Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Lists of People by state from the United States
The lists of people by state from the united states are currently badly created.
Many of them (These ones to be precise: Alabama, Alaska, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virgina, Washington (state), West Virgina) make no distinction between persons by field and just put the athletes, scientist, polititians, artists, etc into one long alphabetized list which makes finding people based on their source of note-worthiness difficult for these states.
The problem compounds further when the states which do have their people sorted by category each do so using different terms for different categories or including different categories, or putting the categories in a nonsensical order, or omitting major categories entirely, which again all compounds to make finding information more difficult.
(Individual list entries also provide different amounts of information based on state: Kansas, for example, includes Home/Birthplace at the end of their descriptions which most other states do not provide).
So, it's proposed to create a template for all of the people from X state lists to follow which will have major categories and states lists can have subcategories and minor categories added based on need, as well as standardize the type and amount of information allotted to each list entry.
As a jumping off point, I suggest ten major categories with standard subcategories up to three layers thick:
§ Creatives
§§ Award Winning Creatives §§§ <Award as needed>
§§ Artists §§§ <Medium As Needed>
§§ Writers §§§ Authors §§§ Poets §§§ Journalists
§§ Musicans §§§ <Genre as Need>
§§ Film, TV, Animation, etc §§§ Actors §§§ Directors §§§ Personalities §§§ <Other Production Parts As Needed>
§§ Performance §§§ <Dance, Magic, Circus, Etc As Needed>
§ Athletics
§§ Olympians §§ <Sports as Needed> §§§ <Athletes> §§§ <Coaches>
§ Sciences and Academia
§§ Noble Prize (and other Prizes) Winners §§ Notable Professors §§ Astronauts §§ <Disciplines as Needed>
§ Inventors and Innovators
§ Public Figures
§§ Politicians §§ Notable figures in Law §§ Activists
§ Military
§ Religous Figures
§ Business
§ Other Notable Figures
§§ Notable victims of Crime §§ Criminals §§ People who caused significant events in the state's history but weren't from the state §§ Actually miscellaneous Figures
§Fictional Characters
Sebastiantemple (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
For entry format I propose:
Single Person, Contemporary
- [Name that links to person's wiki page] (born [YYYY]), [reasons for noteworthiness separated by commas]; [Hometown] (born in [birthplace if different])
Single Person, Historical
- [Name that links to person's wiki page] ([YYYB]-[YYYD]), [reasons for noteworthiness seporated by commas]; [Hometown] (born in [birthplace if different])
Two Persons, one Contemporary one historical
- [Name of Person A with Link] and [Name of Person B with Link] (born [YYAB] and [YYBB]-[YYBD]) [reasons for noteworthiness and a brief reason they are listed as one entry separated by commas]; [Hometown A] and [Hometown B if different] (A was born in [Birthplace A if different] and B was born in [Birthplace B if different])
Sebastiantemple (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Non-states part of the States seem to be missing lists as well: if these lists exist elsewhere, they should be folded into the list of lists of people by their state because while DC and other territories while not technically states their exclusion means the list of people from the US doesn't match the list of people from the states in the US, which is a problem. If needed, changing the title of the list from "list of people by state" to "list of people by jurisdiction" would allow for DC and Territories to be on the list of lists.
If these lists do not exist, they need to be compiled and folded in.
Sebastiantemple (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - I despise lists by category, as they are maintenance headaches, especially when trying to find a specific person for disambiguating. Also, categories can be somewhat arbitrary, and what do you do with persons in more than one category, such as an athlete who becomes a politician? List them twice? I prefer listing alphabetically, and separating long lists by letter when necessary. It's far simpler and easier to update. - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals
Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals. Bermicourt (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on content that has been called into question.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Different infoboxes for state political parties
Hello I have noticed that there are two separate infoboxes for state political parties. Some link to the template for "The American State Political Party" [1] and others link to Infobox political party Oklahoma Democratic Party, Oklahoma Republican Party are two examples. Shouldn't there be one consistent infobox?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's an interesting question. Infoboxes, in general, have gone through changes over the years. I think where you might get some insight from editors who have knowledge of this is at WT:POLITICS. — Maile (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, but other than some gun nuts that page seems dead.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Consensus-seeking discussion notice
Notifying project members of a consensus discussion taking place at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Discussion is currently found in sub-section titled Seeking consensus to restore content challenged by _____. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
RfC Notification
There is an RfC at the John Bolton article talk page members of this project might interested in taking part in here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
RfC Notification
There is an RfC at the Kate Mara article talk page members of this project might interested in taking part in here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
New U.S. userbox templates
New U.S. userbox templates are now available at Template:User WP United States. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 22:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
RfC notification
There is an RfC at the Trump-Russia dossier talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
RSN discussion notice
A discussion related to this project, regarding AR-15 style rifle, has been opened at Reliable sources noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 15:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Please come and help...
The requested move at Talk:2018 missile strikes against Syria has been relisted, because there is no consensus yet either to move or not to move the article to a different title. Your !vote and rationale in this debate would be appreciated! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 23:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Request additional input at AR-15 style rifle
There is a debate about several sections on this article that could use some outside eyes. One is the appropriate mention of mass shootings in the article lead. Another is how the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban should be covered in the article. Thanks! Springee (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion about article "List of lesbian periodicals in the United States"
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of lesbian periodicals in the United States#Format change, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Should the page format be changed from a bulleted list to a table? Woodsy lesfem (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Thomasites
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Thomasites . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
John Tyler had four first ladies
Letitia "Letty" Tyler Semple was technically official white house hostess De fact o first lady for the united states for three months in 1844. Unlike other daughters who were supervised by their invalid mothers Letitia served her father in this role just as Martha Jefferson Randolph had done and what Mary Harrison McGee, and Margaret Wilson would do. Though Letty's time was brief, she doesn't deserved to be overlooked, and should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.194.17 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
RfC at Roseanne Barr
There is an RfC at the Roseanne Barr talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Assessment request
Is the article about Tom Hom a stub? Can someone who is un-involved in the article please re-assess it?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Americans#MENA section
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans#MENA section . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
List of diplomatic visits to the United States was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of diplomatic visits to the United States. Cunard (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
RfC at Richard B. Spencer
There is an RfC at the Richard B. Spencer talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
RfC at Template:Infobox U.S. district court
The discussion can be found at Template talk:Infobox U.S. district court#Allow for custom name. Ergo Sum 02:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Template merger discussion
A discussion of the proposal to merge infoboxes for various U.S. federal courts is ongoing at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 18#Condense federal court infoboxes. Ergo Sum 17:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Plymouth page renaming discussion
There is a discussion at [2] which editors may wish to comment on Lyndaship (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
AfD notification
An AfD has been opened for Free Melania, an article listed as being of interest to this project. The AfD can be found here, should members of this project be interested in commenting. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Re: History of slavery in New Mexico page
Added: "Soon after the Treaty had been signed, a group of prominent New Mexicans went on record in opposition to slavery, in their petition to congress to change the military government to a temporary territorial form. They were likely motivated by their desire for self-government, and the fact that the slave state of Texas claimed much of New Mexico east of the Rio Grande, and that many believed that it was planning to invade again as it had in 1841 and 1843.[1][2]" Whatsit369 (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Roberts, Calvin A. Roberts ; Susan A. (2006). New Mexico (Rev. ed. ed.). Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico Press. p. 108-109. ISBN 978-0-826340030.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Gonzalez-Berry, [ed. by] Erlinda (2000). The contested homeland : a Chicano history of New Mexico (1. ed. ed.). Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico Press. p. 100. ISBN 0826321984.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help)
Quick Request for Closure
Can someone please close this TfD discussion about Template:Infobox United States federal court? The consensus is very clear; it just needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor. Ergo Sum 23:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Images
I have posted a question about image size for BLP infobox portraits (specifically American political figures). Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#Images for more info. Thanks - wolf 00:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Families Belong Together
There were hundreds of Families Belong Together demonstrations throughout the U.S. this past weekend. Project members are invited to help complete the list(s) of locations. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Laura Ingraham
There is a discussion at the Laura Ingraham talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Independence Day (United States)
Independence Day (United States) is currently listed in the WP:OTD section of the main page for tomorrow. Unfortunately, it has a fair amount of unreferenced text, and will have to be pulled unless it's fixed. I'm hoping someone watching this page may be able to help. Vanamonde (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Trump administration family separation policy
There is a discussion at the Trump administration family separation policy talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
RfC at Infobox Criminal
The discussion is located here:
RfC at Talk:Martha McSally
There is a RfC at the Martha McSally talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
American vs. US in titles (parenthetical disambiguation)
Pinging Redditaddict69 who brought it up at the help desk. Is there a preferred style for the disambiguating parentheses between (US politician)
(or U.S., or U.S.A., or...) and (American politician)
in biographies? If not, should there be?
For what it is worth, I guess the same question applies to pretty much any (US/American Foo), not just politicians, though the biggest use case will probably be biographies; "American/US politician" would be too precise a WP:PARENDIS if "politician" was enough, but some names are common enough to refer to multiple politicians of different countries. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Personally I think "U.S." is best. In many Latin American countries, "America" means the continent (similar to how Australia can be country or continent, America can be as well). If there's only one politician named Steve Bullock, then just leave it as politician. If there's two, then one should be "U.S." and the other from wherever. If you type the following phrases into the search bar, you'd be surprised at the differences between the two. Many are redirects to the opposite one, which would actually prevent page moves until those redircets are deleted.
- intitle:"(American politician)"
- intitle:"(U.S. politician)"
- Redditaddict69 09:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Redirects blocking page moves are a technical problem, so not really a problem; the real question is whether there is consensus for a massive move to either version. FWIW I agree with your point of view but I have no strong feeling either way. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Jim Bankoff draft article
ResolvedOn behalf of Vox Media, I've drafted an expanded and improved Wikipedia article about Jim Bankoff (the company's chairman and CEO) for community review. The current article has some bad sourcing and a couple of inaccuracies (including his birth date), so I've worked to draft a more thorough overview of his early life and education, career, and personal life. I don't edit the main space because of my COI, so I'm looking for volunteer editors to review this draft and implement proposed content appropriately. If this sounds like something you'd be interested to help with, please read my comments on the article's talk page, and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- This request has been answered. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Desire Projects
I'm hoping someone with a clue will check recent edits at this article. They introduced a new image which might be perfect, but on the other hand it was just uploaded and I don't know anything about it. There is also a problem with the change to "population" in the infobox: if "1,830" is correct, the comma needs to be removed to stop the error. The edits look fine but it would be better if someone from this project checks them. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Jeff Fager CBS News Scandal.
Apparently more people came forward on Him at the same time as the Les Moonves scandal came into play at CBS as of September 2018.
https://wcbs880.radio.com/articles/cbs-ceo-les-moonves-step-down-amid-sexual-misconduct-probe
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/leslie-moonves-six-more-women-accuse-cbs-ceo-of-sexual-assault-or-harassment/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:BCDA:FB96:296B:21B2 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Mark Judge (writer) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Judge (writer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Judge (writer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
RfC on Featured Article nomination
I have nominated William Matthews (priest) for Featured Article status, and it is currently under review here. The article failed once before for failure to generate enough comments. I believe it is very close to FA, and meets all the criteria. Any further input would be greatly appreciated. Ergo Sum 04:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
RfC on cleanup at Template:Infobox U.S. federal court
Please see the discussion here on whether to condense and reform many parameters. Ergo Sum 04:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
McAfee 2020 campaign
See Talk:John McAfee#Media attention and false news (permalink). --Krinkle (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The categories "People by town in (state)" versus "People by city in (state)" are confusing
At least a few states have municipalities in two completely disjoint categories, one for towns and one for cities. These are technically container categories, because each category contains a list of categories (one for each town or city) and no individual pages.
I found this extremely confusing at first. I can see that "People by populated place in (state)" often exists (or perhaps always exists), but it is not just a union of the "towns" and "cities" categories, it also has "census designated places" and boroughs within cities (like Manhattan within New York City) and neighborhoods within boroughs within cities (like Greenwich Village within Manhattan within New York City).
I'm not saying we should change the tree structure at all, I think having a category of categories for all "populated places" is good, and I think having totally disjoint categories of categories for towns and cities is fine, but I probably wouldn't have started that way, but we already have it.
Here is what I propose:
Near the top of the "People by town in (State)", there should be a big link to the related "People by city in (State)", and a note that the state in question contains both towns and cities, and this one page doesn't have all the municipalities in the state.
Not only is the link not big, and not at the top, the link is nowhere. I had to think of a specific "town" that I thought was missing from a state, look up that "town", confirm that it is in the state I thought, and then realize it is a city. Then all the pieces fell into place.
If someone shows up in Nebraska and asks themself, "Hmm, I wonder what famous people are from Nebraska", Wikipedia should have that ready to go for both cities and towns. I realize there is a page for the whole state, but even the smaller states have very big lists, and there is no feature to sort by how awesome the people are (nor could this feature ever be implemented), so the temptation to drill down by town or city is probably the first thing that an aimless wanderer will try.
I think a major use of these category pages is when someone just got a job offer in Delaware, they have never been to Delaware, it is 4 AM, and they want to figure out "what's up with Delaware?" The question is purposefully vague, and Wikipedia is the best possible place to answer these questions. "You don't know what you're looking for, but Wikipedia knows exactly what we have, and here it is."
(I chose Nebraska and Delaware randomly because they are relatively small in population, but not the smallest (Wyoming), and because I get a general sense that people do not know "what is up with" those two states. Although looking at the list sorted by population, I think that is just true in general for the least populous states.) Fluoborate (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with this! Can we have a script or bot do this so the links don't have to be added manually though? Thanks for bringing this up! –Daybeers (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Naming of articles about transportation accidents and incidents in the United States
At Talk:2018 Schoharie, New York limousine crash there is a discussion ongoing regarding the article naming, one aspect of which is about whether or not to include the state name or not. There are currently no guidelines or conventions on this that either myself or user:Daniel Case have found. There is no consistency in the naming of articles, for example:
- 1999 Bourbonnais, Illinois, train crash and 1971 Salem, Illinois, derailment; but
- 2008 Chatsworth train collision and Garrison train crash
I feel it would be beneficial to have a naming convention for these articles and so I propose the following:
- Articles about transportation accidents and incidents in the United States should normally include the name of the state in the title, except:
- Where the main article about the location does not include the state name (e.g. Chicago, Oklahoma City); or
- The WP:COMMONNAME of the event does not include the state name (e.g. Big Bayou Canot rail accident).
Comments are invited below. I will leave notes inviting comments here from editors at the related WikiProjects I know of (WP:TRAINS, WP:DISASTERMGT, WP:TRANSPORT, WP:AVIATION), but obviously feel free to invite others I'm not aware of/have forgotten. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- The state name should only be added where disambiguation is required, that is, where there are multiple places with the same name. For example, there are multiple Chatsworths and Garrisons in the US, so the relevant state name should be included. Schoharie, however, is unique, so the state name is unnecessary. WWGB (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Three unbroken words Use one location, the affected thing and what happened to it. More often than not, this is how the news has always done it. They also have a way of making previously unfamiliar places familiar, as the place where the thing happened to the thing; Sivakasi? Factory explosion. Chualar? Bus crash. San Ysidro? McDonald's massacre. (That last one only technically has four words, it's still good.) Ignore the year when no other noun got verbed in that location, but not in things like 2006 New York City plane crash of October 11. The 2018 New York City Eurocopter AS350 crash of March 11 is way too full. The World Wide Tours bus crash of March 2011 is just right (those first three words count as one). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if we adopt guidelines for this sort of thing, we should:
- Extend them to all events whose article title would use a comma-separated toponym, regardless of country, as a descriptor, not just transportation accidents/incidents (and I would qualify that as "ground transportation accidents/incidents", since we use flight identifiers for most aviation incidents (at least commercial ones) and the waterbody or vessel name for navigation accidents)
- Also settle the question, my real question, of whether a comma is required after the name of the state in a title when the location is used as a descriptor. I am leaning towards no, because we don't generally use commas after modifiers, but there might be others who think differently.
- Decide whether the above two issues are also applicable to events that are described by MDY dates of occurrence. We won't always have it as easy as where we could eventually take "2001" out of the title of September 11 attacks and all other articles titled that way since everyone knows which September 11 we're talking about.
- Honestly, since as suggested above I believe this issue extends beyond the naming of articles about transportation accidents, we should really be discussing it at the MOS talk pages. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- I just followed the link from the limo crash talk page, figuring it went all the way to the top. Noticed afterward we're technically only talking about American transportation. My advice applies equally to wherever this general discussion is likely to wind up. As for your second comma dilemma, yes, generally leave it out; same as when referring to "the October 19, 2005 episode of Such and Such". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- I figured that transportation accidents was a broad enough scope as they mostly tend to be named similarly in relation to a place. Other incidents are less predictable (e.g. mass shootings tend to get named for more precise locations such as institutions or neighbourhoods), once agreement is reached on either including it always, never or in defined circumstances it can be expanded if desired. I decided to limit the discussion to places in the US because the "comma convention" of geographical location naming is not applicable worldwide so the question of whether to include the state name in the title isn't relevant to most places outside the US. The guideline agreed here (whatever it is) can be applied to other places where it makes sense if people want it to (assuming consensus of relevant editors/projects) but it wont make sense everywhere (e.g. in the UK). I don't have any opinion about the number of commas and that's slightly beside the point about whether to include the state name or not. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- I just followed the link from the limo crash talk page, figuring it went all the way to the top. Noticed afterward we're technically only talking about American transportation. My advice applies equally to wherever this general discussion is likely to wind up. As for your second comma dilemma, yes, generally leave it out; same as when referring to "the October 19, 2005 episode of Such and Such". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if we adopt guidelines for this sort of thing, we should:
- In regards to adding state names, in the case of the Schoharie limo crash, I'm not sure people are going to remember the name of the small town the crash happened in it, just that it was in New York State. Also, do we not care about the year? I feel like the title is incomplete without it, but I could be convinced otherwise. :) I do strongly believe this needs to be brought up in the MOS talk pages as proposed above. –Daybeers (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Whether people remember anything we tell them in any part of any article is ultimately out of our hands. But by calling it the Schoharie limousine crash in big bold letters upfront, they're more likely to leave permanently (and correctly) associating the limousine crash with Schoharie, rather than loosely tying it to a state or year their minds have already linked to a mish-mash of memorable and forgettable things. "Schoharie" is strange and new, thus virgin and fertile, just like "Kyoto", "Nuremberg" or "Jonestown" were, before they grew into autocompleting root words.
- And yeah, we care about the year. It's just not used by any reliable sources (like most events), so flatly fails WP:COMMONNAME. "Only" suitable for the infobox, lead, categories and body. Without the year, "Schoharie, New York, limousine crash" is used by one single source. "New York limousine crash" is pretty much the only viable alternative here, and is one letter more concise but obviously less precise. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- This is discussion is not specifically about the limo crash - it's about all (ground) transportation accidents in the US and it's about establishing consistency for all such accidents that occur outside the ~30 major cities listed at WP:USPLACE. Whether or not to include the year is entirely independent of whether or not the state name should be included. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Any other thoughts on this? Daybeers (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Speaking as someone from outside the USA, I find it is useful to include the state as a disambigator as it give some indication of roughly where the incident was. I would suggest that if the location is not disambiguated on its Wikipedia page, the there is no need to disambiguate in the title. Also, there is probably less need to disambiguate for State Capitals, but this should not be a hard and fast rule. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- State capitals vary in their significance - Atlanta is the largest city in Georgia and internationally known, Augusta is only the 9th most populous city in Maine, and I'd say that Augusta, Georgia is likely significantly better known outside the USA. I think therefore it's not a great criterion by which to judge the need for disambiguation or not. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Darr H. Alkire
I have been working on the Stub for Darr H. Alkire, and I feel it has come quite a long way. Could you please review it and determine if it can be elevated out of the stub class? Thank you KlausVonVilver (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Hello, |
Thanksgiving
Last year, we had to omit Thanksgiving (United States) from the Main Page (via WP:Selected anniversaries) due to the article missing references. As it's one of the major US holidays, can we please make sure it's improved so that we don't have to suffer that embarrassment again this year? Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 17:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Featured quality source review RFC
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Great power article: Map
Following quite nasty edit-war, I started discussion on the Great Power article talk page about map in the article. Main topics for discussion: What countries should be on the map? Should the map show some sort of hierarchy of great powers (eg. using colours)? Would not be better to remove the map altogether? So far, only IPs and new accounts entered this discussion, so input from experienced editors would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Pavlor (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
A possible U.S. food policy topic
In connection with a master's level class in U.S. food policy at Tufts University, I am tempted to help organize students to make some coordinated edits to pages on (topics) food policy, agricultural policy, food labeling policy, (programs) SNAP, WIC, (legislation) Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, Farm Bill. We have been learning how to use templates for infoboxes for organizations, legislation, court rulings. Question: Is there anybody at this WikiProject who I should tap for advice or coordination before beginning? Parke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkewilde (talk • contribs) 18:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Lead image in Germany–United States relations
We (I and an IP editor) have a bit of a disagreement about the usage of a lead image in the lead of this article. Please see the talkpage for more information - additional feedback to form a consensus (pro or contra) would be appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have started a formal RfC at Talk:Germany–United States relations#RfC on lead image. Any additional input would be welcome. GermanJoe (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Splitting 'List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States'
Please comment, at Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States#Split. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Terry Sanford at FAR
I have nominated Terry Sanford 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. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd be obliged if project members could have a look at Intermarriage in the United States in the Early Twentieth Century with an eye on whether this is a duplication of material already covered somewhere else. I have a feeling it would be, as this is pretty basic US sociology material, but I don't have an overview. If so, it should probably be merged. Also notified the Sociology wikiproject. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
A requested move to lower-case the name of the astronaut driven vehicle used for Moon exploration is at the link above. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Project members may be interested in the discussion about whether or not the District of Columbia (until 1871) article should exist at Talk:District of Columbia (until 1871). Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
RfC on creating a "Cultural impact of Michael Jackson" article
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson#Should this page and/or a "Michael Jackson in popular culture" page be a Wikipedia article?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
AFD about historic properties in Williams, Arizona
Please consider contributing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historic properties in Williams, Arizona. --Doncram (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Discussion of an editorial from The Washington Post on the reliable sources noticeboard
There is a discussion on the reliability of "Open doors, slamming gates: The tumultuous politics of U.S. immigration policy", a 2017 editorial authored by Marc Fisher and published in The Washington Post, on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Washington Post editorial. — Newslinger talk 03:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi there,
I was looking to expand the page for Ticketcity and was redirected here when selecting their "talk" page. I noticed that much of the information was missing citations, and I investigated. I found that some of this information has no credible source often doubling back to the company's personal website as the only source of this info. (Ex. # of staff cannot be found online. -Also, the Aug. 8th 1998 date for their website launch is not documented anywhere other than their company site. ) Should this info be deleted if not verifiable? Thanks for your time,
Federal election charts in State articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I recently noticed that the State articles have had multiple Federal elections charts added to them. I am not sure the State articles should feature these Federal charts and believe most should be moved to the main articles on elections per state. These charts are causing a few format problems ( like text sandwiched). I believe if any chart should be in State articles - despite that WP:PROSE is preferred - it should be a chart related to state level elections at best. I propose moving charts like at Massachusetts#Politics to Politics of Massachusetts. What do others think about this? --Moxy (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with these points. Carlstak (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree too. I tried to trim the lists at Massachusetts about a month ago and was reverted; another editor raised similar concerns at Talk:Virginia. My main concern, besides the sandwich issues, is that we can show all this stuff at more specific articles per Summary style. Those election map/county chart things are often too specific as they focus on one election in one year, and the gov/pres election results can be shown using just the last few decades - we don't need to go back to the Korean War. Another option might be collapsible lists. AlexiusHoratius 22:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this to the WikiProject, I'm the editor who raised concerns at Talk:Virginia. I fully second AlexiusHoratius in ranking my concerns with the charts first as being contrary to a summary style on these overview articles, and then for introducing formatting issues like sandwiching text. And I agree with Moxy that including the info in the prose is best. I think adding them to each state's page is a bit of main article fixation, where a user has spent time creating these graphics, and doesn't want to see them buried on subarticles, even if that's a more apropriate place. On Virginia#Politics, I tried to split the baby by trimming the gubenatorial and presidential charts to 1992, and using Template:Stack to get them to stay vertical above one another, but my first preference is to move these charts to either the Politics of (insert state) article, or perhaps Elections in (state).-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 20:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be possible just to make them
collapsible/mw-collapsiblein order to conserve space? Mélencron (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- This would be a good idea even if most think it's best to move.--Moxy (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also agree that this is too much detail for state articles. Number 57 21:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also agree that this is too much detail. Bondegezou (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- I noted this discussion at WikiProject Elections because I'm curious about where (if anywhere) this data should belong longterm. Sounds like users agree with moving the presidential/gubernatorial vote total tables to a subarticle, but should they then be expanded back from the 1950s to earlier elections? What about third parties or independents? Should they be converted to an official template like Template:Compact election box? I've been looking for an equivilant to these charts nationally, and only found the article List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin. Additionally, I wanted to specifically bring up the SVG box charts of largest counties that can be seen in the screenshot Moxy provided. I think they belong solely on articles like 2016 United States presidential election in (state), but maybe on a states' Elections page if the 2016 election is discussed in the text.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 02:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion of an editorial from The Washington Post on the reliable sources noticeboard
There is a discussion on the reliability of "Open doors, slamming gates: The tumultuous politics of U.S. immigration policy", a 2017 editorial authored by Marc Fisher and published in The Washington Post, on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Washington Post editorial. — Newslinger talk 03:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi there,
I was looking to expand the page for Ticketcity and was redirected here when selecting their "talk" page. I noticed that much of the information was missing citations, and I investigated. I found that some of this information has no credible source often doubling back to the company's personal website as the only source of this info. (Ex. # of staff cannot be found online. -Also, the Aug. 8th 1998 date for their website launch is not documented anywhere other than their company site. ) Should this info be deleted if not verifiable? Thanks for your time,
Federal election charts in State articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I recently noticed that the State articles have had multiple Federal elections charts added to them. I am not sure the State articles should feature these Federal charts and believe most should be moved to the main articles on elections per state. These charts are causing a few format problems ( like text sandwiched). I believe if any chart should be in State articles - despite that WP:PROSE is preferred - it should be a chart related to state level elections at best. I propose moving charts like at Massachusetts#Politics to Politics of Massachusetts. What do others think about this? --Moxy (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with these points. Carlstak (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree too. I tried to trim the lists at Massachusetts about a month ago and was reverted; another editor raised similar concerns at Talk:Virginia. My main concern, besides the sandwich issues, is that we can show all this stuff at more specific articles per Summary style. Those election map/county chart things are often too specific as they focus on one election in one year, and the gov/pres election results can be shown using just the last few decades - we don't need to go back to the Korean War. Another option might be collapsible lists. AlexiusHoratius 22:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this to the WikiProject, I'm the editor who raised concerns at Talk:Virginia. I fully second AlexiusHoratius in ranking my concerns with the charts first as being contrary to a summary style on these overview articles, and then for introducing formatting issues like sandwiching text. And I agree with Moxy that including the info in the prose is best. I think adding them to each state's page is a bit of main article fixation, where a user has spent time creating these graphics, and doesn't want to see them buried on subarticles, even if that's a more apropriate place. On Virginia#Politics, I tried to split the baby by trimming the gubenatorial and presidential charts to 1992, and using Template:Stack to get them to stay vertical above one another, but my first preference is to move these charts to either the Politics of (insert state) article, or perhaps Elections in (state).-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 20:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be possible just to make them
collapsible/mw-collapsiblein order to conserve space? Mélencron (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- This would be a good idea even if most think it's best to move.--Moxy (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also agree that this is too much detail for state articles. Number 57 21:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also agree that this is too much detail. Bondegezou (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- I noted this discussion at WikiProject Elections because I'm curious about where (if anywhere) this data should belong longterm. Sounds like users agree with moving the presidential/gubernatorial vote total tables to a subarticle, but should they then be expanded back from the 1950s to earlier elections? What about third parties or independents? Should they be converted to an official template like Template:Compact election box? I've been looking for an equivilant to these charts nationally, and only found the article List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin. Additionally, I wanted to specifically bring up the SVG box charts of largest counties that can be seen in the screenshot Moxy provided. I think they belong solely on articles like 2016 United States presidential election in (state), but maybe on a states' Elections page if the 2016 election is discussed in the text.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 02:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Demographics of the United States#American diaspora . RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Spelling argument in Charles Martin Hall
There has been a discussion on how to spell the word "aluminum"/"aluminium" at Talk:Charles Martin Hall#Re my revert. It will be greatly appreciated if you see the discussion and provide your opinions.--R8R (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
| Hello, |