This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

2006

State footer templates

I think it would be pertinent if this project could have a look at harmonizing the various state footer templates, all of which seems to follow different displaying conventions. I havejust started a discussion at the Canadian discussion boad forour provincial templates and think it would be interesting if all of these could me made roughly similar. Circeus 18:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This does sound like a good idea, as it's annoying to look at articles that related to multiple states when the bottoms of the articles have state templates that look very different from one another. A great example is New York metropolitan area, which has NY/NYS/NJ/CT/PA all on it--FIVE Templates (only four of which are states, but still)--all of which look very different. Not only the different template (and flag) sizes and colors, but the content on each is different, and it's somewhat annoying. //MrD9 20:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's do something about it now. There's a discussion we're having at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates regarding state template standardization. Join in or help out. Thanks ;) — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 01:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Shortcut WP:USS?

I thought it might be useful to create a shortcut for this article. My suggestion would be WP:USS. Comments? //MrD9 20:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

State Templates

I created the subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates to list all of the U.S. state (and other related U.S.) templates. This way they can be compared and hopefully standardized? //MrD9 04:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved here from project page, 10:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I created the subpage /state templates to list and display all state (and territory, related...) templates. I'm not sure what your current decision on standardizing these state templates is (I think you (we, if I join) should standardize them...), but regardless, it should be a helpful resource. //MrD9 06:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Please use talk pages for discussions. Thanks! CQ

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation

Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Opening Soon

Joe I 02:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Extreme points

I stumbled across the article Extreme points of Massachusetts and I think it might be interesting to have that for all the states. I looked for a New York one, but no luck, so I made one. Шизомби 01:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, actually there's a Extreme points of U.S. states article. I wonder if state ones should redirect there. Шизомби 02:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

History of New Mexico

I rcently spun off History of New Mexico since it was taking up too much space in the parent article. However, not being an expert in the subject, it was pretty much a cut-and-paste job. If anyone want to take a look and improve it or New Mexico#History it would be much appreciated. Eluchil404 23:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Projects, Portals and People

I made a little table for coordinating WikiProjects, Portals and People for 50 U.S. states. It is here:

 Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._states/PPP.

WP:CBTF -- CQ 10:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Coordinating U.S. state portals

Greetings from WikiProject Kentucky! We are tentatively planning to launch Portal:Kentucky on July 4th]] if we can get it ready by then. Even so, I think it would be cool to refactor Portal:United States/Related portals on that date to reflect the concerted effort between and among U.S. state WikiProjects and Portals that looks something like:

U.S. states:

Oklahoma • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Wisconsin

Coming soon:

Michigan (under construction) • Florida (vote to keep, please) • Portal:Kentucky (proposed - please support).

Note: If you are part of a U.S. state WikiProject, and are considering adding a U.S. state or other related Portal to this list, please see Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines for more information and announce your plans at WikiProject U.S. states .

Or something like that, anyway. WikiProject U.S. states is the only logical place that I know of to coordinate the effort to form a complete set of Subportals for Portal:United States. This could be one small but significant push toward Wikipedia:Version 1.0. Please see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPPlaces and get involved if you get the chance. We should be hearing from them soon. Thanks. -- CQ 07:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In theory, I support the idea. However, Wikipedia is having problems with proliferation of many poorly (or unmaintained) portals. Portal:Florida, for example. I suggest first a concerted effort made to improve Portal:United States before creating more subportals. I've been working on the portal myself, but think the portal would be more successful with many people chipping in.

For example,
- Help maintain the news box.
- The topics box needs more work - I can work more on that, but would welcome help.
- The subportals box needs formatting - I might help with.
- Help select the "featured" picture and article.

I have also proposed a subportal devoted to U.S. government & politics, which has been approved but not yet created. But first, want to see Portal:United States improved more. It should be brought up to featured portal status. -Aude (talk contribs) 20:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And please don't create Portal:Kentucky yet. Please draft up a list of featured and good articles (and any other articles worth "featuring"). I see you have started that: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Kentucky/Portal. Please add to the list. -Aude (talk contribs) 20:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed Aude. "Portal:Kentucky" will remain at WikiProject Kentucky as long as it needs to. Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/WPPlaces#Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._states so far just lists the U.S. states article. I'm not sure if they are even looking at Portals yet. I'll be shifting more effort toward Portal:United States. Thanks for your input at WikiProject Kentucky. • CQ 17:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) • WP:CBTF

History buff needed

Please check out List of current and former capital cities in the United States and make sure that everything appears accurate and well-referenced. A word of warning: the page does contain quite a bit of complicated wiki formatting, so if you're not comfortable editing it, just post your changes on the talk page and someone more experienced will apply them to the article. JEK 19:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nominate articles for Portal:United States

I've worked for the past month to update Portal:United States and keep it better maintained. Though, I think the portal would be even better with broader participation. One way to do that is instead of choosing the "selected article" myself each week, if others would nominate articles and help make decisions. (same goes for pictures, though these are stocked up through July 29) If you would like to nominate or weigh in on what should be featured, please visit the portal. Thanks. -Aude (talk contribs) 21:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Georgia

There is a poll going down at Talk:Georgia (country), you guys might be interested. - FrancisTyers · 17:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Insular_area (US Dependencies)

The message: "Can anybody fix the US Dependencies infoboxes? It's displaying incorrect information. By WikiProject U.S. guidelines they should be corrected too." was moved from the top of the project page to here. [1] [2] I will look into the problem with the infobox but I'm new here. • CQ 16:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem that needs to be fixed? older ≠ wiser 16:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, either. I just moved the question to here from the project page. Unless they're talking about Template:USPoliticalDivisions, I have no idea what "infobox" they are referring to. CQ 17:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject United States

WikiProject United States has been proposed. Please see the note there about this project and show support. CQ 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"Law and government"

Shouldn't this be "Politics and government" as per the "Politics of..." pages about countries? Personally, I've always found it rather silly that the politics pages there are called politics and government when there's always a separate accompanying government page... Anyway, Politics of California and Government of California are a good example of how to go about this in terms of naming IMO. A "Law of..." page is appropriate as well, and would be covered by the government part of the "Politics and government" header. As for the note about having similar systems, yes and no; the systems are similar to an extent but are different enough that separate articles about each state would be appropriate for all three cases. Any thoughts? Moulder 09:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be called "Government and politics", and it should have a higher placement in the state article (I suggest after "History"). It would seem natural that government structure would be discussed before politics (thus "Government and politics" rather than "Politics and government"). "Law" naturally falls under "Government", so it doesn't need to be in the heading. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox template

Is it possible to change the template to reflect the new 2005 U.S. census? The articles now all have 2000 as the most recent shown census I believe. Current figues for each states population can be found at [3], although in some circumstances, the 2005 figures are estimated.--MONGO 21:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

All 2005 numbers are estimates. A census only occurs once every 10 years. —Mike 02:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

U.S. states in the American Civil War

The American Civil War task force has formed at WikiProject Military history. U.S. states in the American Civil War is missing some entries. See this listing for missing articles and categories. Thanks! Join! • CQ 00:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The American Civil War Portal is quickly becoming a Reality. Better get on board! See American Civil War task force, WikiProject Portals and Portal! • CQ 13:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

References

Is anyone interesting in helping to standardize state references? Currently there are many states with poor or no references. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 03:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check as well as this project, I agree that there's a real problem. Citations aren't frills. They're essential.

A reference that can't be trusted is worse than no reference at all.

I haven't begun to hit all 50 states by any means, but I've hit 5 or 10 so far, trying to add references to the Demographics section. There's a special problem here. A number of states list White non-hispanic and Hispanic numbers but not White numbers, as if all hispanics were white. They are not, and quick addition will show that. If you're going to have a breakdown by race, you really ought to have a percentage for the white race, since it's the dominant race in most (all?) states. Some of the states say that it's 2005 data, but the QuickFacts pages show 2004 data for racial makeup, even though the rest of the numbers are 2005. Other pages use the community study information, which only counts people living in households, not people in institutions or homeless people.

Anyway, I've started going through various states, bringing them up to snuff, and if the page is terribly unsources (as so many are), I add an {{unsourced}} tag at the top.

I think the biggest problem is that people don't know how to use cite.php (Wikipedia:Footnotes). I'm only doing *part* of a section on most pages, but I think if we went through and did one or two sections, properly cited, so people could see by example how easy it is to do citations, it would go a long way. Think of it as "viral". ClairSamoht 05:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Be careful with this as any using the 2000 data will be White as White non-Hispanic was not a choice in the actual census but apppears to be computed in the inter-census estimates like 2004. Rmhermen 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Minnesota. I belive it is the best sourced state article. The people working on it (including me) have taken quite a bit of time to add/check them. Also I used AWB to inspect all of the state articles and here are the ones that are *really* bad whereas most of the rest are just ok (excluding maybe 3-4 states). I tagged several of them with an unreferences template. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 14:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced state articles

Demographics

I've noticed that the various US State articles do not have a consistent structure or report statistics in a consistent form. For example, in the demographics sections:

New York calls the section "Racial and ancestral makeup" and reports "white, not of Hispanic ancestry" first.
Virginia calls the section "Ethnicity and ancestry" and reports "white, not of Hispanic origin" first.
Maryland calls the section "Race" and reports "white, not Hispanic" first.
Michigan calls the section "Race and ancestry" and reports "white, not Hispanic" first.
New Jersey calls the section "Race, ethnicity, and ancestry" and reports "white" first (a recent change)
Pennsylvania calls the section "Race and ancestry" and reports "white" first (a recent change), plus compares with 2000

The recent change from "white, not hispanic" to "white" is an issue in itself. The other entries listed vary with each state. In most states this is in section (2), but Maryland has it in section (4). Is consistency among these articles a worthwhile goal? Would this Wikiproject be responsible for that? Gimmetrow 13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"White, not of hispanic ancestry" is neither a racial group, nor an ethnic group.

“

Race and Hispanic origin are two separate concepts

in the federal statistical system.

People who are Hispanic may be of any race.
People in each race group may be either Hispanic or Not Hispanic.
Each person has two attributes, their race (or races) and whether or not they are Hispanic.

-- U.S. Census Bureau Guidance on the Presentation and Comparison of Race and Hispanic Origin Data

”

If you are going to be comparing racial proportions, you really ought to list all the categories that the census bureau offers: White, Black, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and multiracial. Note that if someone says they are asian and black, they get counted as asian AND black AND multiracial. A number of states with 0.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander leave off that item, but that's misleading; leaving it off suggests that polynesians are categorized elsewhere.

The census bureau has numbers for "Black Hispanic" and "Black, not Hispanic", but they aren't listed on the QuickFacts pages. I think it's because those numbers aren't big enough in most areas to report. (If the number of people in a subgroup gets small enough, the census people figure it's not statistics, it's invasion of privacy.)

Is this project responsible for making all the state articles consistant? No. We have no whips, no shackles, no firearms. The template is offered as a suggestion for getting started; authors are free to make modifications as appropriate.

It's my contention that it's important to list all race percentages if you list any. Similarly, I'd argue that listing the white non-hispanic population mandates listing the black non-hispanic, the asian non-hispanic, the Amerind non-hispanic, and the polynesian non-hispanic populations. Anything else is misleading, and a violation of WikiPedia's NPOV policy. ClairSamoht 14:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The numbers given seem to be the single-race statistics. If someone lists asian and black, that someone is not part of the asian or black single-race statistics.

The QuickFacts pages list 8 classifications; those would be fine with me. I very strongly object to anyone making major changes in what statistics are listed without prior discussion. The states articles were fairly consistent on what was listed, until someone started changing them. Consistency among other minor details like section headers also seems a worthwhile goal to me, but if nobody else wants that, fine. Gimmetrow 14:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you (ClairSamoht), however, take for example the demographics of Akron, Pennsylvania, where there are no members of certain groups, like Pacific Islanders. The ordering is not done to promote any particular racial choice, but follows the ordering given by the Census Bureau itself in its data. I would imagine that the ordering from highest to lowest based on the number of each race in the entire country. But I digress. In the article I have just cited, those missing groups are not mentioned. This "problem" is not limited to U.S. states, but to the thousands of U.S. county and city articles as well. Please note that each racial link goes to the Race (United States Census) page, where it is made clear what each means. It is implied that a race not listed is at 0%. Perhaps some historical perspective is merited. When I created most of these articles, I got a lot of complaints that the statistics were too long, boring, superficial, etc. While these arguments never held too much water, the overall feeling that they needed to be as concise as possible was the end result. Thus, 0% values were dropped. You say that "leaving it off suggests that polynesians are categorized elsewhere", but if they link to the U.S. Census bureau's race definition page, you can clearly see what each category, including "other races", means. There shouldn't be any confusion, so I don't believe this is an NPOV issue, so long as the link is included. A quick look at the Pennsylvania article shows that the proper racial links are not included. Perhaps this is an adequate solution to your concerns? — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 14:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've modified the Pennsylvania article to match the link idea shared above, so assuming no one reverts it, you can see it there, otherwise look at this version. —Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 14:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps some historical perspective is merited" would surely be appropriate if blame were being assessed. I don't think that's the case. Going forward, we all want a better Wikipedia.

I certainly wasn't blaming myself or anyone else. In fact, I didn't work on the state articles at all, but they still exhibit some similarities with the articles that I did. I was just trying to be helpful in resolving your concerns, that's all. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the states are using the 2004 data from the Census Bureau's QuickFacts. There's no "other races" category. And depending on information to be on another page is rather iffy; the page may disappear, or the info may disappear from the page. Information in articles needs to stand on its own two feet.

The 2004 data is estimated anyway. I'm not familiar with any changes in to terminology used since the 2000 census. If there were changes, they would be best placed on the Race (United States Census) page, so it would be clear to all readers what was being spoken. I don't know what else you want. We split articles all the time, putting summaries on one page and full articles on another. In this case you have some summary information on the state page with specific definitions of terms on another. The census bureau's definitions are simply too complicated to do anything different, and trying to explain them on every state's page would be a nightmare. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

All enumerations involve a certain degree of error. Some in the census bureau argue that the constitutionally-mandated decennial enumerations have a greater degree of error than their other censuses, because some people try to be counted twice, others try to elude the census.

We split articles all the time, putting summaries on one page and full articles on another. We do not split articles so that there's misleading information on one page, and a correction on the other. I'm not arguing that we include the full definitions of census terms on every page, but that we DO include the COMPLETE answer to the question "What races do you identify with?", because presenting a misleading subset of the data is POV. ClairSamoht 00:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree everything you just said. So again, if there is a better method, try it on a page and let's see how it looks. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 12:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The new label of "Asian" replaces the old label of "oriental", but the people of India don't look like Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans, or Hmong. Do they self-identify as white? What about the semitic tribes of the mideast? When I was in high school, many centuries ago, our Human Physiology book explained that there were five races - white/caucasian, yellow/oriental, red/american, black/negroid, and brown/aboriginal. For half a century, it's been the "United States of America and One State of Polynesia" so the census bureau quite naturally responded to complaints that Hawaiians weren't in any of those five groups - but Native Australians aren't polynesians, so now they can't check any of the boxes at all.

If we list all possible choices, and indicate how people self-identify, given those choices, we're presenting data fairly. If we don't, we're "lying with statistics" and that's an NPOV issue.

BTW, Akron is a nice town. I especially like the library. But your article really needs to have some citations. There's been far too much work invested in that article to have users question where the information comes from and whether it's reliable. ClairSamoht 20:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the Akron article, all of the geographic and demographic information *is* cited.

No, it's not. You have a GR1 link, and a GR2 link, but those don't provide the information you are posting; in fact, they don't even mention Akron. Where did you find those numbers? Are they current? Are they correct? Or does the town of Akron even exist? Maybe this article was concocted as a practical joke? Users can't tell, because the article lacks citations. ClairSamoht 00:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Much of the rest of it is easily verifiable by following the appropriate links.

Links to wikipedia articles aren't citations. "Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference." See Wikipedia:Reliable sources ClairSamoht 00:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The links were external, not internal. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 01:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's true that wikipedia should not cite itself. However the situation set up with the GR2 refs is not wikipedia citing itself - it is placing common references in one location, equivalent to a subarticle or a wikilinked term. That should be sufficient for explaining the meaning of the terms and categories used in the census data. On the other hand, the pages containing actual numbers are not necessarily easy to find on the census site, and probably should be specifically linked in each state article. Otherwise it is difficult to verify whether the numerical data is correct when vandalism is suspected. Gimmetrow 13:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

When the links were setup, there was no way to query the 2000 data simply so that this could be accomplished. Linking to the general census data page was about as good as we could get. I have not checked to see how this could be changed. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 13:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But that is all outside the scope of our current discussion, so I'll say no more. Now, the census bureau does not take statistics in the granularity that you desire, so I'm not sure how you are going to list all of the possible choices. You have the categories that the census bureau uses, no more, no less. If some non-zero census bureau categories are missing from the lists, then by all means add them! — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Addressing questions and points made:

As far as "white" vs. "white, not hispanic", the articles should be reporting the single category statistics with any multiracial reported as its own category. This includes Whites. "White non-Hispanic" and "Hispanic" should be reported separately and not in the fashion of Maryland. That article is wrong in its method of reporting. Unfortunately some well-meaning editors have used the statistics in an inappropriate manner. If you see those, you can feel free to be bold and correct it (though I don't typically consider that as "bold"). See Kansas#Demographics for a good example of how the race may be reported. I don't believe it is necessary to list all the different permutations of "Black and Asian", "White, Black, and Pacific Islander", etc. as all that detail can be found on the U.S. Census Web site and is more than a typical encyclopedia article needs.
Because most people probably work on their own state more than any other it is only natural that the articles would grow more inconsistent over time. But I agree that the basic structure and type of data (especially for stats like demographics) should remain as consistent as possible.
Because all the geographical articles were created by the Rambot, they may not always be in the best form. If you find that the racial groups are not in the correct order, go ahead and change it. (But I think most articles are in the correct order.) These articles aren't set in stone. When adding current demographic information to a page, I make a few regular changes to the Rambot data such as adding a link for "median income for a household", modifying the racial links, and adding proper reference citations. (For these last two see the next two points.)
The racial links should either be modified to be a link to an article discussing the racial category or removed completely. Having eight links within the same sentence that all refer to the same Wikipedia article is very bad form. This is how I currently change these links:
"The racial makeup of the city was 89.24% White, 4.02% Black or African American, 0.42% Native American or Alaska Native, 2.09% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 1.95% from other races, and 2.25% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 5.41% of the population."
I have also been adding geographic reference citations to the local articles (not to the state article yet) as I clean them up and expand them to a minimum level of quality. I believe it makes them more useful. For an example, see Merriam, Kansas.

—Mike 03:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I was surprised that we were changing the citation method used for the cities and counties, as you have done. Despite some of the complaints, the method currently used was accepted by consensus some time ago, and as far as I know, there has been no vote to change this. With that said, if the time has come to change the articles, then it should be done by the rambot, so that we get everything. This in practice shouldn't be very hard. I can start the process shortly. There is no reason users should be troubled with something so mundane. Converting links and text is easily automated. As for changing the links from Race (United States Census to something the format above, this could be easily done, provided that the new links are clear what the census definition of each race is.. There was a very heated debate over this, and changing it to the other links, especially in the case of Asian or Pacific Islander, could cause a lot of trouble if the definitions are not solid. You should know that historically ALL of the articles used to use the normal racial links, but they were ruled inaccurate and perhaps even biased in their usage. Changing them back runs the risk of violating well established consensus, so I'd be careful. (Just a sidenote: All of my comments refer to counties and cities ONLY, not States, although it could be argued that it may). I'll address the issue of changing citation method in more detail later. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 11:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Since it was brought up here, I'll continue to discuss citations. Just for note, I've updated Wikipedia:Geographic_references#United_States so that the specific reference is very clear, as it was changed sometime in the past. Changes like this are exactly the reason for not putting citations in the articles themselves, and contrary to the belief, this method has the stamp of approval of the various county and city editors over the years. The idea is to move the references to another page, rather than duplicating such information on each page. It ensures that the data will not be tampered with and that it will remain consistent. The page has evolved to the point where the links pointed to by the "GR" tags do not directly point to the external link of the source, but that is on the same page (and linked by a footnote), so it's trivial to find them. Aside from clutter, there are advantages to putting the citations in the article themselves, but as there is no established citation policy (they are only guidelines), external references via another page continue to be as acceptable as inline citations and footnotes, and changing them from one format or another is forbidden by those guidelines by precedent of an Arb. Com. ruling. (See: Wikipedia:Footnotes). If you'd like to change the format, you MUST bring it to a vote on the appropriate WikiProject user page. Please know that while I had a hand in this, it was peer reviewed and became the established procedure. It was *not* unilateral. And despite some objections above, I must stress that citations via another page is a perfectly acceptable form of citation. Having said all that, I support a change, but I am not willing to do it without a vote for consensus, and will revert any changes that I do see, under precedent of said Arb. Com. ruling. And if a vote is successful to make such a change, then the rambot should do the change, so ensure that all articles are done and nothing is missed. It will also help with consistency. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 12:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See the December 2005 ArbCom case here.

Pennsylvania demographics table

I rather like the new table in Pennsylvania#Demographics. It might be good to still wikilink the race definitions. Why do the numbers in the table match neither the 2004 QuickFacts, nor the 2000 Demographics profile pages? Are those pages not based off the same data as the excel spreadsheet? Gimmetrow 18:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently someone (pool-72-92-93-68.phlapa.east.verizon.net) doesn't; he keeps vandalizing that page.

You're right about the race definitions. However, it appears that all those different wikilinks redirect to Race (United States Census). I'm in the process of adding that wikilink.

I've changed that table a little bit. It now uses July 1, 2005 and the April 1, 2000 numbers. I'm using the raw numbers - if someone says they are both white and black, they are counted in both categories in my tables. I think the QuickFacts table figures they are one or the other, not both. And the Community Survey demographics only uses the household population. There are reasons for choosing munged numbers over raw numbers, but I like the "real" numbers.

I've just written a little program to automatically generate that table from the Census Bureau's CSV files, so all 50 states can have identical tables. I figure it will minimize edit wars if the articles just transclude the table with a template. Now if I can just figure out how to use parameters with templates.... I don't expect it to be hard, but I haven't looked at the documentation yet. ClairSamoht 23:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can make a template. The big question is: what would be the parameters? It can be made so each number is a parameter, or it can be made so that only the state name is a parameter. The latter makes a complicated template, but all the numbers will be centrally located (in the template), and we would never need to worry about numerical vandalism in that section again ;) Would the table be better rotated, so the 2000 and 2005 can be compared in columns? Gimmetrow 23:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My thought was to use the state name. Something like {{U.S.StateDemographics|Pennsylvania}}. It's a shame that the template can't tell what page is calling it, so that no parameter would be required at all.

The table is almost exactly square; it's the labels that make it wide rather than tall, and if you run the labels across the top, the table gets R-E-A-L-L-Y wide. In the census tables, they use the labels AINA for "American Indian or Native Alaskan" and NHPI for "Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander". The abbreviation they use is more correct than using "Indian" and "Hawaiian", but if you use the abbreviations, then you need an explanation as to what the abbreviations stand for. I don't like separating information from the explanation, even by a couple of inches; for many users, that's a chasm they can't leap. But imprecise terms are no less a problem.

Anyway, I've downloaded CSV data for all the states, and I'll set up a process to generate all those tables while I sleep. I'll create a "Demographics of U.S. States" article in my sandbox to hold the 50 tables for now. ClairSamoht 01:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I envision the main template containing a switch on the state name, and the data. This calls a second template which has only the table structure and links to articles. Your methodology for generating the numbers is a subpage of the template. I think it is possible to use the page name in a template; I recall doing it a few months ago. Gimmetrow 01:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Things went faster than I imagined. Take a look at User:ClairSamoht/sandbox50 All 50 states, plus DC and PR. I figured out how to solve the NHPI/AIAN problem, and I think the table looks a little nicer as a result.

You want to see the program I used? It requires that you manually download all the CSV files first. I could automate it all the way, so that it automatically goes out and searches the census site for all the CSV files in that directory, but they only update those numbers once a year, so it seems like a waste of effort. I wrote it in Perl rather than C, so that someone else could easily edit it next year, when the new files come out. (If you don't have Perl on your desktop computer, you can download ActiveState Perl for free.) ClairSamoht 04:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The program isn't essential. I meant methodology: noting that people may be counted twice, how you classified Australians, etc. Now, to make a maintainable template, my idea was that the data would be in the "main" template, if you could have your software generate a form something like this:


 {{#switch: {{{state}}}
 | Alabama = {{US DemogTable{{!}}Alabama   {{!}}03-01.csv{{!}}=
 | 72.56{{!}}26.33{{!}} 1.00{{!}} 0.89{{!}} 0.07{{!}}= 
 |         etc.}}
 | Alaska  = {{US DemogTable{{!}}Alaska    {{!}}03-02.csv{{!}}=
 | 75.43{{!}} 4.46{{!}}19.06{{!}} 5.24{{!}} 0.88{{!}}=
 |         etc.}}
 | etc.
 }}

where each row has the 35 numbers and anything else that varies between tables like state name and CSV file link. Then there would be a {{US DemogTable}} that has the table formatting and puts the numbers in the right spot. It would be easy enough to copy your table form. (By the way, cite.php footnotes do not currently work right inside templates, so any references inside a transclusion would have to be regular square-bracket links, or otherwise "hand-made".) This would help make it accessible to other editors, I think. With some small tricks, the same 5x7 table could be used for cities and counties, if one wished. Does this seem a reasonable approach to you? Gimmetrow 21:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The data comes from the Census Bureau in a separate CSV for each state. My program looks at the CSV and notes that the name of the state is on the second line, between " for " and before ": ". The number of non-hispanic whites is on line 28, between the 1st and 2nd doublequotes for the most recent year and between the 15th and 16th doublequotes for 2000, but you've got to remove any spaces and commas in order to do any math. Seems to me that it is just plain silly to ask the Wikipedia servers to repeatedly open files and do extensive parsing, over and over and over, for a year, especially considering that they're overworked, when the underlying numbers aren't going to change but once a year. And if you need to run another program to convert the data to a usable form, you might as well have that one program do everything; the fewer fingers in a data pie, the less chance your data has of catching a vile disease.

When the year changes, you're going to probably look between the 17th and 18th doublequotes for year 2000, so you'd going to have to modify the program at that point, anyhow.

So it probably makes sense to create a Template:U.S.StatesDemographics/Statename for each of the 52 states. If you want to make a Template:U.S.StatesDemographics that redirects to the correct template depending on what state page is calling it, that'd be nice. I'll remove the <ref> and </noref> tags from the coding, so you get a regular external link, and set up the individual templates for each state.

Unfortunately, the census bureau doesn't make this detailed data available at the county and city level. (I've looked and looked and looked for it.) ClairSamoht 23:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reponse suggests that I haven't explained my idea very well. The numbers in my example above are the numbers in your tables, that is, the processed version. I'm not suggesting WP process them again. This system keeps all the processed data in one page (about 25k I'm guessing, no subpages), and all the WP formatting once in another page. When the year changes, someone will have to update that 25k of data, and that's it. You could put your perl script on a subpage of the template. Gimmetrow 23:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Example

For instance, using {{US Demographics}} which calls {{US DemogTable}}:

Demographics of Alabama (csv)
By race	White	Black	AIAN*	Asian	NHPI*
2000 (total population)	72.56%	26.33%	1.00%	0.89%	0.07%
2000 (Hispanic only)	1.48%	0.18%	0.04%	0.02%	0.01%
2005 (total population)	72.14%	26.70%	0.98%	1.02%	0.07%
2005 (Hispanic only)	2.08%	0.17%	0.05%	0.03%	0.01%
Growth 2000–05 (total population)	1.90%	3.95%	-0.06%	17.43%	4.90%
Growth 2000–05 (non-Hispanic only)	1.02%	3.97%	-0.55%	17.47%	6.67%
Growth 2000–05 (Hispanic only)	43.85%	1.05%	11.46%	16.20%	-2.17%
* AIAN is American Indian or Alaskan Native; NHPI is Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

Template:US Demographics

Demographics of New Mexico (csv)
By race	White	Black	AIAN*	Asian	NHPI*
2000 (total population)	86.64%	2.48%	10.67%	1.51%	0.19%
2000 (Hispanic only)	40.56%	0.49%	1.14%	0.21%	0.08%
2005 (total population)	85.85%	2.85%	10.99%	1.66%	0.20%
2005 (Hispanic only)	41.74%	0.69%	1.09%	0.23%	0.09%
Growth 2000–05 (total population)	5.05%	21.88%	9.19%	16.09%	8.63%
Growth 2000–05 (non-Hispanic only)	1.48%	14.84%	10.16%	15.68%	4.63%
Growth 2000–05 (Hispanic only)	9.10%	50.54%	1.12%	18.71%	14.27%
* AIAN is American Indian or Alaskan Native; NHPI is Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

Demographics of Ohio (csv)
By race	White	Black	AIAN*	Asian	NHPI*
2000 (total population)	86.83%	12.18%	0.67%	1.41%	0.06%
2000 (Hispanic only)	1.70%	0.19%	0.05%	0.02%	0.01%
2005 (total population)	86.27%	12.66%	0.66%	1.68%	0.07%
2005 (Hispanic only)	2.05%	0.20%	0.05%	0.03%	0.01%
Growth 2000–05 (total population)	0.32%	4.98%	-1.57%	20.32%	9.32%
Growth 2000–05 (non-Hispanic only)	-0.11%	4.97%	-1.96%	20.48%	11.15%
Growth 2000–05 (Hispanic only)	22.11%	5.70%	3.04%	10.81%	-0.26%
* AIAN is American Indian or Alaskan Native; NHPI is Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

OK. It's working now - as long as the state is specified. It doesn't yet know what page it's being called from. You know, they say "Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot" but still think it's worthwhile trying. As the cartoonist Virgil I. Partch (VIP) said, "Hope blooms forever in an idiot". ClairSamoht 03:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Simple change, and the state appears to be now optional if the page has the right name. Do you want 0.0% in some of the fields? Gimmetrow 03:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If the value is 0.0%, that's what it ought to be. Note that a growth from 0.06% to 0.07% may actually be a change from 0.06499% to 0.06501%, and in that case, the growth reported is not the 16.67% it looks like it should be, but the 0.0% that it actually is. (The raw underlying numbers are used for all calculations instead of comparing calculated values.)

I suppose we ought to add the template to the U.S. States template, so people will automatically include it.

Now, should we come up with a template that shows historic decennial census counts, 1790-2005? If you know where to look, those numbers are available not only for states, but for counties. I'm not sure how easy it's going to be to write a template, though, if the state is Hawaii, and the decennial census starts with 1960 when it became a state. ClairSamoht 03:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A template with a variable start year and number of datapoints can be done with a sequence of if statements for each row; when parameters run out, no more rows. I think it would be fairly easy. For {{US Demographics}} you should still put your perl script on a subpage of the template. Gimmetrow 04:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you for doing this! I have reverted inummerable vandalisms to these #s. Perhaps we should make a religion table as well? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 17:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The biggest objection I hear to the table is that it's a massive rectangle to be dealt with. I think that a {{ReligionDemographics}} template should generate text instead of an HTML table - perhaps a list, perhaps in paragraph form. I'd like to use data from thearda.com because it seems to best meet the Wikipedia:ReliableSources criteria, and list the number of adherents by major category, with the largest groups (top 3?) within each major category as well. I don't know if the raw numbers for each group should be listed, or the percentage of the total population, or both; I lean towards just the percentage, so as not to overwhelm users, but if you have something else in mind, I'm willing to be convinced. Take a look at the religion table at Pennsylvania. I listed six groups under each category, but IMO, it's too massive. Maybe if we were to put the details for groups in a smaller font? Give me some feedback; I want to work by consensus, not by fiat.

And I don't know how often the ARDA data gets updated. I really ought to phone them and ask, and also find if there's a raw data feed we can access. Screen-scraping is really not as reliable as I would like. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 00:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the setup Minnesota has. It uses facts from [4] which was the best source we could find. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the CUNY data is that it looks at what people say, not what they do. It;s called "PBS Bias". People say they are watching Masterpiece Theatre, but the TV is actually tuned to Jerry Springer. That's why you're showing 77% christian, when in fact, the Minnesota population is 25% Roman Catholic, 23% mainline protestant, 11% evangelical. Minnesotans say they are 5%, 4% and 2% baptist, methodist, and presbyterian, but come time for church, it's 1.4%, 2.4% and 1.2%.

But I'm not opposed to that presentation of the data. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 03:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

comment on body of article...

I noticed you have an outline for the body of a state article. It looks good with one exception... why is there no place for the climate of the state? One thing I've noticed in many(but not all state articles) is there is nothing about the climate/weather of the state. I could see someone who is going to visit an area who would look up the wikipedia page of the article to see what they should wear... and finds nothing. I guess maybe most people assume that everyone knows what weather is like for every state, but many of the people who might read the article might be from outside the US or perhaps the state has such variation in climate that it is worth mentioning in the article (eg. Flagstaff Arizona has more days below freezing than any other large city in the lower 48- not what you'd expect for an AZ city). I just think this is a glaring deficiency in so many state articles- especially since climate is such an important factor in so many states (Colorado skiing, Florida tourism, etc.) Thoughts ? Jcam 00:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 18:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Propose using section heading Sports instead of Professional sports teams

I am suggesting that the currently suggested section heading Professional sports teams is too restrictive. Instead I propose that the suggested section heading simply be Sports. In many states, there are no or few professional sports teams, and the focus is on college or high school sports. In addition, use of the current heading would prevent reference to the Olympics and similar sports events in the state. Comments please.NorCalHistory 18:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Second call - anyone have any reaction to re-naming the template section heading as Sports instead of Professional sports teams, for the reasons noted above? Comments please. NorCalHistory 08:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Third call - Obviously changing a template section heading is going to have ripple effects on the fifty states' articles, so I'm moving cautiously here. There does seem to be no opposition to this (I hope sensible) suggestion. NorCalHistory 13:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I have made the proposed change here. NorCalHistory 14:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please see California and Pennsylvania which already follow this new title format; in addition, other states (see Florida and Kansas), while (thus far) retaining the former title, have text in their sections beyond the limited Professional sports teams topic.NorCalHistory 14:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Use in general US related articles

I often edit US related articles by adding United States to the lead sentence(s) - not every English speaker in the world is familiar with every US State/County/City etc. - but I have found couple of examples that use the link US State of X. I edited the first example to read State X, United States as I have previously done. When I found a second example I came to the Project page to check for policy in this matter. I have not found any.

In the event that policy is promoted for US related subjects I would suggest that using US State of... is not adopted. A link by State name is sufficient for identification and search purposes, and the further link to the nation also helps search/identification. It also simplifies the link tree on US related articles. It is also in keeping with articles relating to nations other than the United States (eg. there is no equivalant use of UK County of... - I would comment that I am a British contributor.) I feel, however, that this is obviously a point to be addressed by the participants of this Project - although I will watch this page and would be happy to respond if requested. In the meantime I shall continue to edit US related articles as previously.LessHeard vanU 23:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I find the formulation U.S. state of X generally preferable to what is generally a multi-level comma construct. I.e., cityname, statename, United States (or sometimes even placename, countyname, statename, United States). But there are undoubtedly places where statename, United States is just fine -- I wouldn't want to try to codify one or the other. I don't know what you mean by simplifying the link tree. There is no correspondence with "UK County of" because U.S. states are not really comparable to UK Counties. The text identifies the state as part of the United States and in context, a link to the U.S. state article is more meaningful that a link to the United States article. I mean, if you are reading about an individual born in x city in y state in the U.S., what is the likelihood that you'll want to go from that article to the main United States article? older ≠ wiser 04:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Apart from standardisation within Wiki (where English Counties do equate with US States, being the primary subdivision of a country), it makes searches by web engines far easier; an engine may be given the parameters "Seattle" & "United States" as the enquirer does not know which State Seattle is in. This could be avoided if the link was "United States State of...", but that is grammatically unwieldy.LessHeard vanU 20:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that States in the USA are a "subdivision of a country" in the same sense that counties are in the UK. We have counties in the States and they are equivalent to counties in the UK. The States are separate self-governing republics somewhat similar to the way devolved Scotland is now.--Britcom 10:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)