Talk:United States

Drives on left

Drivers on left Tharealmaya (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The infobox already says drives on the right, if you are suggesting a change then you will need to make your request clearer and provide a reliable source. Although it is unlikely they have changed overnight. MilborneOne (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The original poster is probably just confused as to what the infobox field means. The "drives on right" designation refers to which side of the road a vehicle travels on. However, the actual driver is on the left side of the vehicle. I know I was confused the first time I encountered the "drives on right/left" nomenclature as I had always considered the difference from the perspective of driver position, not vehicle position.--Khajidha (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to replace the Largest Cities in the US template

I have made an alternative version of {{Largest metropolitan areas of the United States}} at {{Largest metropolitan areas of the United States/sandbox}}. The new version is based on {{Largest cities}} and would provide consistency with many other country articles also using this type of template. Should we replace the template with the version in the sandbox? — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 23:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What are the advantages to using the {{Largest cities}} template? I don't like the images being on both outside margins and the smaller print. Can formatting be modified? Dhtwiki (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Images in these template are to small to be recognizable or useful in any anyway. --Moxy (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Mainly consistency. The template is currently configured with class=nav which is the navbox class. Leaving it empty gives a more infobox-like color scheme. Actually, I went ahead and did that.

I wouldn't change for mere usage consistency unless the new template promises to be more feature-rich, such as automatically updating itself; and I don't see much ability to specify that, or formatting, at the template documentation. I'm with Moxy on the relative uselessness of the images, and I see that they don't have to be specified. However, I don't see a place to specify a larger text size that the default used. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: That is easily solved by clicking on them. The template would take up far too much space if they were larger anyway. They could be left out completely as well. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 00:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I was not clear.....yes no images is best....like FA article Canada Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas of Canada.--Moxy (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm personally not attached to them, so removing them is easily done. Although, it does make the template seem a bit more empty without them. The sandbox shows both versions now. Anyone else have comments on the proposed replacement? — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 04:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is attached to all images on the article. Removal should only be attempted with a full discussion and new consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm primarily concerned with swapping the existing version with the standardized version. Removing the images is not dependent on that and can be done with a separate discussion, if someone feels the need for it. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 02:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Now that I look, I'm not sure that template was on the page for that last major image discussion anyway so....--Mark Miller (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

"Dominant ancestry in each state" graphic

In the graphic about the "dominant ancestry in each state" it refers to "African" while anybody in the rest of the World knows that "Africa" is not a country but many countries. If they mean "Black", then there should be also "White" (which is the domiant ancestry in those Southern states too)...and if they mean "country of ancestry" then use "Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, South Africa, Angola..." the same way as they use "Germany, Ireland, Italy..." etc. Otherwise it is ridiculous.--213.60.237.52 (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

First of all: That's self-reported. So we couldn't change that if we wanted, because that's exactly what the data says. Secondly: Perhaps you've heard of slavery? We had it. A lot of it. The vast majority of black people in the United States can't trace back any more detailed than "Africa", because they have no way of knowing. --Golbez (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Imbalance of Photographs

The preponderance of photographs used in this article shows images of New York. Apart from photos of the President and Vice-President, 10 out of 35 photographs are dedicated to New York. This represents a staggering 28%. The majority of other US states have absolutely no photographic representation at all in this good-rated article. The currently skewed situation should be better balanced, especially for an article named United States. New York certainly has an important place here, but not taking up more than a quarter of the total photographs. I leave it to American Wiki editors who certainly know their country better than I do to rectify this. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that 28% of the photos being of New York is "staggering". A tremendous amount of history of the country has taken place there. You say you think New York having a lot of pictures is bad, then say you don't know the country well enough to know how to fix it, which ... I guess you're allowed to have that position, but it's not a great one. We probably aren't going to add more pictures - the article is crowded as is - so I guess it's a matter of removing pictures. The least helpful one is of Rockefeller Center, or maybe NY Presbyterian, but then that section would have no picture. Texas Medical Center would be a good option. --Golbez (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I do think that some other cities could use some increased representation; without taking up too much more space in the article. I think that a few more city skyline images could be used in the leading population centers table, maybe adding Houston and DC and shrinking the image sizes might be a good idea? Fritzmann2002 16:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to {{Largest metropolitan areas of the United States}}? The convention with "largest cities in x" templates is to display images for the four largest cities, although since the US article is using a custom version, it can certainly be tweaked. There is a proposal above to standardize on one of the versions based on {{Largest cities}} listed in the sandbox, which may affect this. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 22:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to. I think that instead of just 4 images the template could easily fit 5-7 images. The images don't need to be huge; if you really want to see the skylines you can click on the thumbnail. Having more would balance out how few cities are represented in the article. Fritzmann2002 17:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

At the moment the photos on this article have a pretty tight consensus. Additions can be made if they are agreed on but changes should not be attempted until editors understand the outcome of several image discussion that were very detailed.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The number of photos taken in New York has now risen to 11; almost one third of the total photos in this article. It's moving in the wrong direction. I haven't seen any consensus for this over-representation. We can open it up to a larger group to look at if that would be helpful. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You still have not demonstrated how it's over-representative. What proportion should New York be? --Golbez (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This has already been demonstrated with statistics. Perhaps a table would be easier.

Break down of photos demonstrating the disproportionate number from New York

Photo content	Number of photos	Percentage of total photos
New York	11	30.5%
8 other states represented*	17	47.2%
Misc. (Food, sports, portraits, etc.)	8	22.2%
41 States not represented at all	0	0%

_{*Including: District of Columbia, Mississippi, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Texas, Virginia}

_{N.B. This table does not include, paintings, satellite imagery, or maps}

The current article is missing photographs of 82% percent of the States, while New York has not 1, but 11. That is disproportionate. The article's title is United States. New York does have its own page. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, you have not demonstrated how New York is over-represented, because as I see it, it's properly represented considering the amount of history that's happened there, and the importance it still has in the country. So I ask again: Instead of telling us what you think an incorrect proportion is, how about telling us what you think a correct proportion would be? --Golbez (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

For reasons already given, it is not for me to suggest how many photos of New York should be included. Moreover, it is not the point I raised. The problem is one of disproportion. If you do not believe that the article could benefit from the addition of other photos selected from the remaining 41 states, then perhaps other editors do. Some contenders might be: Massachusetts (Boston, MIT), Alaska (Gold Rush, natural gas & oil, wildlife, Mount Denali), Michigan (Detroit, Ford factory), Washington State (Boeing, Starbucks, killer whales), Louisiana (Mardi Gras), and Montana (Rocky mountains). These ideas are meant to be a springboard, not a list to be shot down. “Contribute and let go” is my editing philosophy. Our input in this discussion is getting repetitive. It might be better now to leave it to others. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I am an educated layman and rare editor of Wiki, but I do understand much of the way a wiki works.) I am with Verity. As an American in the midwest, just a few hours from Chicago, I'm in the middle of the country and see/hear a lot about all areas with a mild mainstream perspective. And having 30% of all the pictures in an article about a large country/world power all be from one state is kinda ridiculous. I mean, New York is very important as far as history is concerned. But that is somewhat moot as this is not the History of the United States article. And it may be one of the most important US states (about 8% of the US GDP is made up in NYC alone.) But, as much as I don't care for the culture of California, it actually is the number one in population and agriculture, and contributes more to our culture and country by way of silicon valley, Hollywood, a staggering number of Fortune 500 companies, etc. Texas is another example of an extremely important state for it's oil and other natural resources, history, among many other things. And if you want to talk about history... Pennsylvania has more to do with the founding and building of the nation than all other states combined. From the Revolutionary War to the Civil War and beyond.

So, yeah, New York is over-represented in the images department. It would be like going over to the Italian Cuisine article and finding 30% of their pictures were of pasta dishes. Yes, pasta is a large part of Italian cuisine, and it may be what most outsiders know it for, but wouldn't warrant nearly a 1/3 of it. Just my $0.02. 98.215.130.156 (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

America is an oligarchy

The type of government listed is inaccurate. America is now an oligarchy. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B --Platocres (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

No. One source does not overrule everything else. (also, isn't it interesting how 100% of the people who propose this are new users with no other interest in wikipedia? hm) --Golbez (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Images...again

I have removed the "Treaty of Penn with the American Indians" as it replaced an image that had actual context to the precise section it was in and the new painting is merely decorative and not mentioned.

We are having some images replaced that have strong consensus so I am going to check the last discussion to be sure the correct images are still in place.

Thoughts and/or discussion on images or what should be replaced or removed?--Mark Miller (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

At the moment, looking through the history a lot has been added and replaced without a lot of discussion but there has been silent consensus. For the moment I am not changing or removing anything else but I replaced the Law enforcement vehicle to the last consensus discussion as that apears to still hold as I see no discussion to replace that.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There was a bunch of new images added which I removed because it was a bulk addition of far too many at once without a discussion on whether the mostly graphic map additions are needed or sourced properly etc.. I tried to rescue one photo of Martin Luther King Jr but a quick check of the copyright status on Commons shows that this might have been an accidental flicker washing by a historical society which has removed the image. I don't believe the Historical society owns the rights to the image to release it.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest adding these two pictures [1]. See page history for comparison: August 2017, August 2016, August 2015, August 2014, August 2013, August 2012, August 2011, August 2010, August 2009, August 2008. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• 
  Map of the British and French settlements in North America in 1750, before the French and Indian War
• 
  U.S. territorial acquisitions–portions of each territory were granted statehood since the 18th century.

• There appears to be sourcing issues with the first map. The second map has been marked as having probably errors.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

First map is flawed, too. It shows empty Spanish territories. It leaves out the two Spanish cities, Santa Fe (1610) and San Agustín (1565), as well as several military forts and missions. Rather egregious considering the nice detail of English- and French-held land. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

What about these pictures?

• 
  Map of the British and French settlements in North America in 1750, before the French and Indian War
• 
  United States territorial growth from 1840 to 1850
• 
  United States territorial growth from 1810 to 1920

-- Tobby72 (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

First one's better, though key Spanish forts and missions are still missing. German map labels must appear as "Canada," "Acadie," "Newfoundland," plus 3 bodies of water changed to English. "St. Augustine" should appear in Spanish, "San Agustín," and Albuquerque should have its original Spanish name "Alburquerque" (which lost its first "r" after N.M. became a U.S. territory). Also, "Santa Fe" (not "Santa Fé"}. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious, do you have a source on when Albuquerque lost the R? Our own article just says it lost it at some point, without specifying American acquisition. --Golbez (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• anybody look in [2].--Moxy (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That first map (British, French, Spanish settlements) is an excellent historical aid. Wish we could include it (with above copyedits) under European Settlements section. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)