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 el Wikipedia en español? Véase... es:Wikiproyecto Discusión:Estados Unidos.
I'd like to alert members of the project that one user has taken it upon himself to remove most children from infoboxes on every U.S. President -- see this for example. I would like members of the project to know because such wholesale changes should be discussed first, at least in my opinion. Calidum T|C 05:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Infobox MOS states that the "Children" field should contain number of children rather than the names of children, unless the children are notable (for our purposes in the infobox, this means having a Wikipedia article). It reads: "Only if independently notable themselves or particularly relevant. Number of children (e.g. three or 3), or list of names if notable...For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless notable." The guideline regarding inclusion of children's names is found here. Someone with 2 children but only one child notable would read: "2, including Joe Blow" (with Joe Blow's name in piping that redirects to the article on them). Being the child of a president does not make that child notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED for more). The names of the non-notable children taken out of the infobox should remain in the article body, of course. This is not a "wholesale change", just a change to put the fields of the associated article infoboxes more into compliance. Every edit summary for these changes contained a clear explanation referencing the Infobox MOS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: .2444M of .24140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Please contribute to the request for comment. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Please help with this request for comment. This is an update to the request for comment and a plea for wider participation. The RfC question asks for community feedback on a one-sentence addition to the funding section of a US political advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity. The main source for the proposed addition is a pair of reports in The Washington Post, supported by FactCheck.org and the National Journal. The proposed content summarizes a key finding of investigative journalism. The discussion of the RfC centers on the due weight of investigative journalism into the sources of funding of a US political advocacy group that is generally not legally required to disclose their funders to the Internal Revenue Service or the Federal Election Commission. Attention from uninvolved editors with some experience with the proper application of WP:DUE is respectfully requested. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This request for comment will most likely close Thursday 6 August 2015. This is an update and a request for wider participation. Issues in the appropriate application of our due weight content policy remain in the discussion. Your comments are needed. Please help with this important request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
RfC notice: Geographic extent of the United States
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States#RfC: Do you agree with the following a) lead sentence and accompanying note for the United States article, and, b) for the info box area.
The proposal is generated by a Request for Mediation, summarized and linked at Talk:United States#Mediation update Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/United States. Please contribute to the request for comment. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The New American
We have a recently-created article on The New American - a publication of the John Birch Society - which might benefit from scrutiny from experienced contributors. The article seems to be lacking in any suggestion that the views of such a fringe organisation might be seen as controversial, and appears more than a little promotional in my opinion. I note that it was created by a new contributor with no other significant editing history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Draft lottery (1969)
My first post. The 1969 draft was a conscription, so "all-volunteer" as it says below, seems incorrect:
Origins and consequences In the late 1960s, President Nixon established a commission to recommend the best ways to raise military manpower, to keep the draft or to institute a volunteer army. After much debate within the Nixon administration and Congress, it was decided that an all-volunteer force was affordable, feasible, and would enhance the nation’s security
Steve Henshaw D Steve Henshaw D (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
If I find an article that's part of a related WikiProject, such as WikiProject California, should I also add the banner of this wikiproject to that article's talk page? I'm not sure what your policy is. Compassionate727 (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- It should be fine logically, but there's been a big brouhaha here about scope and how WPUSA infringes on more local level wikiprojects, so it might cause a storm in a teapot -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Help needed! I have updated information for the entry on King County Library System
I'm the public relations specialist for the King County Library System in western Washington State. One of our staffers pointed out that the Wiki page for the lirary system is outdated, and I've been assigned to the task.
I have edited and updated the copy, updated and/or changed the links to current information, and swapped the links on each community library to direct users to the libraries, rather than the communities.
I'm aware of the need for neutrality, and have done my best to be completely objective in the information provided, but I offer the information for review by a neutral third party.
The update--with new photograph of a new library--is in a Word file. I have not posted or edited anything on Wikipedia yet, and am reluctant to update/edit the article directly without some oversight.
How do I proceed?
(employed as PR Specialist for King County Library System, also active in many other areas.) email@example.com (MIverson124 (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC))
- Responded on MIverson124's talk page. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion for US state WikiProjects
Hello all! I was curious if anyone else thought it might be a good idea to make a (nonbinding) guideline on how individual US state WikiProjects should organize themselves. Some of the individual state WikiProjects don't look so good and have little content, but a few I think are really good. The front page of the WikiProjects for Hawaii, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, California, Arkansas are all pretty nice, I think, and might be used as examples. Georgia, Texas, and Massachusetts all have a nice organizational bar at the top. I'm sure with discussion some other additions could be added to a guideline, but I was just curious if anyone thought this was a good and realistic idea first before making a huge guideline. (And nonbinding is the most important part for me, if the community does agree to a guideline for the US State WikiProjects.) JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's a huge can of worms. There were gigantic arguments about WPUSA "taking over" and dictating to state wikiprojects, last time anything was tried. (like adding switches to indicate state projects in the banner, or merging inactive state projects into WPUSA as taskforces) -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying! That's exactly why I wanted to stress that this would only be a guideline, not mandatory. It would just be some ideas to help any State wikiproject that wants some suggestions or to help those that want standardization. JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- You should propose it at each state project you wish to do this to, first, and get their assent before asking to add it to this project. As I said, it was a huge can of worms last time, just adding mention of their projects onto WPUSA's banner. If they assent this time, then each project, individually should give permission, or we may run into the same can of worms. So ask the state projects first, then come back here for each project that says yes, and we can discuss each individually. I would say you'd need atleast 1-month of discussions at each state wikiproject, before coming back here, because last time they complained about being to quick on the trigger as well. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for replying again! :) I thought it would be easier for them to come here, but if it's more likely going to work without any issues, then I have no problem doing that. Also, sorry for not replying sooner; I forgot that I needed to refresh to see updates. :)JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- JonathanHopeThisIsUnique - You may wish to check out: Wikipedia:WikiProject X. I would suggest researching the difference between guidelines - policy - and essays. I believe what you are requesting is an essay which can be approved by consensus by a wikiproject, while either a guideline or policy must have wide consensus through a venue such as the Village Pump. All State wikiprojects are only as good as the number of editors involved - many State wikiprojects may be either semi-active or inactive. Just some thoughts - Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- I work on WikiProject Kentucky although I don't speak for it. In principle, I can support something like this. However, what's good for state WikiProjects would generally be good for all WikiProjects so maybe it's really a better idea to work on Wikipedia:WikiProject X as stated above. I'm not sure what state WikiProjects would uniquely need outside of guidelines (essays) about the structure of the main state article and major child articles (e.g., "History of..."). Do you have any specific ideas for common features for state WikiProjects? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 10:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- I for one would very much like to see this project succeed but if you guys think you are going to be able to do this you are kidding yourselves. If you start dropping notices on the talk pages of these project the trolls are going to come out of the wood work and you are going to be covered in drama. There are a lot of projects and editors out there that have extremely strong article ownership issues and no one stops them. So good luck. RingofSauron (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- I believe most state wikiprojects are dormant (at least that's the case for most of the states I follow). Echoing what was said above, at least one editor tried this years ago, back when most state projects were active. It resulted in a bunch of hard feelings, with us loosing at least one good editor. I support the idea, but I think you're walking a tightrope between the projects that are essentially dead, and those that are proudly active and refuse to succumb to "the man". With that said, the optimist in me says that Wikipedia has matured some since the last time this was tried, and your chance of success now is probably better than before. So bottom line, I support you trying, but be prepared and grow some thick skin, as you may need it.Dave (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)