Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Talk Embassy Requested
Members Portal Recognized
To do Help
Welcome to the discussion page of WikiProject United States


peace be upon those who follow guidance. (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC) these two article are about the same peson-as i saw-, even not i suggest to make a disambiguation.

Two different people. One is the grandson of the other. — Maile (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Need to upgrade importance of Coastal erosion in southeast Louisiana article[edit]

For the life of me, I cannot understand why low importance is being placed on the Coastal erosion in Southeast Louisiana article, as indicated in the template, when so much is at stake for the survival of my region. Sorry folks, but that that is unacceptable. How would you feel if your state lost 30 football fields a day? I'm sure that if it happened to any other state, it would get a higher level of importance. The Louisiana wetlands serve as a critical barrier against storm surges during hurricanes and tie into the ecosystem of the whole nation. Keep in mind that New Orleans sits at a crucial strategic point the mouth of the largest river of commerce in the world and has a tri-axial port: 1) sea port 2) North-South river port, and 3) an east-west port, the Intercostal waterway, which runs East and West. What do you think Jefferson had in mind when he bought Louisiana? In his writings he said that the primary reason was to gain access to the port of New Orleans. But, our region is threated and needs more than this kind of lackluster response. Upgrade the article's importance please! Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, Animalparty is the one who put that assessment there. However, there's nothing to stop you, or anyone else, from editing the talk page and upgrading the importance. — Maile (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@Garagepunk66: The importance scale is somewhat subjective, and anyone is free to reassess. Per the WikiProject US importance scale: The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of the United States. One rule of thumb I use "how likely is this subject to appear in a book on X", with X being the Project title. I have no qualms with Coastal erosion in Southeast Louisiana being a Mid level importance. Note that I ranked the article for the United States project, leaving WP Louisiana assessed; it probably merits a higher priority on the Louisiana sub-project. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Task Force K-Bar[edit]

The image with the text "US Navy SEALs from Task Force K-Bar in Afghanistan, 2002." is incorrect. This is not an American soldier, in fact, it is a Norwegian Special Operator from FSK or MJK. Not only have I seen the image before somewhere in a Norwegian setting, but you can see it on the camouflage pattern he uses (partrol hat, jacket and chestrig) which is exclusively used by Norwegians.

He even uses the standard Norwegian "GRU (Grunnutrustning)" (chestrig setup).

The desert-pants however, are similar to what US (and other) forces use. It's not unusual that NORSOF use American and British gear, but the other way around REALLY is.

Even the headpiece is consistent with both form and color of the standard Norwegian Armed Forces "balaklava".

The fact that this article was actually made by US military personell is really embarassing. Get your facts straight.

Sorry for the bad English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Please post this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. That would be the best place to get a response on this subject. — Maile (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

US Navy renames[edit]

See WP:RM/C#September_11,_2015 for several USN renames that have showed up -- (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

1969 Greensboro uprising[edit]

I was actively involved with this event and severely dispute a number of the events as contrived in this article. I was a member of the Greensboro Youth Council and Claude Barnes served on the committee I headed. This article is very incomplete, does not convey a number of related issues, and generally is lacking in factual recollections both pro and con related to this incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The perhaps you would like to comment on the article's talk page. — Maile (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Gene Kelly filmography[edit]

I have nominated this list for featured list removal Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Gene Kelly filmography/archive1, because I feel It doesnot meets the criteria's anymore. Please add your comments. The instructions for the review process are here. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: incorporate WikiProject Alabama into this project[edit]

Doing this in mass has not been popular so I'm going to try a single state-by-state proposal but starting here, is there interest in incorporating Wikipedia:WikiProject Alabama (starting with the "A"s) as a taskforce into Template:WikiProject United States and into the greater project. I'll make the same request at the Alabama project with this location being the main focus (it may be better to flip it so that the state project is the location but let's start this way). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I've wondered why most states are incorporated but others are not. I see no reason for them to be separated since anything relevant to WP Alabama (in this case) is also relevant to WP US. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Now that I am again able to edit I would like to clarify this. A few years ago I noticed most of the US related WikiProject were dead and tried to keep them alive. I asked every one if they wanted to participate in a collaboration. Some agreed, some disagreed and some did not respond at all because the projects were basically defunct. For the ones that agreed or didn't reply I added them to the project banner for WPUS. For the others I skipped. Alabama was a project that originally agreed but then changed their minds later and wanted out (like Florida and a couple others). The whole thing turned into a giant fight and some treated it like a hostile takeover. So I would be very careful before doing anything with any more projects. Personally, its my opinion that this project could operate independently of any other projects and include theirs as well (such as having a subproject for California and California has its own project as well). Others disagree. Right now, none of the projects are really flourishing and most are inactive at best including this one. So until this project and or some of the others gain some activity, I would advise against adding any more projects. I hope that helps to clarify.Reguyla (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's not forget that this banner can get beyond ugly because it includes not just some states but also some cities within the state projects as well. It can be exceedingly complicated for that reason. California I suspect won't join given the number of task forces related to regions which aren't really done on this projects so those taskforces would be "lost" in a sense if there was a merger here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician)#Requested moves[edit]

Above link leads to discussion as to whether Kevin McCarthy (California politician) should become the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at the Kevin McCarthy disambiguation page. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

US Congressional term end dates[edit]

Dear all,

there is a disagreement whether congressional terms end on the 3th or 4th of March. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#US Congressional term end dates. Input is appreciated.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

White House Astronomy Night[edit]

I've created a new article on White House Astronomy Night.

Suggestions for additional WP:RS sources would be appreciated, at Talk:White House Astronomy Night.

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of merging recently created content fork[edit]

France in the American Revolutionary War has been the subject of two recent move requests (Requested move 29 January 2015, Requested move 20 August 2015), both of which have failed. Perhaps frustrated by the failure to move, but undeterred from purpose, new User:AdjectivesAreBad chose to build the created redirect into its own article. France in the ARW is a legitimate topic, has existed since 2005, and deserves improvement. Newly created Anglo-French War (1778–83) is a clear content fork, and should be deleted and redirected (or perhaps merged) to the France in the American Revolutionary War pagespace. I encourage interested editors to visit the merge discussion here. BusterD (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Cirt (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)