Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States

Main pageTalkEmbassyRequested
ArticlesMembersPortalRecognized
contentTo doHelp

Welcome to the discussion page of WikiProject United States

Update National Parks visitation template

Can we update {{NPS visitation}} so that it will link to a single report, rather than a page full of reports? I think it's best to link to "Annual Visitation By Park (1979 - Last Calendar Year)", but others may think a different report is better. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 02:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Listing Americans by ethnicity and occupation

Several more intersection categories of American people are probably going to be deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_19#American_people_of_European_descent_by_occupation. Please feel free to make lists where useful, or request a list from a particular category at the end of that CFD discussion if you would like me to do so. – Fayenatic London 13:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Phoenix, Arizona or Phoenix?

A discussion at Talk:Phoenix, Arizona#Requested move 1 February 2023 may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Should the "Wi Spa controversy" Article Identify the Suspect by Name?

Please consider contributing to the "Should the Article Name the Suspect?" discussion at Talk:Wi Spa controversy. --Mox La Push (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review for Yellowstone

I have nominated Yellowstone National Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 05:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Panic of 1907

User:Buidhe has nominated Panic of 1907 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Albany, New York

Albany, New York has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Rocket Lab

There is an open request for comment at Talk:Rocket Lab regarding how to describe the nationality of the company. As a publicly traded American company, headquartered in California, representation by Americans would be appreciated. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

FAR for United States Academic Decathon

I have nominated United States Academic Decathlon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

New Category:United States templates parameter issues

A new category for grouping tracking categories automatically added by templates related to the United States. Feel free to add its subcategories to your watchlist and to add other related template tracking categories to it. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Publicising RM: Iraqi conflict (2003–present) → Iraqi conflict (2003–2017)

Please see here: Talk:Iraqi_conflict_(2003–present)#Requested_move_6_March_2023 FOARP (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on general & party elections

An RFC on the intros of general & party elections is being held. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Economy of Ohio

Economy of Ohio has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"Nth Hardest-state to vote in" in state articles

It looks like a reference to "Cost of Voting in the American States: 2020" was added to every state article. I have removed it from half-a-dozen of them, and at least one of those removals was reverted. (Note Special:Diff/1146264414 as an example.)

The main rationale: this is a primary source. Without interpretation or context, saying "Arizona was ranked as the 21st-hardest state for citizens to vote in" is fairly meaningless. But, we cannot interpret the primary source.

Also, this is too detailed and irrelevant for a top-level article on a state; the information is also in Elections in Arizona -- while it shouldn't be in the lead there (which is among the many other problems with that article), I am not opposed to it being in that article in some way. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

See [1] where this was discussed before. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the prior discussion leaned in favor of including it, when worded appropriately. Its from a reliable source, so I don't see any reason to doubt it. It is a useful statistic. Also, it is in no way a primary source. Its a scholarly paper in an academic journal. That is the bread and butter of Wikipedia. A primary source would be raw data that underlied their research, or the musings of politicians. But this source has analysis, reflection, and citation which makes them a secondary source. I'm not seeing why we shouldn't include it. I agree it shouldn't be in the lead. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert Wiedemer

The article Robert Wiedemer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Has failed WP:N for 10.23 years. After cleanup and reconstitution, I found little else to support an article, and what I did failed WP:RSP.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

How far back to go for Demographics?

Hello all, just curious as to how far back the demographics of a place should go? My initial assumption was an article should only contain the most recent census but I've seen some articles that post previous decade's census. I also tried looking through the MoS and other resources but couldn't find an answer.

To be more exact, I am wondering if entire data from the 2010 and 2000 censuses' are helpful in an article. Two examples I found were Green Bay, Wisconsin and Rutherford, New Jersey. The articles are already quite lengthy and include the last 3 censuses vs just the most current. I could see, for example, including the population of Green Bay at the start of industrialization vs after to provide historical context, but I am not sure if 10 and 20 year old census info is adding anything. I asked this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure but was advised it might be a good idea to bring the question here as it would likely affect lots of articles. Thanks for any input. Amscheip (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of criticism on Donald Trump indictment

Please review those edits. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)