Welcome to the discussion page of WikiProject United States
||Looking for Wikipedia talk: WikiProject United States in the Spanish Wikipedia? See... ¿Buscando por el discusión del Wikiproyecto Estados Unidos en la Wikipedia en español? Véase... es:Wikiproyecto Discusión:Estados Unidos.
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Murder of JonBenét Ramsey#Requested move 20 September 2016. Among the concerns noted in the move discussion is whether or not WP:Undue weight is being given to a recent documentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I believe that WikiProject Connecticut should be added to the USA roster, since it is a state, and part of the USA. I would understand if it is not included, since it is a semi-active community.--JJBers (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- JJBers I don't think there would be any objection here. However, because not all states wanted to be a part of this, it was left up to the individual state project to decide that. The person who created the WikiProject United States is no longer active. Did you mention this over at WT:WP Connecticut? I have no idea how active the Connecticut project is. — Maile (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have now mentioned it in the talk page, and also WP:CONN is semi-active, as I can tell, but that shouldn't make a difference, since you have Rhode Island WikiProject, which is inactive — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJBers (talk • contribs)
- Trying to shove all the small wikiprojects into this one was the goal of one user. He had added many without their desire. And pestered others until they did join. In the end it and other things led to his being banned. WPUS would get too large if all the us based projects joined this one. It was silly of him to try and force that. And really there isn't much of a point of joining them anyway since its is pretty inactive anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Djsasso: Alright I get it, I see that it wasn't really a good idea to include all of them, but this is just one, that seems already pretty connected to the wikiproject.--JJBers (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have no comment on what you were just told. Whatever happened before is water under the bridge, except that the architect of this is not around to advise. Let me say that anyone from the Connecticut project can come to this page and discuss anything about their project. Nobody can restrict that. Nobody has to reply, but nobody can say Connecticut issues cannot be discussed here. If that's what you wanted, no problem. But overall what the bone of contention for individual projects has been is the talk page banner on each article. It's here Template:WikiProject United States. I had nothing to do with the banner, nor whatever bot it might be connected to that adds class ratings to articles. To my memory, projects who chose not to belong to this project didn't want this project's banner on their articles. They wanted to be more independent. So, you can post here anytime you want. Getting an answer to anything is hit and miss, not because it's Connecticut, but because this talk page isn't that active. But as for the banner, that really needs to be a decision for Connecticut to make. To do it without consensus on the Connecticut project would just cause problems down the line. — Maile (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- @JJBers, Maile66, and Djsasso: The statements made by Djsasso is not even close to the truth. The contributor who was the main architect in keeping this project going, Kumioko/Reguyla, was banned for criticizing administrator conduct on Wikipedia and was banned for that and remains banned for his refusal to follow a ban from the project he felt was unfair and a violation of site policy. Additionally, they did not pester any of the other projects, they did leave talk page notices as required on each project and let them decide. If there was interest great, if not then that is fine. Several were already completely dead and were added in order to keep them maintained to some level. According to WikiProject Connecticut's talk page history, they declined and were not really bothered further. Some also came back later and asked to be removed and Kumioko removed them as requested, reverted the talk page banners and helped several maintain their templates and projects after that even though they were not associated. So hyperbolic statements that Kumioko pressured projects into joining or stating that is the reason for the ban simply has no basis in truth. Don't take my word for it, go read the ban discussions. There is almost no mention at all about WikiProject United States. And no I am not them, so if you want to block me and accuse me of that because I bothered to read a lot of the history, then that's up to you. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Except that isn't true. He claimed it was cause he spoke out about admins. However, the original block came from his actions in regards to this project. At which point he blew up and made things worse which then led to the socking and all kinds of crap. And if you notice in my comment, I don't say it was the only reason. I say it and other things. -DJSasso (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
True Detective (season 1) — featured article candidate
Hello! I have nominated the article about True Detective's first season as a featured article candidate. Feedback and comments would be greatly appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/True Detective (season 1)/archive5. Thank you for your time and consideration. DAP 💅 5:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi all...I have a question about File:US-Canada border counties.png, a map which is being used as illustration on Canada–United States border, which I wanted to raise for discussion. I've already raised a similar question about its Canadian companion File:Canada-US border regions.png at WP:CANTALK, where consensus agreed with me.
My core issue is that the US-Canada border is, by and large, readily identifiable on a map of either country just by looking at it, and that's especially true of a map where Canada is actually shaded in gray as Canada, rather than simply being left off the map entirely. Accordingly, I question whether there's actually anything useful or genuinely informative about a map which merely color codes every county that happens to be touching a border that's already plainly evident. Is this really educating anybody about anything they couldn't already have figured out on their own?
On the Canadian map, there's also the issue of significant misrepresentation, because every county that touches a Great Lake at all is blue-coded regardless of whether its own boundaries actually touch the international water-border or not — that issue isn't present to the same degree here, because the creator of this seems to have been more careful, but I still question whether it's useful information or not. Since pleasure-boating or swimming across a Great Lake isn't an effective or even really legal way to actually cross the border, I don't really see how fronting onto a lake that happens to have a border in it, which is located dozens of miles out from the shore, is worth colour-coding a map for.
As I'm not a member of Wikiproject US, however, I can't make a unilateral decision about it — I can merely raise my concerns for discussion. So my question is, is this map actually useful in a way I'm not seeing, or is it just a silly and unnecessary map combining the patently obvious with the irrelevant the way I see it? Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Anyone? Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I believe it should be modified to removed the water borders that are not connected by any way (other than water). This is to removed the borders that just end at water, instead of borders that actually are used (most land borders and a couple of water borders).— JJBers Public (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Please note that Spelling bee, 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 Community portal 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 — MusikBot talk 04:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team
A discussion regarding renaming of Van Nuys, Los Angeles to Van Nuys may have the potential of serving as a precedent for naming conventions of neighborhoods in cities throughout the United States. Participation is invited. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)