featured quality. Joelito (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly

Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Bill O'Reilly as to whether the Bill O'Reilly page should redirect to the commentator, the cricketer, or neither. Your input would be appreciated. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I just cast my vote in that discussion; thank you for bringing that discussion forth. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

New template

Hi, we have a new template: {{Demographics of the United States}}. Add this template to any article disucssing the social, economic, racial, ethnic, or relgious demographics of the US. Fruthermore if you now of more "...in the United States" articles that discuss demographic attributes of this country feel free to add them to the template! Best Regards, Signature^brendel 21:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your template has a graphic suggesting that the data all comes from the Census Bureau, but you're including articles on religion. In as much as the Census Bureau hasn't collected religion data for decades, and is forbidden by law from collecting religion data, either the Census Bureau graphic, or the links to religion pages needs to disappear.

I recommend the religion links disappear, as you have a rather bizarre selection, including the Episcopal Church, which has only 2,314,756 members in the US, while leaving out the Assemblies of God, the Latter Day Saints, the ELCA Lutherans, the Missouri Synod Lutherans, the Jews, the Presbyterians, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Methodists, all of whom have larger memberships. What's more, if you don't have criteria for who to include and who to exclude, (and I don't any criterion mentioned anywhere), even an advocate for the Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America, with 395 members in two churches in the US, could reasonably demand they be included in your links. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 22:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion is part of the American demographics. The template is not near finished and if you look in its mark-up you'll see that I ask for other editors to add more reiligions, if there are articles about these religion's in presence in the US here on WP. The Albanian Orthodox Diocese should be included if there is an article for their presence in the US here on WP. I did not set any criteria for exclusion. Now we have two choices, I guess, list all religions with an article about their presence in the US here on WP-which is what I originally intended, or not list any. I do see your point about the Census graphic, I wasn't aware that it would be perceived in that manner-so I just left the religion article in.Signature^brendel 23:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Quality Scale

Hi, have started developing a quality scale for articles in this project. It is supposed to be a more simplified version (for now) of those found on other Wikiproject. Please feel free to help me built a sustainable quality scale. One editor can only do so much ;-) I you have suggestion post them right here or edit the quality scale itself. Anyways, I should have a complete blue-print up and running in a day. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 18:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Template question

I have noticed that there are a lot of articles which fall within the scope of more than one of the state projects and/or city projects. These have begun to clutter up some of the talk pages. Would this project be at all interested in changing the makeup of its project banner to something like the Template:WPMILHIST, or Template:WP Australia, so that it could highlight this project's interest in the article and also, by introducing the "drop-down" minor banners, reduce the overcrowding on some of the talk pages? I can't necessarily speak for the other projects, but, if they were approached about this idea, I think most if not all would agree to it in cases where three or more (for example) projects are involved. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read this and for any answer any of you may see fit to give. B2T2 14:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request - Gun violence in the United States

Lately, I have been working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks. Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (mainly peer reviewed, scholarly journals). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this topic, and am staying out of the Gun politics in the United States article. With the gun violence article, I have stayed with presenting the current state of research on this topic. I think is close to featured status, though some "gun rights" folks have already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Any suggestions on making in more NPOV. In reality, I feel that the article deals fairly with both POVs, citing strategies advocated by gun-control folks as ineffective, while citing some strategies advocated by the Bush administration as effective. Do you have any suggestions on improving the article? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Any help would be greatly appreciated. I have filed a formal peer request here, though feel free to leave comments on the article talk page if you prefer. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

World War I

World War I is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 19:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Political Parties

Should the U.S. Political Parties fall under the scope of this project? So far only the Republican and Democratic parties are listed within this project, though I'd be happy to tag the others. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes of course. They are a very big part of American society. Please go ahead and tag the other parties as well. Best Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 20:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Vote on Indian Standard Time

Hi in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian Standard Time, I've accidentally noted similarity in names of different users participating in the vote & so I guessed that they might be from the same nationality -India. And 6/7 at the time were Indians.

I think that this is an "internal" systemic bias, since Indian articles are written mostly and only by Indian users & they're mostly likely to be the only voters on featured article nominations on India-related articles & in result, making Indian articles attaining featured article status inevitable.

(I want to note that Indians are a special exception from other nationalities in Wikipedia because most of them can speak and write fluent English & thus can participate more in English Wikipedia while other foreigners can't & thus limit their participation in fields related to their nationality/culture & making participation of other third parties more likely.)

I think that there is need for third party, especially across different nationalities. And I would like members of this project to come participate in the vote & read what I've written & what they've replied with & see the article & voice your opinions. Thanks a lot! (Wikimachine 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

United States House of Representatives

United States House of Representatives is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 14:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Project scope

I applaud the creation of this project, as I am aware that there are a number of articles which are relevant to the US as a whole which are not necessarily specifically relevant to any individual states. I do have one question however. Do you believe that it might be possible to expand the scope of the project to include matters directly relating to specific states or other US entities which do not currently have individual projects dedicated to them. There are a number of states which fall in this category, and it seems to me to be unfortunate if articles related to them should suffer on that basis. Also, I wonder if the project would want to consider using the standard assessments as per the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team standards. If the answer if yes, I would be more than willing to help set the project up for doing so. Thanks again for creating the project. Badbilltucker 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes we would like to use the "assessments as per the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team standards." My attempt at creating my own assessment scale didn't work, so yes please go ahead! Also, this is an umbrella project for just about everything USA, so yes, articles pertaining to US states that are not covered by any other project would be covered by this one. The only problem this project has, is that it's new and hasn't kicked into high gear yet. I do think, however, that having an assment scale for US-related articles should help get more people involved (aside from providing readers w/ info regarding an articles quality and editors with a guideline). Best Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I will start working on the minutiae of the assessments immediately. Also, I think with the banners in place on at least a few articles, and the project listed on the Wikipedia:Community Portal, where I figure to be adding it at around 00:01 UTC tonight (to take maximum advantage of the 7 days a project is allowed to be listed), the amount of interest might increase and make the majority of editors more aware of the project.

Badbilltucker 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 23:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of project scope I'm concerned that the idea of any article about any person who may be a U.S. citizen as falling under this project is overkill. It seems kind of wierd that the same project rating that would apply to an article on the Constitution would be equally applicable to an actress. x 19:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Minnesota up at FAC

Minnesota is up over at FAC. Go vote! -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

First Amendment to the United States Constitution is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 17:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

General Motors

Seems a bit out of place, but General Motors seems to be part of the United States WikiProject. I added it to the list of articles needing help, because I noticed (and a lot of editors complained of on the talk page) that it reads like a PR piece. (I apologize if I wasn't supposed to do this and I wouldn't be offended if someone removed it.) --75.108.184.200 09:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well GM is a very inconic US based corporation-so I think it just borderlines this projects scope- though I am still somewhat undecided. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 20:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Joining

Hey...I like the United States, I like writing, and I like Wikipedia! How do I join? --Mr.Weirdo 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! Just put your username in the members section and start helping make US related articles here better. Happy editing, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in. I'll be sure to look out for any biased U.S. articles. --Mr.Weirdo 04:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great! Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 07:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

State Capitols

I just proposed something regarding the state infoboxes here - specifically, I'm wondering what people think about linking to the article on each state's Capitol building. Feel free to weigh in over there.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

List of US projects template

I know that there is some template that many of the US projects use which updates whenever new projects are added, but have no idea where it is. I'm looking to add all the projects that have recently been created to it, and maybe substitute it in directly into most of the project pages. Can anyone help me in finding where it is? Thanks in advance. Badbilltucker 00:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Star-Spangled Banner

Can yall give me your opinion of what is needed for this article to become Featured, or at least, pretty decent? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well first of all you need to make sure that there is no need for those "citation needed" and "This section does not cite sources or references" templates. That means that all info in the article needs to be referenced. In order to get to GA status you need more footnotes and references- as of now the lack of references is the article's main problem. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

State Townships

I have a question reguarding these. With the Illinois project, we started putting the townships as, for example Marion Township, Ogle County, Illinois with the county in the name. Another person started saying we should not have the county in the title of the articles unless there is a duplicate in the state. I see that both Ohio, Pennsylvania, and a few other states were doing it that way (with the county), so we started following that example. Is there a standard by which we should be doing these articles? I know that the US Census puts the county in there with the township. I would appreciate any advice in this from others not currently involved with the Illinois Project.--Kranar drogin 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Here on WP you should only put the state behind the name, unless there really is another town w/ the same name in the state. Just like on a postal address it should be "Town, State." Wiki is used by users around the world and the nation. To someone in California or Sri Lanks the county where Midland is located is not of interest. That the city is in Michigan, however, does provide an essential piece of info. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 01:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand with cities, so that is the way it should be with townships also? The only reason I ask this was so many other states are putting it township, county, state. So you are saying that all the townships should be changed in all the projects? I am only involved with Illinois, so we will change them if that is what you are saying. Cities we are already doing it city, state for all the articles.--Kranar drogin 06:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it think the same rule should go for townships. But I'm not really an expert on the subject and it might be wise to consult yet more editors on the matter. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent policy changes limiting primary sources

There have been recent changes in the merging of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS into WP:ATT, along with related changes at WP:N. One thing that may affect geographic projects is the tightening of the requirement for multiple secondary sources for all articles. Many geographic articles are created from a single primary source like census data or topo maps. Technically, this would subject these articles to deletion. If you have not checked these policies lately, you should. And be sure to check the supporting discussions. Remember WP policies and guidelines are supposed to incorporate a broad consensus. Dhaluza 20:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Attribution that prevents an article from referencing only primary sources. Anyway, it is trivial to find a commercial map that shows the place (most location articles already have several such maps linked in the external links), so the "threat" has no teeth. --NE2 21:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also look at WT:ATT and WT:N and check the edit histories to see what people are trying to include, particularly the recent WP:N edit war prior to protection. Dhaluza 21:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not looking at notability, since that's not a policy, but attribution explicitly allows "descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge" from primary sources. --NE2 22:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with Portal:United States

The portal was recently de-featured for lack of upkeep. I have been working on making it more 'automatic' using random portal elements. I've made some progress, but more needs to be done.

I'm going to be away from the project for a while, so if someone wants to help out, there's an immediate need: the anniversaries for each day need to be populated (see March for the format). I've just been copying items related to the US from the respective data pages (like March 7).

Anyone can do this - even a relative newcomer - so if someone is looking to get their feet wet, this is a good way to do so.

For the long term, I've developed a to-do list to get the Portal featured again. It's located on the talk page. – Zaui (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Alaska FAR

History of Alaska has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Census Pages

Hey.. should I make the U.S. Census pages below part of this wikproject. I know how to do it. I just was wondering if there's some sort of nomination process.--Dr who1975 05:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC) {{USCensus}}

Census information here and on the Genealogy Wikia

Genealogy Wikia is developing census-related pages, using Wikipedia as a basis for some. Emphasis is more on individuals than on population totals, but there will be plenty of overlap. I was interested to find Historical U.S. Census Totals for Franklin County, Massachusetts today, noting that it's in the category for its county (which is how I found it) but not any census-related category. How many other barely discoverable treasures like that are there? They should be tied together somehow. Maybe we can cooperate in devising some subnational census categories? Robin Patterson 06:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal/Suggestion about State Maps

Can the state maps be redone to make them more similar to the EU state maps, (i.e. Italy)? The EU maps have prettier coloring (opinion), and include geographic features (rivers). The current ones (i.e. Minnesota) are ugly (again, opinion). Just a suggestion. Chiss Boy 09:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Editors engaged in this project may also wish to participate in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rockero. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)