Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.139.153.14 (talk) at 14:40, 8 August 2013 (→Bot to replace old 2000 census citation??). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalkEmbassyRequested
Articles		MembersPortalRecognized
content		To doHelp

This WikiProject is under the scope of WikiProject United States.

    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.

    The More You Know 2011.png

    image:The More You Know 2011.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Austin Purves image from Cooper Union Yearbook 1934.jpg

    image:Austin Purves image from Cooper Union Yearbook 1934.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    US Energy Independence

    The article on US energy independence should be withdrawn and completely re-written. It is not an article, it is an argument for a particular point of view, namely that US should not strive to improve its energy policies but just continue importing oil. Many aspects are missing: nuclear energy (the cost of de-commissioning nuclear plants in energy prices), fraking, renewables are not given good analysis. This article is riddled with inconsistencies and shows bias. Withdraw it and start over again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.88.182.158 (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Apollo 16 rover stills from video

    The copyright status of some Apollo 16 images is up for discussion at WP:NFCR. The images are:

    -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    SchenleyCasino.jpg

    The copyright status of image:SchenleyCasino.jpg is under discussion, see WP:NFCR -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Seal of Baltimore.jpg

    File:Seal of Baltimore.jpg's copyright status is under discussion at WP:NFCR -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Laconia, NH seal.JPG

    File:Laconia, NH seal.JPG's copyright status is under discussion at WP:NFCR -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    American Biographical Institute

    have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Maltese Falcon film prop created by Fred Sexton for John Huston.jpg

    image:Maltese Falcon film prop created by Fred Sexton for John Huston.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Mazama collapse phase 2.jpg

    image:Mazama collapse phase 2.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Real census number for 1870

    This 1880 census article refers to the 1870 census number as about 1 1/4 million higher than the number mentioned twice in the 1870 census write-up. Anyone know which is the correct number, or was this number revised with the 1890 controversy? Growth percentages are of little value if quite different numbers are used -- the discrepancy here alone is around 4%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.50.118 (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Guardian US

    I've just moved and updated Guardian America to Guardian US. It could do with some more content and independent refs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Several US Stamps up for deletion

    See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_July_22 -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Should Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention be tagged as LGBT-related?

    Please see Talk:Malcolm_X:_A_Life_of_Reinvention#LGBT Tag WhisperToMe (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    OwenBradleyStatue.jpg

    image:OwenBradleyStatue.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Can anybody here help?

    please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chapter_9,_Title_11,_United_States_Code#Notable_Bankruptcies thank you 46.142.48.244 (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    7th ID SSI.svg

    image:7th ID SSI.svg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    photos of Zenos Frudakis sculptures

    A number of Zenos Frudakis sculpture photos are up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 July 26 -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Washington's Headquarters Valley Forge.jpg

    image:Washington's Headquarters Valley Forge.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Armando-Torres-III.png

    image:Armando-Torres-III.png has been nominated for deeltion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Vega casino images

    have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove low priority articles

    This project now has its stamp on about 200 000 articles. There is no way it can process all those in a meaningfull way. I suggest that someone with a robot removes all the low priority articles from the project. That will leave about 14 000 articles in the project. --Ettrig (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Apart from the fact that this will remove those articles for the various state projects it is only a statistical whitewash, the articles are still there and they still need sourcing/merging/deleting/moving/GA-ing/FA-ing ect. Nobody forces you to touch those, but any project member worth his salt has Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Article alerts on his watchlist and will pick his project for the next few minutes. Agathoclea (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A few years ago I restarted this project with the sincere but naive effort of increasing cooperation between the US related projects, many of which were inactive or had low activity. From day one editors started attacking the project and tried to tear it down. I still beleive in the project but I have come to realize that it has no chance for success because too many editors want only to protect their own interests and have no interest in collaborating. So I don't really feel strongly enough anymore to keep arguing the merits of the project. I no longer beleive it can succeed because there is no interest in it doing so besides me and I am less and less interested in supporting Wikipedia these days anyway. With that said, my opinion is that it would be a huge mistake to remove those low priority articles. In addition to the reason Agothoclea mentions there are other bots and things that run through them, removing them would cause many of them to not have a project associated at all and frankly there is no value to removing them. They aren't hurting anything sitting there. Kumioko (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OPPOSE, why edit? Why add any data at all? Why not tell us whats important and let everything else go. Are you saying an encyclopedia can only have certain data? Would that mean others determine what is and what is not important? Who makes that determination? I bitterly resent the implication that in the United States project, there is even the idea of thought of limiting data of determining what is or is NOT imporatant.Coal town guy (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This strikes me a whole lot like the philosophy of drowning the runts of the litter. Speaking as someone associated with the Texas project where we have almost 18,000 low priority articles, and an uncounted amount of articles that somehow never got a project banner at all...so what? So the banner is on them and nobody is doing anything. Texas is pretty much an inactive project as far as group activities. Most projects are. Not just those associated with WPUS. So what? If an editor doesn't want to work on bringing up the quality of the article, then they don't. Big fat deal. The banners are not doing any harm. Maybe a bigger issue is the Wikipedia vision/structure of projects vs. reality. Quite frankly, I think all those crappy article tags are a big little splat on the face of the articles. But I don't see anyone eliminating those, either. The project banners aren't hurting anything, so let's leave them there. — Maile (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree, Wiki Project West Virginia has over 5000 stubs, over 2000 are marked as low.Coal town guy (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If I have something about Texas I want noticed, I post it here. Quite frankly, Wikipedia needs to look at its overall structure and how it coordinates the various aspects that make up the whole. WP has grown considerably over the years, and adapting it has been a patch work process. Add a little here, deduct some there a decade after it becomes useless. Everything about the structure of Wikipedia needs an overhaul. But it isn't going to happen, because nobody is really in charge. Everything is up to some individual working up an RFC proposal, and it gets voted on by a bunch of other volunteers who each have their own vested interests to push. The result is consensus of self interest, not a consensus of what's good for the whole of Wikipedia. For a while, I was trying to improve Texas articles with a zeal. It was similar to a domino effect - try to improve one article, and you find that articles it links to are also in bad shape. Then I got disillusioned by the enormity of it, and just concentrated on creating my own articles or improving a select few whose subject matter (IMO) really deserved better quality. In December, I will have been editing here 7 years. I just got my very first article up to A-class status. Not an article I started, but a very old one that had to be gutted and reworked completely. It took a ton of work from many editors over several months, but it's finally cleaned up. But I'm not one of those editors who has a passion for bringing a lot of articles to that point. The work is too extensive. — Maile (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose There is no deadline. Also, are we STILL talking about thie project's tagging and banners? C'mon, let it die. Banners don't hurt anything, large numbers of project articles don't hurt anything. People will work on what they want to work on. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose First of all, WPUS includes a whole bunch of other state projects, and articles that are low-importance to the US might not be low-importance to those projects. Second of all, is it that surprising that a project which covers the country with more editors than any other has a lot of articles within its scope? WPUS will always be a huge project, and there's no sense in trying to keep it narrowly focused. The project is better at keeping track of US-related articles than, say, trying to expand every single one of its stubs, and there's no good reason to change that. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Isn't it now possible to have a Bottom importance rating? Perhaps that could help in this case. Greg Bard (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Further Comment, if the proposal is to establish importance, I am sure there re countless opinions on importance here. How about Philosophy? YAWNSVILLE...Ho Hum. WHY, because, its just not important anymore. Thats the logic presented. Right? Lets get rid of any banner on low importance articles there. The idea that any singular party or entity has some sort of pulse on what is or is not important, much less subject matter acumen, in WP US much less anything else leaves me incredulous. How about the National Register of Historic Places? BORING...time to nuke that too eh? No, this is a monumentally ill conceived idea and concept. This will be a huge project, move on and just deal with that factCoal town guy (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have a bottom importance rating: anything that is in New York Agathoclea (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:S-prec

    Hello everyone. There is currently an edit request over at Template talk:S-prec#Ceremonial order only where it is proposed that the heading for U.S. succession boxes be changed from "United States order of precedence" to "United States order of precedence (ceremonial)" (see this test case). I think that this needs wider discussion to see whether a consensus for the change exists, and so I am advertising it here. I'd be grateful if you could comment over at the discussion page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Change title of US ASEAN Business Council

    Dear All, I wanted to Change the title of US ASEAN Business Council. I wanted to change " business council" in the title to " Business Council" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandy jalva (talk • contribs) 20:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,
    Please note that Henry Kissinger, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
    Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 00:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team[reply]

    Stars and Bars

    There's a Confederacy issue at WT:MILHIST concerning flags -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnepage.jpg

    image:Johnepage.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Cornelius Lott.jpg

    image:Cornelius Lott.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot to replace old 2000 census citation??

    An editor has been tagging the 2000 census data in articles with {{not in reference}} ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) because the {{GR|2}} citation template now leads to a redirect page at the Census Bureau website. Is there any way this can be fixed with a bot? Not sure if this is the right place to mention this, so if it belongs somewhere else, please let me know. Thanks for looking into this. 71.139.153.14 (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You might try asking at Wikipedia:Bot requests. — Maile (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Will do. 71.139.153.14 (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States&oldid=567685974"