Wikipedia

Talk:2014 in the United States

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Should Unconstitutional Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage Bans in KY & VA Be Mentioned?

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

FWIW - Seems there may be concern about including several entries about the recent unconstitutional rulings of same-sex marriage bans in KY and VA (February 12/KY Ban & February 13/VA Ban, 2014) - Should the entries be included in the main article - or not -

Copied from the February (2014) section:

Seems several editors (Tigerghost & Drbogdan) think the entries deserve to be mentioned, whereas another (68.231.15.56) may think otherwise - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • Of course they should be mentioned. They are major news stories followed by both liberal and conservative news organizations/media, occur in the United States, provide a time table of events, and in retrospect will follow the journey to whatever outcome follows in higher courts. I see that someone included the California ruling on concealed carry too. That merits mention as well. They are notable events. (Tigerghost (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC))Reply
cool pov push thru consensus - esentailly you have steamrolled me - clearly you both plan to actually take over good sheparding of the article and not just endlessly only add items that meet your personal adgendas - from what i can see "tigerhost" you never actually add much to the article unless it has to do with homosexuality rights - from what i can see "drwhatever" you have never actually edited this article before and yet suddenly you appear 3 days ago and literally take control of it from now on - so good you both keep pushing your adgenda from now on i wipe my hands of both of you - good luck caretaking the article from now on - i can think of hundreds of actual entries that need to be made to an this page of an "encyclopedia", if i had the time and from now on no inclination - can you say the same - no cause you just there to push an adgenda--68.231.15.56 (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
oh i like that one you ask me on the page to state my case i do so and you erase it - in debate when i was a little child i learned that you just forfeited --68.231.15.56 (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
oh and i notice on your on talk page drwhatever you have removed my comments there - calling me "banned sockpuppet of banned user User:S-d_n_r " - i have 8000 edits under this anon IP so no this is no sock [1] --68.231.15.56 (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
2014 in article for the United States that i have for the last 4 years and with some 3000 good edits
(such as 1317 edits to 2011 in the United States https://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=2011_in_the_United_States, 663 edits to 2012 in the United States https://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=2012_in_the_United_States, 906 edits to 2013 in the United States https://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=2013_in_the_United_States, and already 127 edits to 2014 in the United States https://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=2014_in_the_United_States) tirelessly worked on --68.231.15.56 (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm a bit confused about what just happened here. Somehow I feel attacked for just being a Wikipedian and doing what Wikipedians do: contributing. Yes, I add a lot of "gay rights" related information to the year articles and yes, it is a bit of a passionate subject of mine, but every addition is made (or attempted) to be made in the most objective point of view. The whole point of Wikipedia is to be encyclopedic and one of the great, appealing aspects is that anyone can add information. I may be passionate about gay rights and add that information to the article, but maybe you or someone else is passionate about something else. In which case, I say add it! No one will stop you from adding sourced, factual information to make it a better article. But, what I can't comprehend is how anyone can make a better encyclopedia by erasing history, erasing events such as Kentucky or Virginia's court decisions [which do have significant impacts regarding civil rights and state's rights - subjects that "liberals," "conservatives," and historians deem important to some degree]. I do support additions being made to this article. Wikipedia cannot function when there is no collaboration. I find it useful when I can see the big picture, and I think other users and visitors can appreciate a 'big picture' as well. In fact, I wish these pages would have more activity because there is so much that occurs and doesn't get added because only a handful of people are taking care of this and other articles like it. (Tigerghost (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC))Reply

Bare URLs

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I know I'm pretty bad at this, but I think the consensus is that bare URLs should be avoided. From now on, I will observe this requirement a little more closely and recommend anyone else who posts here to do the same. I will correct the citations that I have made in due time, likewise I will attempt to format newly cited material from other users into the standard layout when I come across it. (Tigerghost (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC))Reply

Indeed a bare url can be a problem, sources move quite frequently (see linkrot), but with a title, author etc., it is often possible to find it again, or an equivalent source. I suggest trying Reflinks, as I find doing cites from a tablet is more difficult, I have taken to adding bare URLs, and then using reflinks to do most of the filling in of details. - 220 of Borg 00:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

March 28 Earthquake inclusion edit war

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Apparently, there is an edit war that is developing regarding the March 28 earthquake in Los Angeles as to whether or not it is notable for inclusion. Because of Wikipedia's three-time rule, I will not pursue re-adding until a consensus is made. But, one of Wikipedia's methods to establishing notability is international presence. The Los Angeles earthquake was covered by many international news organizations (Great Britain: BBC; Russia Today: RT; Canada: CBC). (Tigerghost (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC))Reply

I encourage adherents to review guidelines established by Wikipedia:Notability (events) before discussing. In the case of the March 28 LA earthquake, it holds a diversity of sources, has a notable geographical scope that affected one of the United States' largest urban centers, has the potential to hold a lasting effects because it occurred on a typically quiet fault line that worried seismologists, and also registered above a magnitude of 5.0. (Tigerghost (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC))Reply
YES, I *entirely* agree with the comments of Tigerghost above, supporting the listing of the recent Los Angeles (LA) earthquake event ("2014 La Habra Earthquake" - 28 March 2014 - 5.1 magnitude) in the 2014 in the United States#March article - and is based, in part, on WP:EVENTS and WP:GEOSCOPE - the LA event is considered sufficiently notable historically to be listed in the List of earthquakes in California#List of earthquakes article, and was of a greater magnitude than seven other notable listed earthquakes occurring in the history of California over the years - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is just getting silly

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Must we include the Lt. Governors? What's going to be next, including all the incumbent members of Congress? There are more appropriate articles that could hold that information, such as a list page or something. It just kind of clutters the article. Don't you think? (Tigerghost (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC))Reply

I'd support deletion of both Governors & Lieutenant Governors, from all Year in the United States articles :) GoodDay (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
  Done - *entirely* agree - removed several listings - per talk discussion - seems better - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
BRIEF Followup - seems the notion of including lists of "Incumbents" (including "Governors" and [a bit later] "Lieutenant Governors") began with the "1787 in the United States" article (but apparently not for the years before this date) - one alternative to removing the listings outright may be to "hide/show" (with appropriate coding) the listings instead - several examples of such coding are here =>
Governors and Lieutenant Governors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Example - "Governors" Listing

  • Name - A
  • Name - B
  • Name - C

Example - "Lieutenant Governors" Listing

  • Name - A
  • Name - B
  • Name - C

Example - "Governors" Listing

  • Name - A
  • Name - B
  • Name - C

Example - "Lieutenant Governors" Listing

  • Name - A
  • Name - B
  • Name - C
Comments (and/or other ideas) welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'd recommend deletion on all the Year in the United States, beginning with 1787. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
PS: I've adopted the Hatting proposal for 2013, 2014 & 2015, for starters. If we go the hatting or full deletion route, it might be best to get input at/from Wikipedia:USGOV and/or Wikipedia:USGOVS. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
PPS: We may have to slightly adjust the hatting box, it's currently a hatting for discussions, instead of a hatting for lists. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Done - hope the following HAT-like coding (without the "discussion" wording) helps:

In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

My first preference is for deletion. Anyways, I've requested more input at WP:USGOV & WP:USGOVS. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
It looks a lot better. I'd compromise with the collapsed list. Before, it was a little overbearing. (Tigerghost (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC))Reply
YES - Agreed - Article looks better - nonetheless, atm I'm flexible re deleting or hiding the section - comments from others are welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

If there's no new input after a week, I'll begin adopting the hatting boxes to all the Years in the United States articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Roosevelt documentary

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This entry should be moved to 2014 in American television:

The information would be more relevant on that page, not the general year page. (Tigerghost (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC))Reply

Outdated tag

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The article states, for October 24: A 14-year-old student at Marysville Pilchuck High School in Marysville, Washington, fatally shoots two girls and wounds five others before committing suicide. This is outdated. I believe that more victims subsequently died. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

You know that you could just edit the article to fix the numbers, right? (Tigerghost (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC))Reply
Yes, I know that. (A) I am not familiar with this article, and I have never edited it before. (B) I do not know the updated and accurate information about the shooting. As you can see from my above post, I stated: "I believe that more victims subsequently died". So, I thought that I had heard in the news that more victims died. Not being 100% sure of the information – or the new and updated numbers – I thought it best to make the usual editors of this page aware of my belief. And I decided to leave the task to someone who is more familiar with the accurate information than I am. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Joe Cocker

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

We haven't added death places to the other death entries on this article, so why is an IP making Joe Cocker the exception? Input from others is required here, as IP has refused to respect WP:BRD. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • dude how many times do i have to tell you Joe Cocker would not belong in this article BUT he died here so he gets listed BUT he therefore requires the death place to prove notability here - he obviously belongs in 2014 in the United Kingdom BUT he get cross-noted in here ONLY BECAUSE OF THE DEATH LOCATION - his obit falls under rare circumstance where he has his death place listed--98.167.190.29 (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
We'll let others decide & please stop calling me "dude". GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2014 in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2014 in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_in_the_United_States&oldid=1196675158"