Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States

Main pageTalkEmbassyRequested
ArticlesMembersPortalRecognized
contentTo doHelp

Welcome to the discussion page of WikiProject United States

The Malls in the Dallas - Fort Worth area should be considered regional. Not so much in Houston.

In classifying a regional mall, perhaps the best example in Texas would be Town East Mall in Mesquite located on the east side of the Dallas - Fort Worth area the way it reportedly attracts 20 million customers a year from the surrounding North Texas area, from East Texas, further out from Louisiana, and even further from Arkansas. When speaking about things regional in Texas, one is most likely going to be talking about the Dallas - Fort Worth area. In contrast, the malls located in the Houston area are going to tend to be more localized in scale. In other words, the building of the more regional type of malls in the Dallas area did not have as much of an impact on the existing business of its urban stores located within Dallas proper. That is not the case with shopping in Houston as the more localized business of its malls tended to have an impact on the business of the urban stores located within Houston proper. I'm not claiming that Houston doesn't have regional malls. I think the Katy Mills Mall, the Woodlands Mall, and the San Jacinto Mall are all regional shopping centers attracting outside customers to the Houston metropolitan area. But, by and large, the smaller Houston market doesn't have the same amount of regional shopping that has been built up around the significantly larger regional market surrounding Dallas - Fort Worth. By regional in scale, think about the new Nebraska Furniture Mart now being constructed within the city of The Colony, about the huge Texas Motor Speedway that was built north of Fort Worth, about the Deloitte University built in Southlake, about the Grapevine Mills Mall built in Grapevine, as well as about the huge Gaylord Texas Convention Center and Resort constructed on Lake Grapevine, and about all those other numerous regional attractions and resorts that have since been built up around them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle Emanuel Watkins (talk • contribs) 23:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shopping Centers ? -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

To avoid Wikipedia:Original research, consider: "How do newspapers and magazines classify these malls?" WhisperToMe (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

United States article

Can we get some editors to look at the recent discussion on the talk page of the USA article. We seem to have a slue of new editors fighting and could use a few experienced editors to help out and guide them. -- Moxy (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Which thread did you have in mind? There are a number of them covering various topics, all of which were started in October 2013. Stats on that talk page has had over 4,000 viewers in the last month. — Maile (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say all of the new ones. I have joined one and see we have an old-timer with stats knowledge there now aswell. -- Moxy (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Myer Feldman

I've created the above, but not being too familiar with US politics I'd appreciate someone checking it over. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A good start! I removed the duplicate references because replicated beneath the reflist ones. Once you cite them in the article they are already referenced and need not be duplicated again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Redundant location articles?

Is University, Mississippi redundant to University of Mississippi? Is Mississippi State, Mississippi redundant to Mississippi State University?

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the locale stubbies ought to be redirects to the respective university itself. I see you did just that to one two years ago, and someone undid the redirect today. Weird edit.— Maile (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WhisperToMe According to the US Census bureau both places are census-designated places. ACase0000 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Fuck featured article candidate discussion

• Fuck (film)

Fuck (film) is a candidate for Featured Article quality — comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

To Do list page 'Good article nominees' section

I'm new to this page and I was just looking around the Project to see what was going on and things that could be contributed to and worked on and I found this section on the To Do list tab titles 'Good article nominees' It seems to be a list of links to United States related articles but there is really no indication as to what these articles are being nominated for. I'm just looking for some clarification. Cheers Rawlem (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

These all mean they are in the process of a review: Featured Article candidates, Featured list candidates, Good Article nominees. Those are specific review criteria processes going on. The Feature Article candidates will end up on the Main page of Wikipedia if they pass the review process. Good Articles only end up on the front page if after passing review they are separately nominated at Did you know If you click on any of those candidates undergoing review, then go to their talk page, you will find a link to click on the review in progress. This is a list of Good Article nominations in progress: Wikipedia:Good article nominations. This will help you learn about the Featured Article process: Wikipedia:Featured articles. Both of those processes have specific criteria and guidelines to follow. Perhaps those articles are listed on the "To Do" list for anyone who cares to do the review, or otherwise is familiar enough with the subject matter or processes to help edit the finer points remaining on the articles. — Maile (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think though that the To-Do list should be a little more specific as to why these documents are 'Good article nominees'? I was scanning through the nominated documents, sure they're good documents but I don't understand why they are specifically "Good." So I was wondering if there is a set of requirements that pages meet in order to be classified as good article nominees? Thanks AhmedTElkholy (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Basically anything that someone believes meets or can be simply edited to meet Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarification for new editors. Projects don't nominate. Individual editors nominate, usually their own work. A bot matches the nominations to the project banner on the article talk page and posts with the appropriate project. If you go to Wikipedia:Good article nominations, it tells you what the criteria is for passing a GA review. If those articles pass the review, you'll see at the very top of the article itself that it's a "Good article". — Maile (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

A discussion is ongoing about the lead to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. Please help form a consensus at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Proposal for lead--Mark Miller (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Edward Snowden

I started a request for comment at Edward Snowden#added videos. All views are welcome. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Created Category:Targeted killing

• Category:Targeted killing

I've gone ahead and created Category:Targeted killing, a category to encompass articles related to the topic of Targeted killing.

Suggestions for additional articles to add into the category would be appreciated, feel free to add them yourself or suggest them at Category talk:Targeted killing.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Lone Star Gallery

I would like to add our event venue to the Wikipedia listing of Round Top Antiques Week. We have a 35,000 sq ft venue in Warrenton in the heart of the antiques week. We also have a winter show the same weekend as The Big Red Barn. Thank you for adding The Lone Star Gallery to the description. 66.68.113.7 (talk)Kaci VanCoutren —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about USS Picaway

I believe my husband was on the ship "picaway" in1946 for the testing of the nuclear weapon. Would like to conttact other soldiers who was there. His name is James Cooper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.0.134 (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't really the best place to ask about that. You will probably find that the VFW, VA and Labor department are better points for information. For what its worth though most of the soldiers and sailors who were there have all died. Many of them due to complications or long term effects of Radiation exposure. The Labor department has a lot of info on that. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

CFD: sub-categories of Category:LGBT state legislators of the United States

Category:LGBT state legislators in Arizona‎ and 33 other sub-categories of Category:LGBT state legislators of the United States, all of which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for merger to their parent categories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Should lists of political endorsements include people who quietly donated money?

Please see the discussion at Talk:List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign supporters, 2012#RFC: Should a list of endorsements include people who quietly donated?
Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Agriculture companies of the United States

I was just looking to see where ADM(archer daniels midland) ranked in the largest agriculture companies and found that they aren't even listed, yet they have 89 billion in sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.27.230 (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek featured portal candidate

• Portal:Star Trek

Miyagawa and I have nominated Portal:Star Trek as a featured portal candidate.

Commented would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Star Trek.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

List of incumbent governors in "year x in the United States" articles

Fundingmoney is adding lists of incumbent governors (well, so far just their states) to all such articles: see this one here, which I reverted. I brought it up on their talk page but since they're doing it on so many articles I think it should be discussed here. I'm loath to press mass rollback on these presumably good-faith edits, but I see no valid reason for bloating every one of those articles with such lists: governors simply aren't important enough in the grand scheme of things. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it was a bad idea to add it, but the government articles themselves could simply have been done in a better fashion on a single page. Perhaps a larger dedicated page to the USA government in X would be better, listing all the major figures down to the governors. Would make sure the article is not bloated and that an entire snapshot of "what was" for readers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Future of the wikiproject system

WP:USA is a parent project for many other projects, but it seems that its specific usage and thus tagging, administration and operation is all dependent upon every other Wikiproject to use and be under WP:USA in order for WP:USA to operate effectively OR for every other Wikiproject not under the USA, but still about the USA to be tagged with WP:USA to have it show up as being part of the project. The end result is a half-finished system and its simply sluggish - anyone want to move forward with a rally or split of the functionality related to the WP:USA banners? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that I once suggest the ability to have projects opt into some kind of super project to deal with over tagging. I still think that is a better way to go. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

But I do not think there is away to track them without their approval and joining into the larger project. So should we tag those which refuse with WP:USA for the technical aspect of tracking? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProjects have been forcibly added to banners in the past, and have had their banners orphaned and deleted by the offending "master wikiproject", without ever asking or informing the relevant wikiproject. WPUSA doesn't do that, but other projects have done that (particularly WPCANADA, which seems to think that advertising at WPCANADA is the same as advertising the subject at every Canada related wikiproject and that every member of those wikiprojects also read WPCANADA, or that banner changes need have no notice anywhere to anyone). -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of the projects that are currently supported by this project were added in order to attempt to breath some life into them because they were inactive. Most of the rest didn't want too. So all you need to do to remove them is remove them. You could leave a note on the supported projects talk page but I wouldn't wait more than a few days for a response. If you want to add one you also need to start a discussion and be prepared for a lot of hyperbole and argumentation about how the WPUS project is trying to take over. Personally I would just let the projects return to the dead state they were in before I tried to get people interested in them again. Too few if any want to collaborate anymore and its just not worth spending the time and agravation. Additionally, tagging articles that are already tagged with certain other projects is going to cause a fight. Some projects feel they own the articles and will not let other related projects tag them. Its up to you all though. Good luck.138.162.8.58 (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the need to tag everything with WPUSA. Being the parent project is just that, an organizational structure, where you can fall-up for advice and help, and if the project falls inactive, a place to merge it to. When they fall inactive, or do not want to maintain a separate banner, the WPUSA banner can be used and a taskforce activated. When articles of national importance are around, they should definitely acquire a WPUSA banner, or if the topic is a national topic. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Inter-project relations and allowance of portals in US-related articles

Hi! I added portals to Gone with the Wind (film). However a Wikipedian reverted the edit and told me "This has been discussed in the past. There is no consensus to add portals to film articles."

There is a problem: This article is also relevant to the WikiProject United States, so that project also must have a say in whether that article allows portals, yes? Does the WikiProject United States agree with not having portals in articles related to American films?

I do not think it is a good idea for one WikiProject to impose rules over its own articles like that because it affects other WikiProjects. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Video_games_developed_in_Japan for a conflict between the Video Game WikiProject and the Japan WikiProject

I also posted to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Cross_WikiProject_relations_and_decisions_about_portals WhisperToMe (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I would ask for where this was discussed before. WikiProjects, per se, don't set such policies. It's very short-sighted to oppose the inclusion of appropriate portal links. When portals are visible and done well, they enhance articles by providing entry points for readers to find additional articles. Imzadi 1979 → 23:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I did ask the user where it was discussed before. Hopefully she can help illustrate the issue and provide the links WhisperToMe (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

One benefit of WikiProjects is that they can each comprise a group of subject-matter experts that have expertise in a subject area. That's good for identifying reliable sources, content that should be included, etc. They should not deal with some structural items in articles, like the presence or absence of infoboxes, portal links, etc. The SMEs from WikiProjects should put together good portals so that they can be linked, but they should not ban portal links that make sense. Imzadi 1979 → 23:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This may add some clarification to the issue. One user said: *"I'm not even sure why you needed the message when you are the user who instigated the exact discussion being referenced with your portal abuse of barely related topics. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 23:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)" - This was the user who loudly opposed adding portals to Prometheus (2012 film). If this is the case, this needs to be made into an RFC as this will interfere with other WikiProjects' efforts. This is the set of portals DarkWarriorBlake is calling "abuse" - The old discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_46#Use_of_Portals_in_film_articles WhisperToMe (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment The user who made the revert made a post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Cross_WikiProject_relations_and_decisions_about_portals in which her view is that each WikiProject can decide whether its own portals belong in articles (WP:Film can say that Portal:Film should not be added to articles) and that in the case of portals belonging to both WikiProjects (such as Portal:Film in the United States which belongs to this project and WikiProject Film) both projects together will have to decide how that portal is used. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing is asking everybody to look at Wikipedia:Advice_pages#Advice_pages, arguing that "WikiProjects are not power centers; they're groups of people who happen to want to work together". I think the relevant part of the page he is linking begins with "However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope[...]" WhisperToMe (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)