Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Territories
|WikiProject United States Territories||(Rated NA-class)|
|WikiProject United States||(Rated Project-class)|
I have never seen a project proceed with such haste and not enough discussion about scope.
on articles related to the current sixteen Territories of the United States with an aim of of improving and expanding all aspects of the territories.
Some articles tagged so far are not current - but historical. There needs to be somehting that looks like discussion or consultation as to where things start ands where they end, as many readers will be totally disoriented to find former territories included with a project/template that makes them look current. JarrahTree 08:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think articles can be tagged as historical if they still remain as a territory, for example the Puerto Rican Campaign (late 1800s). Other examples from other projects include the Falklands War, Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong etc. But I'd like to know what other people think, the more input the better. JAGUAR 13:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with the current scope of this WikiProject since it includes topics that fall outside politics. I told you this and you ignored me, so I took it to Puerto Rico. There are enough political articles for you to include articles in categories where these territories are considered separate entities, as in anything related to sports as sanctioned by the IOC or any of its member federations. I also disagree with including former territories within the scope, since it creates the confusion that JarrahTree is referencing. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think that the project should restrict itself only to current territories Alex the Nerd (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Alex the Nerd
One other concern about scope that I have is, Should the Project limit itself from including every single page about anything to do with any of the current territories or should we pare it down to something a little more specific? Alex the Nerd (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Alex the Nerd
Auto-assessment of article classes
Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.
If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 01:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject United States - 50,000 Challenge
Assessment of Articles
I have begun to assess articles on quality and importance. If anyone has questions or concerns about this, please let me know or just go ahead and change it to what you think it should be. Alex the Nerd (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Alex the Nerd
Revision of Quality chart
I propose a revision of the quality chart to
Top All territories should be listed as top importance, as well as the United States Territories article itself.
High large settlements and places of interest in any territory, as well as notable battles and important pieces of history
Mid smaller settlements and areas including schools, military bases and dockyards and as well as less important history
Low everything else, generally only important only to a small number of people, including things that pertain to the territories but are not important.
I feel that a change in how history is valued is important as well as a clear place for random things pertaining to territories.
- That sounds great, Alex the Nerd! Feel free to change it. And thanks for making a start on assessing the project's articles. There around 2000 unassessed articles (last time I checked), so it may take a long time. Don't worry if you don't want to do it all, I know how daunting it is because I remember manually assessing articles for a project I started back in 2010. JAGUAR 18:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Here is a list of Sub-pages and related pages I do not know if we should do anything with them, but at least they are all in one place now
- Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Territories/Assessment
- Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Territories/Article alerts/Archive
- Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Territories/Article alerts
- Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Territories/Importance Criteria
- Template:WikiProject United States Territories
- Category:United States Territories articles by importance
- Category:United States Territories articles by quality
- Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/United States Territories articles by quality log
- Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/United States Territories articles by quality statistics
Another question on scope, should the project include articles on people born in U.S. Territories or descended from people born in the U.S. Territories but who had no/minimal connection to them otherwise?
- Yes, anybody born in or descended from US territories and people who were involved in the politics of US territories (ie. a governor) should be included in this project's scope. I should have made this clearer originally, but feel free to adjust the scope accordingly! JAGUAR 22:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Could you add a Bottom Importance to the importance chart and make it so that articles can be tagged with bottom importance, I do not know enough about wikimarkup to do this, so if anyone sees this, could you do this for me? Alex the Nerd (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Alex the Nerd
- @Alex the Nerd: I'm afraid this WikiProject doesn't support bottom importance fields, or at least this project can't support them as it just isn't extensive enough. WP:ASTROMONY, for example, has a bottom importance option for assessment as it's a much larger and more important project. According to the 1.0 editorial team bottom importance fields are optional, and 'low' is the standard. I've assessed tens of thousands of articles and have never come across a bottom importance article before. Sorry for not seeing this, I must have missed it on my watchlist. JAGUAR 23:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)