Template:Outline of knowledge coverage WPT

United States Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:48, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Commission_for_Environmental_Cooperation#Bullshit.2FPOV_nonsense.Skookum1 (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I realize I should add the link to the FAC page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virginia/archive3. It's been up for a while, and has garnered some support and good reviews, but more always help if you guys have the time!-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 16:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101 People Who Are Really Screwing America. Cirt (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I get the impression that they are universal for the US. See Historical_U.S._Census_Totals_for_Orleans_County,_Vermont. Just a place for official figures that they couldn't conveniently place anywhere else. I don't think they violate any policy. If a general place can be found for them outside of these articles, I'm sure editors and readers would appreciate the new organization. But these are important historical information, we don't want to lose them. Student7 (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Tags_at_Alford_articles. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Interested editors may wish to comment on this article's content and sourcing. Nick-D (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might like to merge this new stub into something else? PamD (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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? Royalbroil 01:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please provide some reliable sources for the article to verify the content. Right now (without any sources) it looks like something that people will read as being made up. Royalbroil 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added some references, though the full details/references are available in the wiki-links for each person/incident in question. Mainly though, I was hoping that folks on this project might know of other wounded Congressmen who should be included. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Defenceman has come up for renaming again, see Talk:Defenceman

76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

1. All have infoboxes
2. Most have persondata
3. All have references although some need to be cleanup and expanded
4. Most have a link to at least one applicable portal
5. Most have a link to at least 1 list
6. Many still need photos
7. A little over half the recipients have pages but a lot still do not, most of those that still need articles are in the Indian wars or the American Civil War.
8. I am currently working on cleaning up the talk pages making sure they all have appropriate project banners (At a minimum they should have biography, MILHIST and United States), task forces and general info tags (needs photo, persondata, infobox, etc.).

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. --Kumioko (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Are you referring to the WP Project banner template? Can you give an example? --Kumioko (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It go fixed, but for like an hour the gibberish above was appearing in the banner template Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I went ahead and did it with a change to how it deals with the committee's remit. -Rrius (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I had changed it to be specifically based on what I saw in the FAQ, but I don't have any reason to believe this version is wrong. Thanks. --As in liberty (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your comments would be greatly appreciated at an Afd for an American musical ensemble here. Neelix (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The province sounds good to me. Maurreen (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Parrot of Doom 09:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

This edit, along with the rest of the nonsense edits has been reverted. Start using edit summaries when you make massive deletions. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you remove large chunks of content and don't leave an edit summary most users will automatically just revert it. mauler90 (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This discussion I think was fleshed out over on the Manual of Style talk page, so this discussion can be closed here. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

U.S. state seems appropriate. Maurreen (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate there. The text quoted above is beyond the scope of U.S. state and is, if you really look at it, pretty meaningless. If anything, the information (after being significantly improved) would belong at Financial crisis of 2007–2010, 2010 European sovereign debt crisis, or some similar article. U.S. state deals with what states are and lists them. It is not, nor should it be, about the comparative fiscal health of some unnamed states relative to a nation that is not similarly situated. -Rrius (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While not commenting on what "should" be in US State, a article is needed for collective information. Right now there is no place for "real" up-to-date information on the collective states as opposed to the federal. I don't know about "meaningless." Greece's problem was "meaningless" up until this year. Now it is a crisis. We have been warned about our debt problem at the federal level. Apparently there is one at the state level also. Is this a problem only when a state nears bankruptcy? It is in the news. The liberal news, I might add. Student7 (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some place should be accepted for collective information, for want of a better term. Maybe before deciding which article that should be, it would be to see whether and how this is handled for other countries, and get general agreement on the principle. Maurreen (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea generally except that the US system is somewhat unique. Other nations do have states, like Mexico, Brazil and, technically Russia. But the balance between them tends to leave US states quite strong as maybe compared to the others. So the interest may not exist. Also, the US does have 50, often significant in either geographics size or population. That, in itself, is unique. The quantity is high and the domestic product of each is often impressive. Student7 (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will US conduct census this year?-- Bojan  Talk  07:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Most of the forms have already been received from residents. Maurreen (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The general issue came up a couple months ago, but I don't remember where. I think whoever did the bot last time plans to do it again. I think there is or was a question about whether it should just replace the earlier data or be added without removal of the earlier data.

On a side note, I think the data should usually be presented in a table. The current text format is ineffecient and boring and doesn't indicate context. It would be neat if the tables had at least two columns, one of the specific subject, and maybe the other for the country as a whole. Maurreen (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "last time"? There never was a Census in the lifetime of Wikipedia. The first creation of demographic paragraphs was pretty easy. You could pull the numbers from the database and insert them. This time, a bot has to check whether the data has been edited since creation and then replace it with the new numbers (or a new format). But will the bot be able to find the population numbers in other places of the articles? The info box is easy, because of the field name. But in the lead? A table with data from several decades or centuries? --h-stt !? 21:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "whoever did the bot last time", I meant "whoever ran the bot last time a bot was used to add census data". Maurreen (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That has merit, but my attention is elsewhere for a while. Maurreen (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I added the interwiki link to List of cities, towns, and villages in the United States in both directions. The Spanish article gives statistics and discussion about trends and the English article is strictly a list - but the articles are on the same topic. Royalbroil 04:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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" RaaGgio (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To comply with known Wikipedia restrictions, the title should include the word "notable" IMO. This covers an understood definition. Student7 (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable... seems fine, but this an issue that affects many many ethnicity, and nation-related projects so we need to establish an inter-project consensus. Where can this be achieved? RaaGgio (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people)? I think this has essentially already been done. All that is needed, is to implement it where you see fit IMO. Only covers English Wikipedia, of course, if that was a concern. I am not aware of a cross-language place to discuss policy, if needed. Student7 (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not cross-language; cross-project (as in WikiProjects). What do you mean "already been done"? RaaGgio (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PEOPLE is discussed elsewhere. When there are no articles, people cannot be listed in a "List of notable people." I do not even allow authors of reliable references to be named in academic articles. The article may not say "Smith says the vectorspace to the branes is empty." If Smith does not have an article, I replace this with "A physicist says that...." okay for Smith to be in the footnote! No non-notables anyplace. (Occasionally I am forced to allow "Jack Smith" founded Smithtown". Hard to avoid there!). So notability is covered.

Not every Brazilian can be listed because not that many Brazilians have articles. Doesn't really matter what the article is entitles, but the prose would read "This is a list of notable Brazilians." Changing to "distinguished avoids the Wikipedia definition and should probably not be used. It is also a bit WP:PEACOCK IMO. We know what "notable" is. We don't know and cannot define what "distinguished" is, but I can tell you right now that a rock music star with one album who died of a drug habit will make it into the list with the founder of his country if they both have articles. No way to avoid that! Student7 (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, WikiProject United States! 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!!!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Article page = Rob Miller (South Carolina politician)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. cities
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject United States regions
3. Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. cities
4. Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. counties (seems to be minimal interest)
5. Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. special districts
6. Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. state capitols
7. Wikipedia:WikiProject Bluegrass Region
8. Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Santa Barbara County task force
9. Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean/United States Virgin Islands work group
10. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cincinnati
11. Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Washington
12. Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia State Routes
13. Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Albany/Savannah/Valdosta (South Georgia)
14. Wikipedia:WikiProject New Hampshire Mountains
15. Wikipedia:WikiProject Oklahoma/Tulsa
16. Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon State Highways
17. Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhode Island Routes
18. Wikipedia:WikiProject Shreveport
19. Wikipedia:WikiProject South Carolina
20. Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern United States
21. Wikipedia:WikiProject Youngstown

US Education related:

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Columbia University
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject East Carolina University
3. Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida State University
4. Wikipedia:WikiProject NCSU
5. Wikipedia:WikiProject Notre Dame
6. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio Wesleyan University
7. Wikipedia:WikiProject Rutgers
8. Wikipedia:Wikiproject Seton Hall University
9. Wikipedia:WikiProject University of North Texas
10. Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Oklahoma
11. Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin
12. Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington University in St. Louis
13. Wikipedia:WikiProject West Virginia University

US Sports related:

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject American Football League
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject American thoroughbred racing
3. Wikipedia:WikiProject Atlanta Falcons
4. Wikipedia:WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference
5. Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/San Diego Padres
6. Wikipedia:WikiProject Boston Celtics
7. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cincinnati Reds
8. Wikipedia:WikiProject Kansas City Chiefs
9. Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota Twins
10. Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Cleveland Browns subproject
11. Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/New York Giants subproject
12. Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Washington Redskins subproject
13. Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Yankees
14. Wikipedia:WikiProject St. Louis Rams
15. WikiProject ACC
16. WikiProject American Football League
17. WikiProject Boston Celtics
18. WikiProject Boston Red Sox

General:

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Superfunds (seems to be minimal interest)

US (semi active):

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Atlanta
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisiana
3. Wikipedia:WikiProject United States governors
4. Wikipedia:WikiProject University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
5. Wikipedia:WikiProject Boston Red Sox
6. Wikipedia:WikiProject California/California Delta task force
7. Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Southern California task force
8. Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean
9. Wikipedia:WikiProject Charlotte
10. many, many more

--Kumioko (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:CANADA there was a suggestion that all the State WikiProjects should be merged into USproject, as was done with Canada, and that all the banners should also be merged (as was done with Canada)... so that no state would get neglected, as there would be a heirarchical structuring. They (WPCanada) also seem to want all county/regional/city wikiprojects to be subsumed by national wikiprojects as well. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that there should be a WikiProject US Sports, that parents all sports wikiprojects for the US, a WikiProject US States that parents all US state wikiprojects, a WikiProject US Education, to parent all the educational and university US wikiprojects. Inactive ones can be referred to their parent, and this project would end up with the inactive sublevel ones. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:76.66.200.95 is talking about is that we merged all the individual templates with {{WikiProject Canada}} this simply consolidates the articles class and allows all portals to be seen on one template...this was also recently done for {{WikiProject Latin America}}. We have a sandbox to play with see Template:WikiProject Canada/sandbox.Moxy (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is WP:CARIBBEAN listed? That's not a US Project... 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]