Template talk:WikiProject United States

More updates

Please implement the following list of changes. The changes are in the sandbox

1. Add some checks for invalid parameters -Kumioko
2. Remove leftover code from Cornell, Columbia and SUNY -Kumioko
3. Fix category for US State Legislatures articles with comments -Kumioko (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

. Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it. The change meant that the banner was broken in every page that it was used. You can see the breakage in Template:WikiProject United States/sandbox, between the box "This WikiProject banner uses {{WPBannerMeta}}" and the documentation: there's a pipe, four closing braces, and some stuff about WikiProject New York - SUNY To-do. The next box, "This is the template sandbox page for Template:WikiProject United States", has lost its border. This sort of thing happens when there's an imbalance between opening and closing braces. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was too lax with my checks before I implemented this. I assumed Kumioko would have checked the code properly, but that was obviously a bad move on my part. Kumioko, can you fix the problems in the sandbox and reactivate the request? This time I shall be checking the code more thoroughly. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be better for someone else to do it. My 3rd RFA is going down in flames as expected and although my impulses tell me to dig deep into admin related issues and bury myself in all things admin to prove the need its clear folks don't want me doing admin stuff. Kumioko (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that guys I thought I checked that first. It should be working now. Kumioko (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

There was still an imbalance of braces, but it was so small and obscure that I fixed it myself instead of insisting that you check through it again. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Changes

The following changes still need to be done. I'm not going to bother requesting an edit but if someone is watching this page feel free to implement. They are done in the Sandbox.

1. Add some checks for invalid parameters -Kumioko
2. Remove leftover code from Cornell, Columbia and SUNY -Kumioko
3. Fix category for US State Legislatures articles with Kumioko (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Add more invalid parameter checks. Kumioko (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Removed Kansas. Kumioko (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Cleaned up the code and consolidated some of the extra groupings. Kumioko (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Fix to do link for Archives of American Art Kumioko (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
8. Fix to do link for NARA Kumioko (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
9. Fix to do link for SI Kumioko (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
10. Fix to do link for SIA Kumioko (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
11. Remove importance logic for USMIL. Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
12. Remove importance logic for ACW. Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
13. Remove importance logic for ARW. Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
14. Remove Auto importance categorization logic for USMIL. Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
15. Remove Auto importance categorization logic for ACW. Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
16. Remove Auto importance categorization logic for ARW. Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
17. Remove importance logic for NIH. Kumioko (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
18. Remove Auto importance categorization logic for NIH.Kumioko (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
19. Replaced the image for Shreveport, Louisiana since someone decided to delete the old one. Kumioko (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
20. Removed listas parameter. Not used or updated and generally only applies to biographies which are already generated for articles with teh WPBio banner. Kumioko (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
21. Added listas to invalid parameter check. Kumioko (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
22. Fixed titles of a couple of the GLAM projects in the todo list logic. Kumioko (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
23. Removed logic for Collaboration candidate and Current collab. US collab is defunct so no need for anything except the ones who were previous candidates. Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
24. Fixed a bad category in Note 2, category said 9. Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
25. Clarify some more of the GLAM title occurances. Kumioko (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
26. Remove link to recent changes. No longer applicable. Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
27. Remove needs image logic for ACW. Kumioko (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
28. Remove needs image logic for ARW. Kumioko (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
29. Remove needs image logic for USMIL. Kumioko (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
30. Remove needs map logic for ACW. Kumioko (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
31. Remove needs map logic for ARW. Kumioko (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
32. Remove needs map logic for USMIL. Kumioko (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
33. Add a few more state parameter checks. Still finding a lot of mistagged articles. Kumioko (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
34. Removed the auto inheritance logic. No bots are currently doing these types of assessments and haven't in some time. Additionally its just not that big of a deal. If someone feels its wrong all they have to do is change it. Kumioko (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
35. Removed map needed logic for American animationKumioko (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
36. Removed map needed logic for American cinema Kumioko (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
37. Removed map needed logic for American music Kumioko (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
38. Removed map needed logic for American television Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
39. Removed map needed logic for FBI Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
40. Removed map needed logic for several more projcts (LOC, ASianAmer, MexAm, NARA, SIA, SI, AAA and a couple others). Kumioko (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
41. Add Indiana Historical Society (GLAM Project) to supported (Joint) projects. Kumioko (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
42. Add Balboa park. Kumioko (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
43. Add Chemical Heritage Foundation. Kumioko (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of |listas=. It's one of the standard parameters that all WikiProject banners should provide; and although it's not necessary on biographies having {{WPBiography}}, it is useful for correct sorting of articles about fictional people, also articles whose titles begin with "the" or "a", etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. We can leave that in. Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a suggestion for those who are watching this page and have admin rights. If I may suggest implementing these changes soon, I have quite a few more to make and its going to make things harder to verify the more changes are made at once. Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I replaced the template with the current version of Template:WikiProject United States/sandbox. I hope that was the right thing to do -- and that it didn't break anything.

I must tell you that I didn't even want to think about how to deal with your seemingly daunting list of requests. You likely would have gotten faster response if you had posted a notice saying "Please replace the template with the contents of Template:WikiProject United States/sandbox. It implements the following 43 changes." --- instead of posting lists of 43 specific changes needed in the template. --Orlady (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As I posted on the AN page this is how it was requested I do it before by other admins so they could verify the changes I made (which frankly rarely occurs anyway because the template logic is so complicated there are only a few of us that understand it). Also as I said there I shouldn't have to ask anyway, I should be able to implement the changes myself. But its harder for the admins to justify their existence if us lowly editors can implement our own work. Every time I start ramping back up into a contributory state I get something like this that makes me wonder why I even care. I should just stop editing and say the hell with it.Kumioko (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This template is not full-protected to protect it from you. It's full-protected to prevent changes by well-intentioned users who don't know what they are doing. Template-coding skill is not a requirement for admin status, which means that there are many administrators (like me) who don't have necessary knowledge to edit a complex template like this one (that is, we don't know what we are doing). You, on the other hand, have demonstrated that you know how to code complex templates. Ideally, it would be possible to give you a special permission to allow you to edit this template, but that isn't possible.

If you had posted a polite request that concisely stated that you have edited the sandbox to implement the long list of changes given -- and that you have verified the code in the sandbox to the extent possible and you think it's ready to be pasted into the template page by an administrator, then any number of administrators would be happy to oblige. Maybe it wasn't intentional, but by writing a request that implied that an administrator needed to (1) determine what was meant by every one of the 43 change requests and (2) code those changes (or at least verify that you had coded them correctly), you were discouraging many administrators from helping out. --Orlady (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually my request was polite, it was just technical and it doesn't really matter why its protected, just that it is and I can't change it eventhought I clearly know how to. But that's one of the fundamental problems with this site and why people leave. Because we make it extremely hard to do things that need to be done. Not because its not pretty or facebook like. Because its too bureaucratic and requires too much red tape. Its not my fault if the admins who have access to do the change don't understand the changes being requested. But I'm not going to do anymore. If I can't be trusted to implement the change and someone who doesn't even understand the changes being made can, then its not important enough for me to do it. I'm just going to add the request and let someone else do the work. Kumioko (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Logically, it would be easier if you leave a simple edit protected template, asking for the template to be updated with a defined version of the sandbox, with a brief explaination of the sort of changes and more importantly confirmation of proper testing etc and also link to somewhere where you document the changes in case someone has questions about them. And from my POV well meaning editors who do good work but have a chip on their shoulder due to whatever evil they perceive has been committed against them, as you appear to be, are far more likely to frighten away other editors. Why would I want to work on a colloborative work when I know I'm going to have to put up with such stuff? The wider problem of course is that while you may be trusted to do good technical work with templates, it seems clear from your messages you can't be trusted to be an admin so we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Note that I am not an admin, and have no great desire to be one. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problems working on a collaborative project with anyone but excuse me that I have grown impatient that I have to wait weeks to get changes done to a template. Where my problems come in is when I am told I cannot be trusted after years of working on the project, expected to do all the work when an admin that doesn't understand the changes takes credit for the change because I am not allowed to implement my own work and then editors who don't understand the history of the problem try and minimize that poor site policy by telling me I must have a chip on my shoulder. So I guess if that qualifies as a chip and not as bonafide irritation that a site boasting to be the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" is really the "Encyclopedia with a few pages everyone can edit and massive amounts of protected content that only a handful of trusted users can edit" (trademark pending). But anyway, after this last bout of waiting for a month, I'm not going to make the changes anymore because its clear that I'm not trusted to do them. I'll do the same thing as I do with CSD's and other admin related things. I'll put a request for an edit here and let them do it. I'm basically an admin without the tools anyway. Cheers and Happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional changes to the template

Please add the following projects to this template. Adding as Joint Projects between WPUS and GLAM to maximize coverage of the topic. I do not have access to the code so I can't do it. These need to be implemented by an Admin. Some of the GLAM projects are already joint;y supported so this is just adding the rest of the US based GLAM projects per a discussion started here.

1. Wikipedia:GLAM/The Children's Museum of Indianapolis --Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Wikipedia:GLAM/Delaware Art Museum --Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Wikipedia:GLAM/Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum--Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Wikipedia:GLAM/New York Public Library--Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Wikipedia:GLAM/Museum of Modern Art--Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
6. Wikipedia:GLAM/Philadelphia Museum of Art--Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
7. Wikipedia:GLAM/George Washington University--Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
8. Change the todo list logic to reflect /to do vice /todo. Kumioko (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
9. Remove importance logic from SIA. Main project doesn't support it so we shouldn't force it to. Kumioko (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
10. Update the code in the template that tracks what WPUS articles are used in portals to use the portal image instead of the puzzle piece. Kumioko (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
11. It appears that the logic that tracks which articles have comments isn't working. That may need to be fixed. Kumioko (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
12. Remove WikiProject Chemical Heritage Foundation from this template. Per a discussion with the one that mainly edits that project most of the content of that project is international so after further review of the content that applies to the project its not really a good fit with WPUS. Done by Orlady Kumioko (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I removed Chemical Heritage Foundation from the template because the reason for removal made sense and because I could remove it by simply inserting the version of the sandbox that existed before you added CHF to the template. --Orlady (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I lined that out and annotated it above. Kumioko (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This would mean that Electrochemistry, Mummy, Terracotta Army, Glassblowing, Rail adhesion, Dracorex, Steam locomotive, Bank engine, Alebrije, Ga-Adangbe people, Japanese friendship dolls, Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, Edward Burne-Jones, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Geodesic dome, AIBO, Volkswagen Beetle, Creative director, International Style (architecture), Victorinox, Bic Cristal, Cisitalia, Documentary photography, Jaguar E-Type, Ferrari 641, ... would be added to the Wikiproject United States. Seems like a bad idea, certainly considering that very few actual US related articles would be added with them. Had you checked which articles would be added to the US project before suggesting this? Fram (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that every article in those projects needs to be tagged for both projects. It just allows an overlap in visibility. Many of the GLAM projuects have no or very few people participating in them (much the same as WPUS these days). That does present a valid point though that if we add these we need to clarify that only those articles associated to the US should be added to the WPUS project. For example the article for The Children's Museum of Indianapolis could be added but Terracotta Army, or Glassblowing should not. Kumioko (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I added a comment here to WPUS clarifying that only articles that pertain to the US should be tagged and will do that to the Documentation of this template as well. Kumioko (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

So you ask us to make some additions to this already very long and complicated template, to have the possibility to tag some articles with a combined US / Glam tag insteead of the two tags that are there now? Because e.g. Talk:The Children's Museum of Indianapolis already has both the US tag and the Glam tag. Your reaon for these changes is "to maximize coverage of the topic", but it is not clear at all how having one tag instead of two would in any way increase coverage of the topics. Further, things like Wikipedia:GLAM/New York Public Library, which you want to add as well, currently don't seem to have any article tagged (despite being over two uears old, so it's not a new project), so adding this code would just be extra work (and making the template even heavier) for no benefit at all. This is already a 200K template (compared to Template:WikiProject Russia, 12K; Template:WikiProject France, 3K; Template:WikiProject United Kingdom, 1.8K...). I'll let other admins decide if they see any value to this request and whether they believe the cost-benefit ratio is acceptable, but to me this seems like a totally useless exercise. Fram (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You made quite a few comments so let me answer each one individually.

1. Let me start with the last comment first. Since we have history and both neither of us think highly of the other, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you would find this a useless exercise. Nonetheless it offers benefits.
2. The template size isn't a huge problem but there is a lot of functionality that isn't being used and isn't needed so I had been working to reduce the complication of the template by removing the unused and unneeded logic. Some of the logic isn't working either so I am trying to fix that as well. There is still a fair bit to do to sort it out. But since it took several weeks to get the last group of changes applied the admins clearly don't trust my judgment at making these changes and/or do not think they are important. Both reasons are sufficient for me not to do them anymore and let the admins who have access to the template do it.
3. I no longer feel its appropriate for me to do it since I cannot implement the change. People keep saying template coding isn't an admin task but they are the only ones with the ability to update some of these templates so that argument is completely false. The same argument could be applied to fighting vandalism or deleting CSD's and it wouldn't be true there either. Something like, blocking vandals isn't an admin task, we just apply the block, you tell us what to do by submitting the request.
4. Actually both tags would still be on the article. Its just that the WPUS template would have the GLAM project in it as a supported project like we do with ACW, Smithsonian institution or several others. The WPUS template has additional parameters for tracking problems related to the article the other templates for the GLAM projects don't have.
5. Your right some have been around for a while and aren't being tagged. A prime example of why the projects need some additional help.
6. I agree that some of the projects would be better to add it to the main WikiProject like Wikipedia:GLAM/New York Public Library to Wikipedia:WikiProject New York but their not beating the door down to do it so were adding it here, at least for the moment. Maybe we'll move it tot he other project at some point in the future after some work has been done to clean them up like what happened with SUNY, Columbia and Cornell.
7. Aside from the above issues there are still other issues with the template like the one I mentioned above in #8.

I hope this clarifies but let me know if you have any more questions. Kumioko (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A long reply, thanks, but in all that, I still don't see any benefit these changes would create. Any functionality that is in the US template is already present on these articles, or can be added by simply adding the current US template (if there are any that belong with the US project but aren't already tagged as such; you reply as if I claimed there are some such, but I did not make any such claim). So this doesn't add any tracking possibilities that aren't already there.

Please, just give one or two examples of where this would actually make a difference. Not just the addition of a line "this article is supported by GLAM whatever"; the project is already listed on the talk page, so this is not an improvement. Take e.g. Talk:The Children's Museum of Indianapolis; what would change here (or elsewhere) if this functionality was added? What benefits do you see, possibilities that aren't yet there? Fram (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I really didn't expect to convince you but maybe someone else will be more receptive. If you think the functionality in the GLAM projects templates exists though you don't really understand. For example, the WPUS project template can identify if the article needs images, maps, references, Geo location tags, etc, if marked. Most the other templates don't have that logic. The WPUS project also has some bots that automate certain things to one degree or another and has functionality to see the to do list for the project on any article, which then also shows any GAC's, FAC's or FLC's once I get the page created and setup.

Additionally, the US template is present on some articles, but not on many it could/should be. Its hard for me to do a good comparison of what articles one project has and the other doesn't because again, only admins have the tools to do this. So my ability to be productive and efficient is severely limited. Some of these projects only have 20 or 30 articles total tagged for them currently so there may only be a handful that apply to both projects anyway. One example of one that's not tagged yet is Adriana Miller or William Staughton. There are a lot more as well. Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the question. To get the combined, requested tag to work, you would need to add the US template anyway, right? So what would the US template with the added GLAM functionality do that the current US template wouldn't do? I am not claiming that the US template has no functionalty that the GLAM project is lacking, so trying to convince me that it does is useless; I am asking what the US template with your changes would achieve that the US template without these changes wouldn't. Fram (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have already explained it. Given our history I really don't feel like any amount of explanation is going to convince you and all this discussion is doing is making this discussion unnecessarily long. If you don't agree or don't want to make the changes that's fine. I can't do it so they just won't get done. As an attempt at good faith though here is a link to an example: Talk:Smithsonian Institution. Look at the differences between the WPUS template and the other GLAM projects. This shows some but not nearly all the differences. Kumioko (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at your example, I don't see what the purpose is of the changes you propose. I note that the page now has three Smithsonian-related project tags, making it rather confusing for a less experienced editor to know where they should go with a problem. I also note that the three Smithsonian tags have different classes (Start and C) and importance ratings (High, Top and none), so it makes it even more confusing. But more importantly, it doesn't indicate why that page couldn't just have been tagged with "WikiProject United States / District of Columbia"; what is the benefit for the article, the reader, or anyone else that the glam projects are added to the US template? Fram (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that the below section, "Suggestion to remove GLAM projects from WPUS template", was originally just a part of this section, but has been moved to its own section by Kumioko since. Fram (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove GLAM projects from WPUS template

Note: this section was originally a part of the above section "Additional changes to the template", but has been moved to its own section by Kumioko. Fram (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose requested changes, Support removal of all GLAM projects from this template. Actually, looking further at the example you give above, Talk:Smithsonian Institution, thanks to having both the GLAM tag for Smithsonian archives, and the "joined" tag for US/GLAM, the article is now listed both in Category:C-Class Smithsonian Institution Archives-related articles and Category:Start-Class Smithsonian Institution Archives-related articles. It is also listed both in Category:Unknown-importance Smithsonian Institution-related articles and Category:Top-importance Smithsonian Institution-related articles. So no, I see not a single benefit so far from having the GLAM projects added to the US project, and a number of disadvantages. Fram (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said above. Given our history I never, at any time in this discussion, thought that there was anything I could say that you would consider as a compelling reason. Your right that the solution isn't perfect but its better to have the article in multiple WikiProjects with limited activity than 1 with limited activity. If you think its necessary to remove them from the template then bring it up to the GLAM and WPUS project talk pages. Since collaboration is becoming less and less encouraged on Wikipedia these days you may have a good chance at getting the logic removed. Kumioko (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"its better to have the article in multiple WikiProjects with limited activity than 1 with limited activity." is something I never opposed. I have at no time said that these articles, if relevant, shouldn't be tagged for the US project. Please try to address the issues I raised instead of using strawmen. Fram (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Fram, just because you don't agree doesn't make it a strawman. I have explained the reasoning and you keep spouting you don't agree and don't understand. Ok fine, you don't agree and don't understand. But drowning this discussion with opposes because you don't agree and think they should all be removed from the template isn't productive. If you think they need to be removed then bring them up in the proper venues, the GLAM and WPUS project talk pages, not here. Further commenting on your comments above, I have asked for the SIA importance logic to be removed from this template because they don't even use it. So your trying to justify your arguments with stuff that doesn't even apply and your just being disruptive at this point. Kumioko (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Drowning this discussion with opposes"? I have made "one" oppose statement. All the rest have been relevant, direct questions. You want people to make a number of changes to a template, but you can't (or can't be bothered to) present one actual benefit these changes would have; worse, the example you gave of a similar change that was already present created no benefits and some problems. Please explain what about this doesn't apply. Also please explain how your argument about adding pages to multiple wikiprojects is not a strawman; since this is perfectly possible with the unchanged US template as well, and hasn't been questioned. Fram (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? So you didn't, just a few words up say "*Oppose requested changes, Support removal of all GLAM projects from this template" That wasn't you? That was some other Fram? Yes you started with a couple questions I condered at the time to be reasonable and I have addressed them. Its clear that you are dead set against these changes which is fine. That is your right to do. But arguing the point here isn't the answer. You need to take your objections/suggestions to the projects pages. Not here. The bottom line is I am attempting to increase collaboration between the projects and get more eyes and edits on the articles that relate to them. If you don't want to and don't support that endeavor, that's unfortunate but also well within your right. But please don't distract this discussion because you personally agree with it. Its not appropriate and frankly bringing it here isn't going to change anything. It has to go to the projects. Since both the GLAM projects and the WPUS project seem to be minimally active at this point I'm not sure if it would matter one way or the other. As I said above. It seems like too many people just want to tear down collaborations these days and do their own thing rather than work together so wether these projects are or are not in the WPUS banner, frankly, probably isn't going to make a big difference. If you have a better idea bring it forward and maybe we can try that for a while and see if it works. At least I am trying. Kumioko (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Template talk:WikiProject United States. Fram (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to put it on the GLAM projects too Fram. Kumioko (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't. The GLAM projects don't get to say whether some logic and code should be in the US template or not. You are free to drop them a courtesy note, but there is no requirement to do so. If this discussion was about removing a project that was completely included in the US template and no longer used their own templates, then of course that project needed to be consulted. But not in this case. Fram (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I notice that you did drop a note, starting with "A user that is not affiliated to GLAM or WikiProject United States"; WP:OWN problems? Fram (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to make the decision about what goes in the template either Fram, your not a member of any of the GLAM projects or the WPUS project as far as I can tell and in fact as I recall you don't even like the WPUS project. So I don't see how you should get to control what goes in the template or why you would even care. But since you failed to post a notice on the GLAM projects I did it for you. You can't just put a note where you feel it will have the best result for your POV. As an admin you should know that, but it doesn't surprise me that you are choosing to ignore that fact. Also, my comments were a lot more unbiased than the one you left at WPUS, so you hardly have room to talk.

As I said above though, I really don't feel that strongly about having them in the template as joint projects or not. I really don't think its going to have a huge impact on the GLAM projects or the WPUS project either way since none of the projects are particularly active. I'm just trying to improve collaboration between the projects and improve visibility of the articles. Its a shame a bit stupid that 2 admins seems to find that troubling and want to reduce how a project that neither one of them is active in, collaborates with others. If either of you were active in the project I would say you have all the right to say. But the only edits to the project from either of you is to tear it down so I don't see how I should value your opinions in the matter. If you want a say in how the project runs, start participating in it! Kumioko (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Where am I controlling what goes in the template or not? You suggested changes, I opposed those based on a number of arguments, others get to decide whether the changes will happen or not. What have I done here that goes against or outside our normal processes? Please do explain though why I would think that a note at the US project would have more chance of getting people to share my position instead of yours? Is the US project some haven for pro-Fram and anti-Kumioko editors? Your second paragraph clearly shows your problematic views on ownership and collaboration, thanks for making my point for me there. When a 200K template is added to more than 300,000 pages, it will get noted by many people outside the project. When you start complaining at the admin noticeboard that your requested edits don't get done quickly, you shouldn't be surprised if people take a look at the template and what you are actually requesting. And when it then turns out that your requests have no clear benefits (you still haven't shown any, your suggested changes don't improve collaboration or visibility one bit) and clear disadvantages, you shouldn't be surprised that people raise objections. That you don't take my objections seriously is no surprise, but if even Orlady, who has made other requested edits here, refuses to make those because " I see no evidence that adding those projects to this template benefits the projects in any way.", then perhaps the problem really is with the requests or your explanation of them, and not so much with me after all. Fram (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have my problems Fram but article ownership issues are not among them. I have never told another project that can't put a WikiProject tag on an article, I have never told another WikiProject that cannot claim an article in their scope. But you and several others have this crusade to stop the evil Kumioko and WPUS is starting to get on my nerves. I left notes on project pages asking if they wanted to collaborate. Some did, some didn't thats fine but some got all up in arms, started sputing it was a takeover, stop the evil project, etc. Its ridiculous. I have never made a project do anything they didn't want to do. In fact I have helped several projects if they asked without even being associated (Oklahoma for one). Some projects wanted to break away like Kansas and I helped them do that too. So I am not the one with article ownership issues and your status as an admin doesn't give you the right or the latitude to make up things that aren't true just because you are looking for a reason to justify your POV issues with the project.

No the WPUS project isn't ProFram or AntiKumioko but these GLAM projects you are referring to pertain to GLAM so its only right to notify them of the discussion. I'm surprised that doesn't make sense to you, but I guess that's how etiquette in the site has devolved over the years. There was a time that not notifying the parties involved would have been frowned upon (just like leaving unbiased notes about a discussion) but those days are gone I guess (especially with the new notification tool).

I have shown benefits but you are still refusing to see them. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Just that you don't want them too. I'm glad Orlady implemented those changes and I appreciate that she did but she shouldn't have had to and neither should anyone else. I did the work, I should be able to implement it. What would hve happened if I did something wrong. She has already admitted she wouldn't know how to fix it other than revert it. I don't usually make a lot of mistakes with this template and I always check my work but it does happen sometimes and I should be able to fix it immediately. Not do the fix in the sandbox and wait a week for an admin to fix it. There is absolutely no way that anyone reasonable can argue that is in the best interest of the site.

What I also find really interesting is that the only 2 admins that are in this discussion are 2 that have on multiple occassions attempted to break up WPUS or change its scope and aren't even members of the project. I have to be honest IMO its discussions like these where people outside the project are trying to force projects to change that are the biggest driver in why WikiProjects all over the project are failing. Why join a project if anyone can just come along and force you to change it, its not worth the time. Why even bother collaborating when any admin or editor can come along and remove the tag from an article that's clearly in your projects scope, tell you that you have ownership issues and then try and change the projects scope so their pet article doesn't fall in its scope anymore. So if you want to change a projects scope, direction or makeup, try participating in it for a while and do some of the work of maintaining it. Then you would be justified in having a voice on how it functions. And implementing changes to a protected template because your an admin and the one requesting the change isn't, doesn't count. Until then, its just an editor who doesn't like the project trying to change it because they don't have enough to do or because they are protecting their POV. Frankly, I think this passive aggressive discussion that you are building is pathetic, annoying and irritating and shows the kind of admin that you are. You are obviously just trolling the discussion at this point and no matter what I say, how I say it or wether its justified is going to make you say that I am right. You are just using this discussion as a means to insult and degrade me, to use your status as an administrator as a leverage and to show how much power you have. This discussion is over. If you want to remove the GLAM projects, add more, or walk away I frankly don't give a shit. All these WikiProjects are dying because of discussions like this by editors like you who are forcing your POV and it pisses me off that your being allowed to do it. Kumioko (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Remove GLAM projects from this template. I see no evidence that adding those projects to this template benefits the projects in any way. Their inclusion has, however, contributed to: (1) the impression that WikiProject United States is all about Building an Empire, (2) making the WP:US template even more unwieldy, and (3) making pages like Talk:Smithsonian Institution look ridiculous. --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the assumption of bad faith on those three pointless points you made. I really appreciate that. Kumioko (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

More changes

I am absolutely disgusted that I have to do the work so someone else can take credit for the edit but since its not going to get done any other way and because I care about what happens to the project, lets start with these changes. All are done in the Templates sandbox.

1. Change the todo list logic to reflect /to do vice /todo. Kumioko (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Remove importance logic from SIA. Main project doesn't support it so we shouldn't force it to. Kumioko (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Update the code in the template that tracks what WPUS articles are used in portals to use the portal image instead of the puzzle piece. Kumioko (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Please note: if you think administrators do this sort of thing for "credit", you don't have a clue what the administrator role is all about. --Orlady (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the changes. Unfortunately I do have a clue what the role is about. I just think more is made of it than what it really is. Kumioko (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)