Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States

Main pageTalkEmbassyRequested
ArticlesMembersPortalRecognized
contentTo doHelp

Welcome to the discussion page of WikiProject United States

Happy Independence Day!

ZappaOMati is wishing you a Happy 4th of July! On this day, we recognize our independence from Great Britain with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which ultimately paved the way to our freedom. Celebrate this day in many different ways, such as hosting a barbecue, watching baseball games, or even attending a fireworks show! Happy Independence Day, fellow American!

Share this message by adding {{subst:Independence Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.

2010 census

Hi,

The links for the 2000 census are now broken. An editor has been tagging articles on US cities which cite 2000 census data as needing references. I'm sure this is an effort to improve the encyclopedia and making articles better. Some examples are:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decatur_County,_Tennessee&oldid=569600856
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decaturville,_Tennessee&oldid=569602243
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centerville,_Tennessee&oldid=569599631

Anyway, it looks like it may be necessary to go back, find all references to factfinder.census.gov and refit all the demographics data with updated info from 2010. Maybe this is under way already? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Not just an editor, but bureaucrat The Rambling Man (talk · contribs). Maybe you might want to ask on his talk page about this. The 2000 census is a decade out of date, and the 2010 census website is not as user friendly as the 2000 one was. Also, see Bot request thread — Maile (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrat and admin actually, with whom I've had numerous unpleasant encounters. That's irrelevant though. Thanks for the link to the bot request discussion (I've never seen it before). I'm glad the project is aware and working on it. I don't know if randomly tagging every municipality in the country is the right approach. Thanks again! --76.110.201.132 (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh...you've had the pleasure, then? I don't know what the right approach is. I loathe tagging of any sort, but that's just me. There are several small municipalities I'd worked on and wanted to update the 2000 demographics with 2010 data. The Census website totally defeated me. Apparently, they did a lot of lumping together from the previous census, that makes it almost impossible to find 2010 data to replace 2000 in smaller areas. — Maile (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm beating a dead horse, but I pulled up my city, clicked the "General Population and Housing Characteristics" link, then clicked bookmark. The URL was: [1]. I tried it in my alternate browser so no cookies were cached and it worked. I also searched for the smaller "Decaturville, Tennessee" and "Miami Shores village, Florida" and it seemed to work. I believe Miami shores is about 10k, can't say for anywhere in Tennessee... --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I tried. How did you get this far? Can you give a bullet-point instruction on how you found Decaturville? I'm actually looking for places that size or smaller. — Maile (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure:

• Browse to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
• In the search box, enter Decaturville, Tennessee
• Under 2010 census click Population, Age, Sex, Race, Households and Housing ...
• Click "Bookmark"
• Copy the URL

That'll work for individual links. A bot will be a much bigger challenge. One could assist by building a list of articles which contain links to the old factfinder, and running through the search cookie hassle of generating the bookmark link. Updating the content would be a manual exercise, but at least it wouldn't be powered by random tagging. It wouldn't be perfect though, since Miami, Florida brings up Miami-Dade county, and not the city of Miami. cURL might be the tool for the job. Update: I watched the net tab in firebug while searching, can we cite to JSON data? :) --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL, ref JSON [2] comedy --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The bookmark URL sets some cookies then does a 302. I URL decoded the cookie but it didn't reveal anything obvious. The good news is that the bookmark URL appears static, that is it's not some guid that they cache which eventually expires. I hate JSP sites, I really really hate them. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

And worst of all, the site depends on JS to run the query, which means if you want to do a bot you'll either have to reverse engineer the JS and implement it in PHP (because PHP > Python and >> Perl), or use something like Casper or PhantomJS. The latter would work, and I already have a framework to do it. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

By JSP, are you talking about Java server pages? Anyway, the phenom you're talking about is how the National Archives site works, and it just drives me nuts. You pull up a document you need for referencing, but the URL expires, so you end up with a dead link for referencing. The Library of Congress works like that also.

The steps you detailed for me above for the census is much easier than it was when they first set up that site. However, it doesn't bring up the teensy towns I found 2000 census for. i.e. Doss, Texas, Loyal Valley, Texas, Willow City, Texas, etc. I think the 2010 census absorbed them into some larger group within a county. — Maile (talk)

For Willow City, search by ZIP. 78675 worked. 188 people? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And yes, I meant Java Server Pages. I've modded some Tomcat projects, thoroughly hate it. It seems to encourage you to write hard to crawl sites. JSP and ASP.Net should be banished to the dust bin of history. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

IP, ("with whom I've had numerous unpleasant encounters" - since you bring that up, at least I never told you to "fuck off", eh?). Anyway, back to the point. While you and Maile66 may dislike tags being placed on sections of below-par US town articles, unfortunately, sometimes that's the only way to encourage the editors "who know best" to actually do something about the problem. The 2000 census sections need to be referenced or removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, just because the URL is bad doesn't mean the data is bad. Census data is available in print form, we can just bot up some new refs and let interested parties visit their local library to verify. WP allows print resources. I see no reason to just remove the perfectly reasonable 2000 census data just because someone can't click a link and see it. With new data published, I do think that the project as a whole could work on updating demographic data for the 2010 census. Maybe moving to some infobox instead of boiler plate prose? Either way, it needs to be more coordinated than some arbitrary "tag and trash" drive by approach. I'm not involved in this project, I was directed here because of a case of mistaken identity, and I'll take my leave now. Good luck! --76.110.201.132 (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A bot to do census links

The discussion above has my thinking that even if a bot can't fix all the articles, one could at least generate a list of articles with factfinder links and make a best effort to link to the correct census 2010 page. Would such a table provide any value to any of you? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Contact census.gov

A separate thread. Sorry for spamming your project. What if we just contacted census.gov? Wikipedia isn't a joke, people might actually answer a request. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia talk:2010 US Census — Maile (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this discussion is about the 2010 or the 2000 census. As I stated on the Bot request thread, the 2000 census is best accessed through the Census Bureau's historical data page, not the American FactFinder. Click on "Census of Population and Housing, 2000". Click on "Demographic Profile Data Search". Select state from a dropdown menu, then enter city in the search box. Select appropriate community from results list, and voila, a pdf of the data. There is a numeric portion of the URL for the resulting pdf file, e.g., Decaturville, Tennessee: http://censtats.census.gov/data/TN/1604719900.pdf. The number appears to be based in part on the FIPS code. I contacted the Census Bureau to see if they could provide a table showing census unit and the number in the pdf file URL. They have a rather cumbersome online support system which I am currently locked out of because I screwed up the password too many times. But they did provide me with a toll-free number to call: 1-800-923-8282. You might want to try it. I am incapable of writing a bot, so it would make more sense for someone who knows what they're talking about to talk to them. 71.139.152.51 (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Main Page discussion - Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

I've nominated Freedom for the Thought That We Hate for Main Page discussion.

Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#September_25. — Cirt (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion to remove the Automatically assessed logic from the WikiProject template

Greetings, there is a discussion regarding removal of the logic used to populate Automatically assessed article categories from Template:WikiProject United States. Most of the categories (over 220 Wikipedia wide) were deleted in February 2013 because they were empty. These categories were previously populated by a bot that hasn't run since 2011 and the categories aren't used. Removal of this uneeded/unused logic will greatly reduce the size and complexity of the WikiProject United States template. Any comments or questions are encouraged. I will post this to the talk pages of all the WPUS supported projects shortly. Kumioko (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Why should this not be done? If there are no reasons, then do it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Good question and I agree. The template is restricted to admins so I cannot edit it and the admins willing to implement the change wanted me to discuss the changes first, which is reasonable I thought given the number of articles and projects that use the template.Kumioko (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's my impression that many Wikiproject members are unaware that the "auto-inherit" feature is no longer working. For those Wikiproject templates that are set up to ask a bot to populate the assessment field with ratings "inherited" from another Wikiproject (when such ratings are available), I see two options:

1. Give up waiting and hoping for a bot ever to run this process again.
2. Go to Wikipedia:Bot requests and try to convince a bot operator to pick up this task.

Kumioko's request would implement the first option by removing the auto-assessment option from the Wikiproject templates for all of the numerous projects that are supported subprojects of WP:US. However, if Wikiproject members want to resume automated assessments, the auto-assessment option should stay in those projects' template while an effort is made to recruit a bot operator to resume this assessment process. Do the members of sub-projects of WP:US want to resume automated inheritance of article assessments? --Orlady (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

We could certainly ask for a bot again, but that has been multiple times by multiple people and it generally has no result. So thats what caused me to revert to option #1. Even then, we could still get the bot, but it doesn't "need" to tag the article with the auto inherit. It can just do the assessment and move on. But if someone wants to keep it we can but I would suggest only leaving it for the projects that want to use it and remove it from the rest. Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree that this feature should be kept only for projects that have members who think they want to use it. Personally, I would rather write articles than rate them. However, I have rated articles because I have seen how ratings provide a useful high-level assessment of the state of content in a topical project and aid in identifying articles that deserve high priority for improvement. For those kinds of reasons, just in the last month Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places has discussed assessments and the project created a new assessment page with project-specific rating criteria. --Orlady (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

How long do you think is a sufficient time to wait? Do you think 1 week is enough, that gives folks till Wednesday the 4th to comment if they want too. So far there has only been one comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections that was more of a general complaint than about this. Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I imagine that many WikiProject members have no idea what your message is about, so they are ignoring it. That message you cited (which says, in part: "Do what you want. You already destroyed this Wikiproject.") could be seen as just another way of saying "I don't know what you are talking about, so I guess I don't care." I appended a short follow-up to most of your messages (I skipped the Wikiprojects for several Texas universities because I was getting tired of the effort) to try to explain the situation, but it probably isn't enough to tell people what we want them to comment on. In response to your question, I think a week probably is long enough to wait. --Orlady (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Orlady, don't worry about the Texas task forces you didn't post on. Texas joined WPUS, at my request, in early 2012. For the most part, I think the Texas project and its task forces are in name only. I could be wrong, but they all seem pretty dead to me. I requested Kumioko add it to WPUS so there could be some kind of larger talk forum to interact with. Oh, the drama of it all when that happened. You'd think Kumioko had littered on the grounds of the Alamo - he got blamed for it all, and not necessarily in a subtle way. I could almost hear howling dogs. Houston and U of Houston, by their request, were not joined with WPUS. Maybe Houston is active, but they aren't part of WPUS anyway.— Maile (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that could be true for some but I think its more likely a combination of things. Many of the projects are basically inactive and were before I even added them to the project. Some are defunct and basically just retained for historical sake. Some might be pissed like the one you mentioned above but if they don't say anything I can't fix it. They like to blame me for a lot of things but its not my fault if they stop editing or supporting the projects. I understand though, there are a lot of projects. Kumioko (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Tal-seal.png

image:Tal-seal.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Major non-NATO ally}}

Template:Major non-NATO ally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Organization of American States}}

Template:Organization of American States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

{{UN Security Council}}

Template:UN Security Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation}}

Template:Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

WE Title page 1927.jpg

image:WE Title page 1927.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

An RfC has begun over year-in section linking

An RfC proposal has begun here.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

St. Petersburg, Florida seal.png

File:St. Petersburg, Florida seal.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Trailways Of New York Social Media Logo.jpg

File:Trailways Of New York Social Media Logo.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Grand Forks flag.gif

File:Grand Forks flag.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This has been renominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Eisenhower Dollar.png

File:Eisenhower Dollar.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

SFSD lo-res patch.jpg

File:SFSD lo-res patch.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Noah Miller Glatfelter 1910.jpg

File:Dr. Noah Miller Glatfelter 1910.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:GLAAD Media Award winners

Category:GLAAD Media Award winners has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Change request for the WPUSA banner

I've filed a change request at Template talk:WikiProject United States/talk because the template talk page is protected. Can someone copy the change request over from the subpage onto the main talk page? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Images uploaded at Commons

This message is being posted on talk pages for both WP NRHP and WP United States

I just relabeled images at Commons, because they were labeled to identify with an NRHP historic district, and the images had nothing to do with the NRHP. I have addressed the issue on the editor's Wikipedia page, as this seems to be their ongoing method on Commons. It occurs to me that this might be more wide-spread than one or two editors. "Historic district" doesn't mean anything to someone who isn't familiar with NRHP. And I have previously noticed other uploaders at Commons who don't always tie the image into anything identifiable. For instance, "Casas en San Antonio Texas. Is that a private residence and/or something historic? Do we have policies about posting images of a private residence without the owner's permission? Chances are, the photographer doesn't know. You can correct each one yourself at Commons, or post a message there, but there's no way to educate anyone who uploads. Wiki Loves Monuments seems to set enthusiastic photographers out to capture images, but there is no WLM University to tell them how to know what they're looking at. It bears mentioning because placing the right image with the article is of some importance. — Maile (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The posting at wt:NRHP#Images uploaded at Commons has garnered some responses. To avoid split/duplicated discussion, please comment there, not here. --doncram 22:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

WPUSA banner change

I've suggested a change for {{WPUSA}}, but I can't actually have a discussion on the template talk page, as it seems to be indefinitely protected. So...

Proposal

Flag

• WP:WikiProject Guam
• WP:WikiProject American Samoa

onto WPUSA

These two wikiprojects do no7t have their own wikiproject banners, Currently Guam is signed on by using WPMICRONESIA and American Samoa is signed on using WPPOLYNESIA. As these are both US territories, it seems obvious, that the WPUSA banner should also be able to sign them on. This change would add another project banner being able to sign on these two projects. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

NOTE, the current templates used to sign on these two projects, WPPOLYNESIA and WPMICRONESIA have been proposed to be eliminated by WPOCEANIA, with the new WPOCEANIA template, for that discussion, see WT: WikiProject Oceania -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Can someone post a note of this discussion onto the Template Talk Page for Template:WikiProject United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done But please stop coming up with creative, new ways to use the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Celestra (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The template talk page is semi-protected, so there's not an area to actually post the request. (which is why I posted it directly below the discussion) -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Its fine with me. Kumioko (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait, come to think of it American Samoa is already in the template. Its currently under Polynesia - America Samoa but that can be changed if need be. Kumioko (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that's probably why I missed that, I expected to find it listed as "American Samoa" -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Franklin Simon Portrait.png

image:Franklin Simon Portrait.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject United States

{{WPUSA}} has been nominated for unmerging at TFD. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request on detail

This is the actual template discussion for this. I understand they want to unmerge the template. But what I see on that discussion page is that some see this entire project as a "..the associated US project is all but dead." If one goes by the amount of postings on a talk page, this project is not dead. It certainly has more life than a lot of others out there, but that's only my perspective. I'm a little confused if the issue is just this template and its usage, or if there is a movement underway to delete this project altogether. I happen to think this talk page here provides a useful centralized forum and would be disappointed to see it go away. Can anyone clarify, please? — Maile (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to give my somewhat tainted view of this and others will disagree without a doubt. Bottom line, I'm tired of fighting about it. People have tried to tear this project down from the first day and largely because I have been the lone defender I am looked at as the Ahole and I am tired of it. If no one wants to help maintain the project I'm willing to let it die at this point. I have invested enough of my time and reputation. Your right though, there are some comments being left here, but I am virtually the only one doing any of the maintenance taks for the projects. Very few are tagging articles, very few are fixing problems related to the projects. Most of the supported projects are dead as a door nail. No one wants to run any bots against any article related to WPUS. Virtually no one seems willing or desiring to collaborate except a few of what I refer to as bully projects that seem to only care about ensuring their POV is allowed, other projects opinions are suppressed and any disenters squashed. I restarted this project to get people to work together and to collaborate and to try and help out some of the struggling projects. I never intended to do this by myslef and I am done trying. I failed miserably and so did this project. Its time to let it die and if the supported projects can survive on their own great. But unless people are willing to invest time in them like they were unwilling to do here, then they have no chance at success either. Kumioko (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Teamwork seems to be sparse on Wikipedia projects. The Military History project seems to be an exception, and perhaps there are other exceptions. But I just don't see a lot going on with most projects I visit, including a couple who refused to join this one on the basis that their individual project was already active. Ego, ownership, and personalities are a deterrent to both teamwork and consensus about anything. I don't have a solution for that. But I do hope that this project page is not deleted, because the talk page still provides a useful forum. The daily page views aren't bad, all things considered. — Maile (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment, I virtually begged people for feedback on a new US county template. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that I could not foist my opinions on others. My requests, encouraged people to disagree, they encouraged, finding agreement, disagreement, ANYTHING other than the current, pretty much IGNORED US County Template. So, after my savage attempts at subverting the will of the group (sure sure), the message was very clear, to me at least. I will continue to edit those things that are of interest to meCoal town guy (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

America's Army1.jpg

image:America's Army1.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Deer Gun - Vietnam Pistol.jpg

image:Deer Gun - Vietnam Pistol.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Marc Chenevert art

• File:American Airlines 727 at Gate 10 Washington National Airport by artist Mark Y. Chenevert, March, 1976.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:MarcYChenevertBraniffBoeing747BraniffPlaceDrawingFebruary2012.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:MarcYChenevertPiedmontBoeing727ManhattanPacemakerAug2011.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

have been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

George Zidek

George Zidek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been requested to be renamed -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Who wants to help start an article on money and politics in the United States?

Money and politics in the United States should exist, in my opinion. A rough sketch of an outline is at User:Biosthmors/Money_and_politics_in_the_United_States. Feel free to join in or start the article yourself. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Arizona Supreme Court Vice Chief Justice W. Scott Bales

Arizone Supreme Court Vice Chief Justice W. Scott Bales, who clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (1984-1985), should be added to the list of Law Clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States

Werieth (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KLEEBARRY (talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The template WikiProject United States is being considered for deletion?

This message is displayed at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:

• The template WikiProject United States is being considered for deletion.

Is it true? XWerieth (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)