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.

Template:WeatherRecordsByState

It has come to my attention that article United States Constitution, which formerly held a place of honor, has slipped badly this year and last, having become bloated with WP:FORKs of History of the United States Constitution and Philadelphia Convention and perhaps a few others. I would appreciate some help in distinguishing the parts that should move from those that should die. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed today that User:Rreagan007 again removed the word "Commonwealth" from the bold titles, that's the first words of an article, from the pages about Virginia and Massachusetts. The user previously removed this from the title on those pages, as well as the other two commonwealths, Kentucky and Pennsylvania earlier this month on December 3, all with the edit summary of "formatting". This isn't the first time this has come up, and I'd like some feedback as to which way we should go with these articles' titles. One can note that commonwealth is the proper name of these places, but also that Wikipedia doesn't always go with the proper name. The policy at WP:BEGINNING does give editors ample leeway when it comes to these things, and the pages could also start "The Commonwealth of Kentucky is a..." with only the exact title bolded. Thoughts?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leave them as they are, with their proper names intact. We've been through this before. - Denimadept (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay here's my issue with this. I'm a big believer in consistency across articles. All states have a short form name and a long form name. The long form name of states is either "State of ______" or "Commonwealth of ______". If the 4 "commonwealths" start off their article with the long form, I believe all the other states should as well. Personally, I think it's enough just to have the long form name in the infobox and use the short form name as the bolded name in the lead. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "commonwealth" states are exceptions to the rule. Just leave them alone. Infoboxes are supposed to contain information contained elsewhere in the article, as a rule. - Denimadept (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they exceptions? If you're going to start out the Virginia article "The Commonwealth of Virginia" then you should start out the West Virginia article "The State of West Virginia". Rreagan007 (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're exceptions because they're 4 out of 50. For why they're commonwealths, you'll have to find out what the difference is between a "state" and a "commonwealth", then ask them why they did that. I've never been interested enough to look it up. - Denimadept (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why there should be an exemption, just because they categories their governments as Commonwealths. More importantly what does MOS say regarding this? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is bolding the full title any different than bolding United States of America when the article is only under "United States"? Hot Stop ^UTC 19:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS isn't as clear as it could be. (From WP:BEGINNING) "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms." Not particularly clear. -Achowat (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, there's isn't a Wiki-wide policy on this, so I was hoping to get some sort of WikiProject decision we can point to if this comes up again. There are certainly ample examples like "United States of America" where the bold title is in a fuller or more formal style than in the page title. Lots of articles on countries do this, like Mexico starting as "The United States of Mexico" or at least including the full title in the first sentence with a phrase like "official the Federative Republic of Brazil...". I don't think either option is totally wrong, just that if we do it for one Commonwealth (U.S. state), we should do it for all four. Having watched this on Virginia for a few years, I'd say that editors there tend to put the word back when it gets removed, and no one raised hackles about it when the article was on WP:FAC or even WP:TFA.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 21:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be missing my main point. If the 4 "commonwealth" articles start out "The Commonwealth of Virginia is..." then the 46 "state" articles should start out "The State of Maine is ...". Rreagan007 (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not necessarily. Take Costa Rica, it doesn't start out "The Country of Costa Rica" just cause others have a formal name and it doesn't. I understand the desire for constancy across a topic, but geography articles with a formal name that's still in use do tend to note it up front.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That is something I can agree to, that the formal name of the state be in bold and that it is done for all states, commonwealths, territories, and U.S. possessions. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay good. Now we're getting somewhere. So we'll start all state articles either "The State of X" or "The Commonwealth of X" depending on whether the state legislature has designated the state as a state or a commonwealth. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The use of the word "commonwealth" is, per the "commonwealth" article cited above, often interchangeable with "state". It's just that four of our fifty states style it as part of their name. It's a proper noun issue. I can say my name is Ikjowejfoi3j209ucjakjlj@@@@ and pronounce it "Smith". Massachusetts, Kentucky, Virginia, and Pennsylvania decided to do this. I don't see what the big deal is, or why we need to change anything. It's not a consistency issue, excepting perhaps that we've already got it and now someone wants to mess with it. - Denimadept (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"State of" is just as much a part of states names as "Commonwealth of" is. If we include one, we should include the other. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't support your statement. Why should we change this? - Denimadept (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's logically inconsistent. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've said THAT before too, and we've continued the argument. Try something else. - Denimadept (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who lives and grew up in Virginia, we were taught in school the the full state name of Virginia is called the Commonwealth of Viginia. It is also written that way in Virginia's Constitution from our state's founding fathers. Neovu79 (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most all state constitutions I have looked at use "State of X" as the name of the state, so the official long form state name for these states is "State of X" just like "Commonwealth of Virginia" is the long form name of Virginia. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth (U.S. state) does not suggest that the terms are interchangeable when used formally, as the official name of the government or territory. The gallery at Seals of the U.S. states shows that almost every seal uses the language "State of Foo," except for three of the commonwealths and just plain "Alabama." Pennsylvania's actually says "State of Pennsylvania," while Kentucky, Massachussetts, and Virgina are in latin. The California Constitution uses "State of California" as the formal name or style of the state. It also seems that the other states do the same, as does Wikipedia in articles such as State constitution (United States). I agree that the 50 state articles should have a common style for their leads, and that they should either all start out with "The State of Foo is a state ..." or "The Commonwealth of Foo is a state...". "State" could instead be "U.S. state," as it is in the Virginia article. Virginia is one of only two states with FA articles. The other, Oklahoma, starts out "Oklahoma is a state located in ...". The current version of the Virginia article introduces "Commonwealth" as the short form for the state in the lead without explaining it--that certainly needs to change. Somewhere in each article we should have a sentence or two with links to explain the (lack of a) difference, as in Kentucky's lead: "Kentucky is one of four U.S. states constituted as a commonwealth (the others being Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts)." Pennsylvania links to Commonwealth (U.S. state), but includes no discussion to explain its repeated use in the article.--Hjal (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to stay neutral in this discussion, but I'm not sure that's really the case that other states would really call themselves "State of Maine" in the same way that Pennsylvania uses "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania". The commonwealths do tend to note their designation when they can, with things like the "Commonwealth's Attorney". Further I do worry that the desire for conformity amongst the topic is a goal that may not be possible or necessary. So while I think its fine to both include or not include "commonwealth", or to add a phrase like "Kentucky, officially the Commonwealth of Kentucky...", I would find it wrong to change the other 46 to "State of X". A change like that would be reverted from those states in short shrift anyways.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 05:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

States will use "State of XYZ" as their name in very formal instances, the same way the 'commonwealths' use "Commonwealth of ABC" in very formal instances. 99 times out of 100 Virginia is just referred to as Virginia rather than the Commonwealth of Virginia the same way 99 times out of 100 Georgia is just referred to as Georgia rather than the State of Georgia. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, like Neovu79, that's hasn't exactly been my experience in Virginia. But, back to the topic of the opening sentence, did you have an serious suggestion or compromise?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 18:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would probably be okay with something like "Virginia (formally referred to as the Commonwealth of Virginia) is a U.S. state...". This would be acceptable in order to emphasize that the formal version of the state's name does not follow the usual "State of XYZ" format. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer the other way around, as in the "Commonwealth of Virginia, or commonly refered to as Virginia". Neovu79 (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) As the title of the article is "Virginia" I think "Virgina" should be first. Also, it would help maintain format consistency with the other state articles as they all begin with the common name rather than the more formal "State of..." title. In addition, now that all the state articles have the pronunciation parenthetical right after the bolded state name, I think it makes more sense to keep the short form name with the pronunciation parenthetical after it as close to the beginning of the article as possible. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If its between which format to list first, I just looked at more articles on countries, particularly at the FAs and GAs, and see that the large majority of them did deal the issue of formal names by putting the short name first, like "Country, officially the Republic of Country...". I've actually only found a handful that start with the formal name, though it does include ones like United States, Mexico, France, and South Africa, but even Australia starts "Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia". So that's certainly a format I think many readers would be used to.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 04:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't appear to be a bad format, IMHO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 01:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen many articles that I'm involved with getting the WikiProject United States banner. Some were a bit of a reach (e.g. Calvin Rutstrum) a US author who wrote more about travels in Canada than the USA.) Also appears that any article that is about anyone who is an American is within the scope of these tags. I have no problem with any specific tags, but with this much of a reach / broad definition, it looks like you'll end up tagging maybe a 1/2 million articles as being in the project. Is that viable / do you really want that? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you find it is a "stretch" then I would discuss it on the project page. I have not looked to see the overall goal but 1/2 million would be a "stretch". I am sure that there will be inadvertent inclusions and adjustments required. Otr500 (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that this was the main discussion page. I really have no objection, it was just advice. My "1/2 million articles" was just a guess to bring out the potential issue of an unmanageably large amount of articles. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was tagged with the WPUS banner its because it already falls into the scope of one or more of the projects that are being supported by WikiProject United States. In this case it was WikiProject Indiana. Although there are currently a number of US related projects being supported there are an equal number that are not (such as Oregon, New York, Texas, California and a lot of others). Additionally, although these articles and projects are "supported" by WikiProject United States these articles are also supported by the individual subject WikiProjects and although WikiProject United States is at the core of those the success of the overall project is dependant on these subject US Subject specific projects. So although the project may be large in the sense of number of pieces of content the specific projects will still maintain a critical role in the article improvement/management process. Additionally, many functions are being automated and streamlined to minimize the amount of time it takes to maintain them. I hope this helps to clarify. --Kumioko (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like The Great Lakes Region to become a proper noun.

Uncapitalized, common regions can be created by anyone. Anyone can call anything a region.

Regions become proper in four ways: (1) formal political designation, the way the US Census has designated national "Regions" for both census and federal administrative purposes; (2) by becoming judicatories -- geographic designates -- of official bodies that include "regions" as one of their geographic divisions, such as "The Great Lakes Region" of the United Auto Workers; (3) by common usage, such as "The Midwest", which is commonly thought to include the American states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa; although no formal designation of the region by the federal government has ever been made following those boundaries.

I argue that The Great Lakes fulfills all three of these nominations.

The Great Lakes Commission implements the Great Lakes Compact for conserving and improving the water and ecology of the Great Lakes; and designates the region.

A number of athletic, corporate, labor, cooperative, industrial, and fraternal organizations include bi-national designations of Ontario and one, two or more American states within the Region.

And a number of scholars, managers and institutions have already so designated, notably Richard White's classic "The Middle Ground: Empires, Republics and Indians in The Great Lakes Region 1620-1815"; the standard aquacultural management manual about safe practices in The Great Lakes Region; and the Joyce Foundation's grant program for The Great Lakes Region.

Anybody agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatLakesdemocracy (talk • contribs) 06:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings either way on the question but your username suggests that you do. You must be careful that you don't have a conflict of interest in pushing perspectives like this. I note that your previous edits seem to be exclusively about this "region". Nothing wrong with that in itself. You're obviously well-informed on such matters. But it's good if you can keep personal feelings out of your editing here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am inclined to disagree. The Great Lakes region is proper by capitalizing "Great Lakes", and by convention, region is more properly not capitalized. The seven regions of the United States, which the Great Lakes is not one, do not customarily capitalize region when similarly pared. IMO; By the way, I agree that your user name indicates you may be advocating a conflicted position. My76Strat (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only questions I have are 1.) Is there a source for the spelling change? 2.) Does this alteration make it easier or harder for the reader to understand the ideas presented? Achowat (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The physiogeographic region of the Great Lakes (its catchment basin) is binational, so attention should be paid not just to American issues of naming it, but Canadian ones as well. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the U/S for Political Affairs is no longer WIlliam Burns. It is now Wendy Sherman. Please update! 72.229.9.252 (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source, go ahead and Be Bold! and add it to the page. Achowat (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and updated both her article as well as the Undersecretary article. I also added a couple redirects to her article and and added some things to it including an image. Both of the articles still need loads of work though.--Kumioko (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Federalist No. 10 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in the United States with an English name is a mess. There's no inclusion/exclusion criteria, and we end up with any place with an English-sounding name. For instance, Lincoln, Alabama is in the list, but that town was actually named for American army officer Benjamin Lincoln. The list of inaccuracies goes on and on.

How can we make this list actually useful? Require a reference for every entry? --JaGa^talk 19:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't think we need that list at all. Its too long to be of any use, it will probably never be complete and if it was it would be prohibitively long and other than the name, that may or may not even be english, it doesn't have any meaningful data. Aside from that it will be nearly impossible to cite or prove them. Just my opinion though. --Kumioko (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kumioko.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree w/ Kumioko as well, and think he summed it up perfectly.--JayJasper (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated at AfD. Thanks for the input! --JaGa^talk 00:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several USN and CS Navy ship images have been placed for deletion as providing no source. The description pages show a claim of US government ownership of the images. See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 3 -- 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a useful page for me. But the list of medical schools could easily be made more valuable by including a fixed column of line numbers so that the rank of a school according to any sorting would be immediately evident. I imagine this is easy to do although I would have to learn stuff to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.135.90 (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This statement was copied from the talk page of United States Virgin Islands. Ive seen variations of this at other articles. Is there a specific place where "standards" are discussed or listed? or is this just meant to be a general pointer to this project? i removed the word "standards" from the sentence there, until i can get clarification. If replied to here, please drop a note at my talk page in addition. thanks.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found the U.S. Census Factfinder - It says it is ending on January 20, 2012. Please use http://webcitation.org to back up any and all citations from the 2000 U.S. Census Factfinder!

For example

• http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US2445525&_bucket_id=49&tree_id=339&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on
• Backed up: http://www.webcitation.org/64W1gPnqH

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's FactFinder2 and 2010 Census Data to replace FactFinder1 and 2000 Census Data. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But one issue is that I haven't found maps in PDF format - Meaning its harder to have something tangible cited. The new Map format is a "search" application.

Also municipal and CDP boundaries can and did change between the 2000 and 2010 censuses

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the reference maps are works of the U.S. government, they're public domain and can be uploaded to Commons if need be, so we can back up the ones that aren't used as references too. The biggest issue I see is what to do about all of the pages that cite the old Factfinder through Template:Geographic reference. It would take quite the effort to update all of the Census data on these pages in 12 days, especially when most of it has been unchanged in the year since the 2010 Census was released. It's also going to be hard to tell which pages are linking to it since there are seven other sources which can be linked to with that template, and most pages linking to the old Factfinder will also have links to another one of the sources. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance is requested as a new editor is violating an MOS and is not responding to requests to talk. The new editor is also violating WP:NOTPROMOTION through attempts to edit as Filipino Americans & List of Filipino Americans in a way to enhance an individual's notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American#Spinout proposal. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Hello, I wanted to drop a note here to let people involved in this project know about an open FA nomination for William S. Clark. His article is not currently part of WikiProject United States, but it probably should be. Clark was an American educator who helped establish Sapporo Agricultural College which became Hokkaido University and was a significant figure in East/West relations of that era. I hope that some folks from this project might be inclined to comment. The nomination can be found here. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I tagged the article for the project. --Kumioko (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has led to a lot of articles, particularly Mississippi-, Kentucky- and Utah-related ones, being assessed as Top-priority that should probably only be Mid or Low here, as we generally agreed that broad umbrella topics or very important biographies or whatnot. This isn't the case right now; according to categorization, Egg Bowl is top importance here. I've started cleaning some of these up, but I'd appreciate some help Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your absolutely right. Some of these inherited the importance from the other project and need to be cleaned up. Being top importance for Utah for example does not automatically make them top importance for the US project. --Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New template for Inline tags (tags added at the end of sentences) has been created that may be useful to project members.Moxy (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{Inline tags}}

I created the Biosecurity in the United States as a split from the biosecurity article. It needs work. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiProject United States! The Star-Spangled Banner has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month article for January 2012 and we are looking for editors to help improve the article. You were identified as an editor or WikiProject with an interest in the article and we thought you might be interested in helping out. Thanks!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Katie Holmes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello editors interested in Abraham Lincoln. I just created a proposal for a new WikiProject with a focus on Lincoln, similar to the WikiProject that exists for Barack Obama. Please feel free to comment on my proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Abraham Lincoln‎. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be open to creating more? Specifically, I think that Teddy Roosevelt should have one, considering his widespread impact on America and the world. 70.24.249.190 (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is really interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.47.42 (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the Abe Lincoln project or some as of yet undescribed interestingness? --Kumioko (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it interested parties would have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas, specifically about the Redesign of the project's main page, and about it joining WikiProject United States. For all intents and purposes, this project has reached a comatose state of involvement. Editors are creating and contributing to Texas articles. But the project site itself has been pretty dead on its own for a long time. Anything anyone add to the current discussions on that page would be appreciated. Maile66 (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]