Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States

Main pageTalkEmbassyRequested
Articles
MembersPortalRecognized
content
To doHelp
Welcome to the discussion page of WikiProject United States

WikiProject United States (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Categorizing files on Commons[]

A high proportion of the nearly 20,000 talk pages in Category:File-Class United States articles belong to files that were moved to Commons and deleted, typically in 2011 or 2012. Is there any reason for these Commons files to continue to be project-tagged on en.wikipedia? Unless this serves some purpose for the project (and if it does, I would be eager to know how it is used), I propose to get a bot to delete any talk page in the category without a corresponding file on en.wikipedia. Local talk pages for Commons files generally lead to either split discussions or, more commonly, invite occasional comments that no one sees or responds to. Thoughts? -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@Black Falcon: I don't think there's anyone left on this project who would know how to answer you question. I don't know how to answer it, and I've been around more than a decade. The or who created WikiProject United States is no longer active. I would say go with your own instincts on this. — Maile (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Maile. I have placed a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#WikiProject United States files on Commons. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Updating County Website URLs[]

I am working on a project to research and correct as many county web sites as possible and would like to integrate it with relevant Wikipedia pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_counties_and_county_equivalents.

I am consolidating lists of web sites I have obtained from the US Census Bureau and the National Association of Counties. These lists can be used to help fill in some gaps in the Infoboxes that appear in Wikipedia pages. All of these Infoboxes could be manually ied, but I am hoping there is a more automated technique for batch updating and then maintaining these. My team will also be researching cities (and other types of municipalities), school districts and special districts.

Would anyone on Project United States be interested in discussing this with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joffemd (talkcontribs) 22:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirects to small towns[]

I've recently created redirects like these:

I notice that such redirects already exist (e.g. Custar, Deandale) yet I'm not sure if it makes sense to create such redirects. Are they useful? —  Ark25  (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ark25:, in cases where there really is only the one other use as is apparently the case with Artanna and Badgertown, then there is little harm in redirecting. However, there may be other uses that are not immediately obvious where a disambiguation page might be better. For example, with Austinburg, there is also a community in Brookfield Township, Tioga County, Pennsylvania. Whether either of the tiny communities in Ohio or Pennsylvania or the township in Ohio is the primary topic is something to consider on case by case basis. Personally, I'd lean towards no primary topic.
You might want to reconsider some other similar titles that you recently redirected and then created a separate disambiguation page. For example Forgy as a redirect to the virtually non-existent (except in a historical sense) community of Forgy, Ohio and the separate page Forgy (disambiguation) -- which is essentially a surname page. I would suggest that in such cases there is no primary topic and the disambiguation page should be place at the base name. olderwiser 13:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
PS, for cases where there is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and a separate disambiguation page, the page should be formatted MOS:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also avoid using USA (see WP:NOTUSA). Also, and I hesitate to suggest this, but in addition to using the Wikipedia search function to find other ambiguous topics, you might also consider checking the GNIS domestic name search function (which is no longer being updated) or its replacement The National Map. Note that GNIS may list many "false" positives in that not everything that exists in the GNIS database is necessarily notable in a Wikipedia sense. olderwiser 13:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bkonrad: Thank you for your detailed answer! It's quite clear this is way too complicated for me so I give up. —  Ark25  (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ark25: I didn't mean to discourage you. I'd only suggest to default to placing the disambiguation page at the base name unless it is really obvious that there is in fact a clear primary topic. No need to worry too much about formatting or layout. olderwiser 14:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bkonrad: Of course. Yet the first step should be to create redirects like Woodington, Ontario and Austinburg, Pennsylvania. Wihout doing that in the first place, I would create a lot of redirects where in fact there should be disambiguation pages, and then my work would actually spoil things instead of helping. And this is far too much work and too complicated for me - I have no idea how to make this semi-automatic. Only after completing this first step it is possible to make it semi-automatic the creation of the links I was asking about. Without automatizing a part of the work, this is something that takes ages. —  Ark25  (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ark25: There's no need to create a redirect for every possible entity. Redirects for place names can be useful when it is likely that there might or could someday be an article on the topic. But when dealing with obscure, historical names, there is little benefit to creating such a redirect and it is perfectly fine for the disambiguation page to link to the article in which the obscure name is mentioned. olderwiser 15:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: Yet without creating such redirects, it is very hard to know if you have to create a redirect of a disambiguation page.

For example, in the first step, the redirect Clarktown, New Jersey must be created (to redirect to Hamilton Township, Atlantic County, New Jersey.

And then, in the second step, using the template {{intitle}}, you can search for "intitle:"Clarktown, " and you will discover that you have to create a disambiguation page. This second step can be done semi-automatic - like for example creating a list like this. —  Ark25  (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ark25: Having a redirect with a term in the title is not a requirement for disambiguation. Yes, perhaps it might make it easier for ors, but that is a secondary consideration. When considering applicability of WP:DABMENTION, {{intitle}} would not help. In such cases you need to do a full search for articles containing the term and evaluate whether that particular usage is worth including on the dab page. For example, people or fictional characters with a given name are rarely worth calling out on a disambiguation page unless it is a truly uncommon given name or they are commonly known mononymously by the given name alone. Similarly, people or fictional characters with a surname that are only briefly mentioned in an article generally shouldn't be included. Place names are a little more flexible, but obscure historical names generally can be mentioned on the disambiguation page, but there is little value to creating a redirect for the term. olderwiser 16:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bkonrad: "you need to do a full search for articles containing the term and evaluate.." - And that means even more work :). Really, this can take decades so this is clearly not for me. —  Ark25  (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Good article review needed for Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States[]

I nominated Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States for a Good Article Review. WP:USA is an interested WikiProject for the article. If you (anyone reading this) could conduct the GA review, that would be awesome! :0) I nominated it under the Culture, sociology and psychology subtopic. If you have not conducted a good article review before, take a look at the good article reviewer instructions to see what is involved. If you decide to conduct the review (thank you!), please be sure to read Markworthen/Veterans-benefits-GA-nom where I provide some important history/background info about the article, e.g., 2015 SME (subject matter experts) review; 2015 GA nomination feedback; 2019 Peer Review; 2020 Guild of Copy Editors review, etc. Much appreciated   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment for United States[]

Not sure if this project has been notified, but an or has opened an individual GAR for United States. It can be found at Talk:United States/GA4. AIRcorn (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Mike Jackson[]

Mike Jackson (right-handed pitcher), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Ryan Hanigan[]

Ryan Hanigan, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we add honorific prefixes and suffixes for U.S. presidents and figures of importance?[]

Can we add honorific prefixes and suffixes for American presidents and figures of importance?[]

The following I think should be discussed on this topic:

  1. In their respective infobox, Presidents of the U.S. such as Theodore Roosevelt, and other highly respected generals and military soldiers (ex: Douglas MacArthur), should be listed with titles such as (ex: Colonel, or Field Marshal) for their service in the military if they have earned it, or other mediums of service to the United States. MacArthur as an example is already designated as General of the Army in his infobox, but it should be expanded to others who have not yet received such.
  2. Honorific suffixes such as (ex: PMF) should be added to individuals who have earned the merit

The reason I bring this up is because Wikipedia as a source of information is crucial to how people do research on schoolwork, projects and programs. The addition of honorific prefixes and suffixes can allow for the researcher at first glance to understand the importance of such person, and what they have earned in their lifetime. This is applied to international politicians, and acts as a mean to let the reader see the figures's prestige and national merits/honors right next to their picture. The Right Honourable Boris Johnson looks better than leaving his name plain as is, as the appearance of someone and their honors would help others comprehend their magnitude and significance in the grand scope of American history, such as Elvis Presley, and Walt Disney. user:Josharaujo1115 Josharaujo1115 (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)07:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC-4, EDT)

This is the Wikipedia policy on the naming of people: Naming conventions (people). — Maile (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

List of known cases of COVID-19 in the United States[]

There's a Draft:List of known cases of COVID-19 in the United States; it hasn't been updated since the beginning of March. The list criteria need discussing, so any interested parties could participate. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week[]

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) is being given away in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, including the week ending July 5th dedicated to the US, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. There's a potential £120 to be won in total for destubbing on any subject or region of your choice. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 12:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

United States non-interventionism listed at Requested moves[]

Information.svg
A requested move discussion has been initiated for United States non-interventionism to be moved to Non-interventionism in the United States. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

A few states missing from template[]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:WikiProject United States#A few states missing. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI - relevant discussion[]

I've proposed a CSD criterion targeting the worst and least notable of the GNIS permastubs. See here. CJK09 (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC at Alliance Defending Freedom[]

This RfC may be of interest to the members of this group. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Second American Revolution[]

Should this really be a stand-alone article? Doug Weller talk 19:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I say no. The article's second sentence says, "Rhetorical or hyperbolic references to a Second American Revolution have been made on a number of occasions throughout the history of the United States." That's thin gruel to justify an entire article, and besides, I think it's downright misleading, as the title gives the impression at first sight that two American Revolutionary Wars were fought. Carlstak (talk)
I prodded it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller and Carlstak: Now at AfD. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Missing/broken references[]

I'm trying to make a dent in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, and a few articles within the hockey sphere have issues that I can't fix on my own (~9600 issue as of writing). Basically, some refs linked via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar have missing full citations or have some other problems. You can check these instructions to have error messages enabled (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup).

In particular, the following articles could use some of your attention

The cause is often copy-pasting a short reference from another article without copy-pasting the full reference. If you can find where things were copy-pasted from, you can usually find what the full reference is.

Thanks for any help you can give! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 census, city/county demographics, and what to do with 2000/2010 data[]

Has there been any discussion of how we will incorporate the new demographic data that will be released in the not-too-far future? This also provides a good opportunity to think of ways to improve the current presentation of 2000/2010 data, and the question of simply removing 2000 data altogether. CJK09 (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

To elaborate, the decisions to be made and some potential options:

  1. What to do with 2000 census data blurbs?
    1. Remove immediately
    2. Remove once 2020 census data is added to articles
    3. Shrink it down in size, rewrite it, or otherwise change it, either immediately or once 2020 data is added
    4. Leave as is
  2. What to do with 2010 census data blurbs?
    1. Remove once 2020 census data is added to articles
    2. Shrink it down in size, rewrite it, or otherwise change it, either immediately or once 2020 data is added
    3. Leave as is
  3. How to present 2020 census data?
    1. What data should be included? What data should be left out? Should some of it be presented in graph or chart form instead of prose?
    2. Should communities of different sizes have blurbs with different levels of detail? For example, Floriston, California, a community of 73 people, had five paragraphs of demographic data before I ed it down to one paragraph while making general improvements to the article. Chicken, Alaska, which had 17 residents at the time of the 2000 census, at one point had four paragraphs of demographic data. There are thousands of tiny communities like this in the US.
    3. Should some data categories be included for some types of communities but not others? For example: including the fully detailed age breakdown for military bases, retirement communities, and other communities with interesting/unusual age distributions, while only including median age, percent under 18, and percent over 65 for communities with normal age distributions.

At some point there should be a multi-part RFC on this stuff once we've had a chance to bounce some ideas around. The 2000 and 2010 data was awkwardly written in many ways and we have an opportunity to do it better this time around; this also serves as an opportunity to determine whether we will really want 3 sets of census data, some of it 20 years out of date, on almost every US community page in less than a year's time. This whole process will affect something like 50,000 articles so it's important we have a plan. I've only been active again for the past two months however, so it's very possible these discussions are already happening and I'm just out of the loop. CJK09 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the number is more like 30,000, though that doesn't affect things much.
There is an interesting possibility of using a template (which already exists), see previous discussion at WikiProject Cities for more information. One of the things we could do with that is something like {{US census|year=2000|total population=3,456 etc....}} could have behaviour defined on the year, so that we switch previous census results to a more summary style. There are pros and cons with this approach.
There are also US Census estimates, mid-decade and, I think, for some other years for some places.
Of course there are pre-2000 censuses that are not as easily available in electronic form. Ideally I'd like to see this data made available (maybe via Wikisource and/or Wikidata) and have better demographic sections, avoiding recentism.
In many cases (but not by proportion) there is enough information to have a Demographics of Foo article.
Just some thoughts.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC).

gunie[]

giune are not rel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.75.141 (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)