Template talk:WikiProject United States/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Fix to Ohio Wesleyan

I made a fix to the Ohio Wesleyan University project in the sandbox. Please implement. Kumioko (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Orlady (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

General approach to editing this template

The template is full-protected to prevent damage to a highly visible template by users who don't know what they are doing. Kumioko, who does know what he's doing, is understandably frustrated by this arrangement -- and has pointed out that the current arrangement prevents him from testing changes immediately after they are made. I propose that when he is ready to make a change, an administrator can temporarily reduce the protection level to semi-protection, then restore full protection when Kumioko confirms that he is done with his edits. --Orlady (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that is a pretty good suggestion under the circumstances but there are a couple problems that I see with it. Its a lot of work for someone to unprotect it and then reprotect it; it sets a precedent I'm not sure the number of admins we have could support if others want the same thing and it it goes back to the issue of why I can't just do it. Because regardless of my technical ability the community doesn't want me to have access to the admin toolset. So this really just sidesteps a larger issue that needs to be addressed which is allowing people to do things that need to be done without being admins such as edit protected templates. Tasks which I have been told repeatedly are not inherently administrative but yet only admins can do....so really they are administrative. What we need is an intermediate level editor between admin and regular editor. Someone who can edit templates, be a filemover, rollbacker, pull in more than 25000 articles to AWB, look at some of the maintenance reports that are only viewable to admins and maybe a couple others. And one that doesn't require an RFA to get or an Arbitration hearing to remove. But we all know that will never happen so the only way to do these tasks is to keep submitting an RFA and lobbying to fix the problem. Because I am not the only one with this problem, nor am I the only one who could make use of such access. So I truly do appreciate the suggestion and I appreciate that I am trusted enough to even suggest something like this, but I'm not sure if its the right thing to do. Kumioko (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Changing the protection level on a page is trivially easy (for someone with admin tools) -- less work than copying the contents from the sandbox to the template, and far less work than reading a talk-page essay like your last comment. I am willing to take responsibility (as an administrator) for reducing the protection level on this template in order to allow you to edit it, presuming you have provided valid reasons for your edits. I wouldn't want to permanently reduce the protection level because of the potential for seriously bad effects when a complex and widely used template like this one is edited by people who don't understand what they are doing. --Orlady (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove Automatically assessed logic

Please remove the automatically assessed logic from the individual projects. Most of the categories have already been deleted back in February 2013 and it is no longer used. These categories weren't very useful even when they were used and the bots that populated them haven't ran in more than a year. Please leave the logic for the Main project only so that I can work to cleanup the articles affected. Kumioko (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done. There have been no changes to the sandbox; rather, the request is for someone to figure out what is being requested (it's not clear), figure out the coding changes, and implement them. That's not a reasonable request.
Kumioko, a problem that I have with this template is that it is so complex that few mere mortals can edit it successfully. This means that the members of the WikiProjects that were incorporated into WP:US are dependent on you to resolve problems they may be having. Several times recently you have indicated that you don't want to take responsibility for coding revisions to this template because you lack the permissions to apply the revisions yourself, but you are putting the "supported projects" in a difficult position because there doesn't seem to be anyone else who both knows how to do this and is interested in trying.
If you are giving up on a functionality that was formerly supported, have you made the "supported projects" aware that this bot is no longer running, and have you advised them on how it affects the projects? If you are no longer interested in coding revisions to this template, is it time to advise the supported projects to delink themselves from WP:US (and to see about making the template changes to effect that delinking)? --Orlady (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
First, its not reasonable to make me do all the work and then have someone else implement it and jack up their "admin stats". If I am not trusted, then that's fine, I don't need to do it, if that means it doesn't get done then so be it.
As far as it being a complicated template that's true, it is a complex template but its not true that I don't want responsibility for making the changes. I'm not allowed too. There is a huge difference. Although I do test my changes, part of the problem is if I do make a mistake I then have to ask someone and wait anywhere from several hours to a week to make the change because I cannot simply do it. So its better to let someone with the access and the ability to make the change. That way if they need to do a followup edit to fix something they can. I'm also not the only one that can do it. Redrose and several others are better than I am with the logic but the are busy doing other things. But I'm not putting anyone in a difficult position, I have repeatedly asked to be able to make the changes myself and have been denied. Not much I can do about that.
The change needed is, to remove the Automatically assessed logic from the subbprojects. Nearly all of the fall under the first category. But it does require some time and precision. As for notifying the other projects, most wouldn't know what I was talking about. There are currently no bots doing WikiProject tagging because the operators that did them have been banned or have been run off the site. So now we have all these useless parameters that need to be cleaned up that never should have been added in the first place.
As far as delinking from the project, you and a dozen others have been pushing that agenda from day one. Frankly, I don't care anymore. I restarted the project to get people to work together and to try and support projects that either weren't being supported or didn't have enough support to do it themselves. Instead of wanting to work together to improve the project though I got bombarded by bad faith comments about how I was trying to take over the projects and made to be the bad guy when I was just trying to get people to work together. That's why I restarted the project, expanded them, cleaned them up, automated and standardized tasks and structure, etc. Thats why I created a newsletter every month and restartedd the collaboration of the month. All are massive failures because no one wants to work together. They all want to be the kings and queens of their swim lane and be nomads. So I honestly don't care at this point if all the projects split out. Then they can just go back into and inactive and defunct state because no one is supporting them again. But that is also going to require someone to recode the template to remove them and then retag all the articles. So if that's what you want to do go ahead. Kumioko (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed the logic from WikiProject FBI here as an example of what to do. Kumioko (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Not done: It's fine to start a new thread here requesting someone write this code - that's a perfectly valid use of this talk page - but the {{edit protected}} template isn't supposed to be used to request that someone write your code for you, unless writing that code is trivial. Hey, if you ask me nicely on my talk page I might even work up the code for you, as I've looked at the code of this template enough times to know pretty much how it works. Starting a new edit request and saying "do it" is not the way to get things done, though. (And also, I think you are probably aware of this, but edits to protected pages aren't logged as admin actions and aren't included in Template:Admin stats. Not that it would really mean anything if they were.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Noted, but as long as the ability to edit protected pages resides solely in the hands of the admins, it is, by its very nature, an admin task...which I am not allowed to do. I'm not trying to be pointy, make statements or be a jerk. Its just a fact and there are more than enough things to do which I do have access too that can be done with my time. I will focus on those and let this be done by those with the access who are trusted. If I'm not trusted to have access to this then I should not be making changes to it. That should be done by those with the access, even if I do know how to do it. I would also argue its not my code, the code belongs to the template and the community. I have no claim to it other than I wanted to get done and it wouldn't have otherwise. If you want to write the code so it can be fixed I think that would be great, but I don't personally feel I should be doing it. Kumioko (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Re your comment, "As for notifying the other projects, most wouldn't know what I was talking about," I disagree. It appears to me that many WikiProject participants who are interested in article ratings still assume that article ratings from other projects are going to be copied to their WikiProject's template, so they don't need to do it manually. Your assertion that other users wouldn't know what you are talking about is offensive. Members of the WikiProjects that accepted your offer of support from WP:US may not understand how a bot process works nor how requests are coded, but it is reasonable to assume that they understand the results. IMO, as the user who "sold" most of these Wikiprojects on joining WP:US, you owe it to the Wikiprojects to tell them that the auto-assessment project is not currently available and let them decide what they want to do about the situation. Furthermore, it seems to me it's premature to assume that this capability is lost forever. If there's enough interest in reviving it, I expect that someone will set up a new bot process to implement it. --Orlady (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I see that you have been planning this change for over 2 months, as Category:Inherited importance United States articles was deleted on 6 June 2013 after you requested deletion on the grounds that "The logic that adds articles to this is being removed from the template". Are the Wikiprojects who think you are supporting them aware of how this change affects their work? --Orlady (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
      • No problem, its easy enough to leave a message so that's certainly reasonable. I was just speaking from dealing with them in the past that generally, few responded because most of the projects have such minimal activity that although people actively work content associated with the topic, few actively watch the projects. Some do though so I will draft up a message and send it out in a little while. As far as the capability coming back. Thats certainly true, things tend to move in cycles however no bots have done it in more than a year (sometime in 2011 last I saw) and most of the categories (over 220) were deleted for the projects affected. Additionally, the benefit is dubious at best anyway. Other than FA, FL, GA, A and maybe B most of the assessments are pretty subjective so its pretty pointless to spam thousands of articles with this auto=yes parameter in the off chance that one or two are wrong. If they are, we can just change them. Contrary to some folks beliefs, the assessments are really not that big of a deal (Kinda like the admin tools, but I digress). So if it is restarted we can just recreate the categories and add the logic back. But its doubtful anyone is going to fall on that sword again. Most stopped doing it for a reason and that was, in part, because ownership issues on Wiki are so widespread that it became a target on their backs. Maybe if ownership rules were enforced better and people were held accountable when they started to act like they owned the stuff then that would change, but I don't see that happening anytime soon either.
      • Regarding the second question, I spoke to several folks (no I didn't start a bunch of discussions) and most wondered why we did it in the first place. As I mentioned above it had questionable valu ein the first place and no one really used it. Further, when it was removed, there were zero complaints. If someone would have complained I would have gladly restored it. But no one uses it, its a useless, unused field, which is why I asked for it to be removed. Since we are on the topic though, I would also like to remove some of the other unneeded unused stuff like the needs X (Where x=infobox, references, geocoordinates, etc.) from some of them. To do those though I was absolutely going to start discussions. Some need to stay such as most of the State projects, some, such as some of the university projects, FBI, etc. just aren't needed. But that would definately require discussion.Kumioko (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
        • The notification has been submitted to each of the projects. I have all of them on my watchlist as well. Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am in the process of cleaning out the Automated assessment categories and logic for all the WikiProject's that use them. There were about 250 but most were empty, some didn't even have the parameter in the template to generate the category and a lot didn't have it as a parameter in its documentation. Some templates don't even have a documentation page at all. Here is a listing the project that are left for this template that still have the parameter in usage, so we need to lave the logic in place for these for now.

  1. Arizona
  2. Colorado
  3. Idaho
  4. Indiana
  5. Louisiana
  6. Massachusetts
  7. Nebraska
  8. New Mexico
  9. Ohio
  10. Seattle
  11. United States
  12. United States governors
  13. Vermont
  14. Washington
  15. West Virginia

Some only have a few to a couple hundred so they'll be easy to clear out and I am fixing other problems at the same time. Some like Seattle and Ohio have a couple thousand. All the other projects in this template not listed above can have the auto and autoi parameter logic removed anytime. Kumioko (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add this edit request to the protected talk page Template talk:WikiProject United States:

Please add a parameter for the missing American terrtitory taskforces

 |tf 1={{{Guam|{{{guam|{{{GU|{{{gu|}}}}}}}}}}}}
  |TF_1_LINK           = Wikipedia:WikiProject Micronesia/Guam work group
  |TF_1_NAME           = Guam
  |TF_1_NESTED         = Guam
  |TF_1_IMAGE          = Flag of Guam.svg
  |TF_1_QUALITY        = yes
  |tf 1 importance={{{Guam-importance|{{{guam-importance|{{{GU-importance|{{{gu-importance|}}}}}}}}}}}}
  |TF_1_ASSESSMENT_CAT = Guam articles
  |TF_1_MAIN_CAT       = Guam work group articles
American Samoa
 |tf 1={{{AmericanSamoa|{{{American-Samoa|{{{American Samoa|{{{americansamoa|{{{american-samoa|{{{american samoa|{{{AS|{{{as|}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
  |TF_1_LINK          = Wikipedia:WikiProject Polynesia/American Samoa work group
  |TF_1_NAME          = American Samoa
  |TF_1_NESTED        = American Samoa
  |TF_1_IMAGE         = Flag of American Samoa.svg

-- (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Given the large amount of controversy over the last few months about what should or should not be covered by {{WikiProject United States}}, we really do need an indication that this is both necessary and desirable. I see nothing either above or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States which seems even remotely relevant. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah unfortunately there are more people willing to fight and argue about what WikiProjects are allowed to tag what articles than editors interested actually making improvements to either. Its unfortunate, but rather than be happy that a WikiProject is taking an interest in another project or article people perceive it as a hostile takeover and reduction of their perception of article ownership. The more projects that have the articles in their scope, the less control any one project has and since no one seems willing to enforce article ownership issues anymore, the most active project with the most members wins. Aside from all that and as much as I tried to make this a functioning active project, its pretty much dead so adding these projects is of little benefit to anyone. Unless and until people are willing to collaborate on articles and stop fighting over who can tag them, this project (and a whole lot of others) is not going to succeed and there isn't much point in adding more projects to the lsit of supported ones. Kumioko (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The requester has started a discussion on the WikiProject talk page. Celestra (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 September 2013

Please remove the |type=sidebar parameter from the TfD template as this template is not a sidebar box. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: removing the parameter will cause the "this template has been nominated for deletion" notice to appear above the template when it is transcluded, instead of the right of it. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 September 2013

Please remove the deletion tag, since this is no longer up for deletion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Already done It was done a few days ago - are you thinking of a different template? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change "Wikipedia requested photographs of United States History" to "Wikipedia requested photographs of United States history", as the category was renamed per WP:CFDS. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No Wikiproject CA option? --- Edit request

A number of states are available in the template to quickly and easily add a condensed form of their template to the Wikiproject US template, California for whatever reason is not among them. Can someone add a variable to link to Wikipedia:WikiProject_California as one of the states and add it where appropriate to the list in the instructions? It strikes me as a pretty glaring oversight that there are a ton of states listed and yet California is off the list in the instructions and not included in the template as an option (the template just ignores it). Cat-fivetc ---- 05:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Whoever decides to answer this request, I'd appreciate a note on my talk page when this request is answered. Thanks. Cat-fivetc ---- 06:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe it's because CA uses it's own banner, {{WikiProject California}}, rather than the shared one. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
That's disappointing if true because having to find every state's banner, especially when an article might fall into multiple state's wikiprojects is more difficult than just using a single template option. Cat-fivetc ---- 17:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. The last I heard, it was the plan to separate out most (if not all) of the state WikiProjects, since many of them had been incorporated into this template without consensus. It's also one of the most complex of all WikiProject banners, and I sympathise with the desire to simplify it. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually the argument that there was no consensus is a complete fallacy and really pisses me off. The actual fact is most of the projects relating to US are completely dead. There is zero activity. None. That's why I added them, to try and breath some life into them. But people that didn't have anything to do with any of these projects started complaining and it turned the project's talk pages into a constant fight. Many of those were admins. So now, these projects are can be broken out and they can die individually. Because no one wants to collaborate. So after personally spending several years and thousands of hours to make this and the other projects work, my opinion is let them and the rest of Wikipedia die. Unless people are willing to work together and the admins are willing to do get off their ass and do more than just bog down the processes with bureaucracy and red tape then they should quite and just go read a book. Because the vast majority of the admins on this site either don't do anything or wait until somebody else does the work for them to implement. I have no respect for a great many of them and I don't care that they feel the same about me. I did 10, 000+ edits a month; they did nothing but implement others work and bitch. Kumioko (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
This should be non-controversial as long as most other states have the same option as long as it is technically variable. I don't know, and I don't particularly care about any movement to change the way things are done vis a vi separate templates for each state but common sense would seem to suggest that allowing people to use one template with multiple options is easier than hunting down and putting in multiple templates, not to mention being much less space consuming in the wikicode. Cat-fivetc ---- 17:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't get your hopes up about it being non-controversial; there was quite a lot (from more than two sides) on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 11#Template:WikiProject United States. So I would like to see at the very least clear consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California, ideally also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. Without both of those being on board, I do not think that it would be productive. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm just going to give this up. Thank you for the respectful and at least informative replies Redrose. Cat-fivetc ---- 00:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Future-Class support

Since Future-Class is being used in many projects, I was expecting that WP US would support it too. I just created a category for it for use in WP Louisville, but the WP US template doesn't seem to support 'Future' for the class. Could someone please add support for this class to the template? Stevie is the man! TalkWork 17:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The actual edit needed to do this is simple: just add |future=yes to Template:WikiProject United States/class. However, it's full prot, and previous changes to the workings of {{WikiProject United States}} have been controversial, so, has this been discussed by the WikiProject and consensus to add been reached? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't imagine this being controversial, as it's already commonly used, but I will start a discussion on this. Thanks. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 20:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Indiana articles

Pages tagged as part of the Indiana project (IN=yes) are no longer being added to Category:WikiProject Indiana articles. See Talk:Lochry's Defeat as an example. This appears to have happened with the last edit. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

JLaTondre, Magiciandude I have undid the last update as it is suspected of introducing an error. Please review this in detail, test, and then put forth a new edit requested if desired. — xaosflux Talk 01:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
xaosflux I shouldn't do it. I'm not good at templates and I made a terrible mistake. I'm at loss on what to do here. Erick (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Mistakes happen, and its probably a tiny little error, obvious not intentional, don't beat yourself up about it! Ping some other people that have worked on this template (check it's history) and ask for assistance, they will likely show up to help. — xaosflux Talk 03:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, will do. Thanks. Erick (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

WikiProject Latinos has now been merged with WikiProject United States as a task force. WikiProject Mexican-Americans has also been turned into a sub-task for the Hispanic and Latino Americans, so the banner needs to be updated. Erick (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Magiciandude please provide a complete and specific edit that you would like performed on this template (right below this line, put the before/after text you would like) then reactivate this request. — xaosflux Talk 18:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Xaosflux I need the Hispanic and Latino American task force to be added to this banner and for Mexican-Americans to updated as a task force as a sub task for this template. Erick (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Also, per several threads above, please demonstrate that there is consensus for this change. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Note, I just synced the sandbox, feel free to ping here after updating. — xaosflux Talk 19:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This was discussed at WT:COUNCIL. Erick (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Xaosflux:, I have updated the sandbox for the task forces. I had opened this discussion on both WT:COUNCIL and the WikiProject United States without any objections from either talk page. Erick (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Magiciandude, Template:WikiProject United States/sandbox does not appear to have been changed since last synced, what exactly do you want done? — xaosflux Talk 17:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
xaosflux, Oops, I changed the docs for the template, I thought that's you meant by sandbox. I'm terribly sorry for the confusion! Erick (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
xaosflux, Okay, I have made the changes to the sandbox to show what I'd like to see done. Again, sorry for the inconvience. Erick (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done Synchronized the sandbox to the template. — xaosflux Talk 20:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It looks like this may have had to be reverted, I can work on it for you.Funandtrvl (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed it, the number changes needed to include Indiana-Indianapolis also. (There were two TF "9"s. Also, this template had to be fixed: Template:WikiProject Latinos, and the backlinks will show the talk pages using that template, and a lot of them will have two "WikiProject USA" banners now, that have to be cleaned up. Funandtrvl (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help! Erick (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 October 2014

Can WikiProjects New York, New York – New York City, and New Jersey be added? The template is missing these. Thanks. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a complex template, please syncronize the sandbox and make your tests their first, after validating, reactivate the edit request tag. — xaosflux Talk 02:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the code is very complex, and I have never successfully edited one of these WikiProject templates before. I will try, but I may get the code wrong. Epicgenius (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the code at Template:WikiProject United States/sandbox. The edit request above still applies. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I will work on it for you, it looks like we have to add the Hispanic TF to it also. Funandtrvl (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I just added the MexAm TF and Hispanic TF, and I've changed my mind about adding NY and NJ to this template. I would recommend that you get a consensus first at WT:USA about adding the NY and NJ WikiProjects to this template. It is a very big and unruly template, and hard to update (believe me!). I'm also concerned that it might be too big, with all the articles linking to it. I'm not sure what the "max out" number of parameters or links is. I don't see any benefit to adding some of the bigger U.S. state projects to it. So, I shall keep it as is, right now. Funandtrvl (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the archives for this page, you'll see that a number of changes turned out to be controversial; and there were also discussions on other pages regarding the undesirability of merging the WikiProject banners for individual states. IIRC NJ & NY were two of those where merging was not wanted. In some of my responses on this page I have turned down requests because there was no indication of consensus either at WT:WikiProject United States or at the corresponding page for the state; see e.g. #No Wikiproject CA option? --- Edit request above. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request - Revived Topic

I would like to revive the proposal of adding the remaining excluded states to this template. Precisely because many of the state wikiprojects are either semi-active or inactive, adding them to WP US could potentially reinvigorate them. Additionally, there are simply a number of articles in which it would be appropriate to have the state wikiproject embedded in the US wikiproject. I also believe (based on the previous discussion) that the majority of people would like to see this done. Ergo Sum 16:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you but I wouldn't do it as a whole. I'd just made one proposal saying "Let's add the remainder", make subheading for each individual one and put a separate notice on each individual state's WikiProject page. If some state wants to separate it, let it. I'm pretty sure we're going to go at this again for some of the cities within the state WikiProjects anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Just FYI that this was apparently tried before and it ended with the editor doing it being accused of a hostile takeover for starting the discussion and eventually led to them being banned from the project. So be careful not the end up the same way. You are liable to see a lot of push back on Wisconsin, New York, Virginia and Florida. This would also require a bot to replace the existing WikiProject Banners of any projects added and someone who knows how to modify this template and that is a pretty short list. RingofSauron (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
As things stand, this WikiProject banner has code for 24 states (AZ, AR, CO, DE, ID, IN, KY, LA, MA, MS, NE, NH, NM, NC, ND, OH, RI, SC, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV, WY) plus DC. So 26 would need adding. Each extra one adds to the processing time of what is already the most complex WikiProject banner by far.
I know how to modify the template. I also know who that banned editor is, and remember the kerfuffle having observed most of it from the start. If you're interested, much of it is in the archives of this page, but it did get spread about. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Instead of arguing it at the template page, let's propose this one by one at the WikiProject page with a link to each project as a separate section. I'll make a start of one or two of them and let's see where it goes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)