Template talk:USPoliticalDivisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:United States

Template:United States has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:United States. Thank you.

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:United States 2

Template:United States 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:United States 2. Thank you.

[edit] Discussions

I have only placed this msg at Alabama, so others can see how it looks before I do anything else. Tuf-Kat 20:02, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Can you put a header on the territories and districts? Is there an article for them that can be referenced? - Texture 20:03, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There does not appear to be an article on non-states (United States territory has a section) -- maybe there should be, but I dunno what could be there besides a list... The political situation in Puerto Rico, Guam and DC is very different from each other and the uninhabited islands. Tuf-Kat 20:09, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

It seemed pretty clear to me that the territories were not part of the same grouping as the states, Jiang. Do you have any other ideas besides removing all the non-states? Tuf-Kat 07:08, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

They were not in the same grouping, but did not have a separate heading, so it looked like they were still under the states heading. We could link it to Political divisions of the United States#Dependent_areas_of_the_United_States, but linking to a section within a article may be a bad idea. Create a separate article? --Jiang 07:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
or maybe not have the heading link at all. --Jiang
The only reason I know of not to link to a section heading is because the section title could change, thus breaking the link (which still drops you off at the top of the linked article, so at worst it would duplicate what we do now)... This argument is not convincing to me, especially given that I'm certain a special page could be created to show which section links are broken, and the problem would be manageable... Anyway, not linking to anything is perhaps just as good. Are they all "territories" though? DC is a "federal district" I think and I'm not sure exactly what the others relations are...Tuf-Kat

I don't think Puerto Rico counts as a territory either. I'm not sure of the exact legal distinctions though. --Jiang

I believe Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, etc., are possessions of the United States. FWIW, i don't think they should be lumped with states. Among other things, the box is already big. jengod 08:04, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
I've re-added them with the un-linked header "inhabited territories" and removed the uninhabited islands. I haven't removed the msg link from those uninhabited territories so they won't have to be re-added if we don't like it without them. Tuf-Kat 08:15, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
The relationship is slightly different - Wake island is a "unincorporated territory of the US" and Puerto Rico is a "Commonwealth associated with the US". PR is in free association with the US (it can leave if it wanted to) so it's not quite a territory.--Jiang
Perhaps "districts"? "Administrative areas"? "Non-state districts"? Tuf-Kat

I find "Other inhabited administrative areas" reasonable. Tuf-Kat 08:11, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the "Properties of the United States" description. I meant to type "Possessions" and must have mislead my fingers while I was thinking about the Property Clause. At any rate, apparently even "Possessions" has fallen out of use and may not apply to D.C. anyway. "Other inhabited administrative areas" is reasonable and good, but doesn't convey the preciseness and conciseness that wikipedia should present. Consider the defintions and usage found at:

Note that there is "territory" and "Territory". "Insular Area" is more broad and would help avoid debate from those who would assert that Puerto Rico is neither a territory nor a possession but a commonwealth although under law it is all three. How about: "Insular areas and federal district of the United States". B 21:05, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the addition of Navassa, because it is uninhabited. Tuf-Kat 23:42, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. I disagree with the removal of uninhabited territories, but it's your page. - Woodrow 20:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Like all of Wikipedia, it is no more my page than yours. I don't think they should be included because they are of interest to very few people and the box is already large. Tuf-Kat 21:06, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

I like most of Cantus latest changes, but lets not multiply terminology (i.e. "Main Outlying Areas") beyond necessity...lets stick with "Insular Area". B 15:37, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Cantus has added some more creative and useful formatting, but we should avoid plural--Federal DistrictS--since there is only one in the U.S., and no need to state "Main" Insular Areas since the list is exhaustive...it lists ALL the Insular Areas. B 05:36, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

What about Guantanamo Bay? --Cantus (really)

Re format: I just feel if we're going to be so inclusive as to have Atoll This and That, that we ought to give all the divisions equal size fonts, in the interest of fairness. :) I'm not in love with it, but I think the prinicple is worthwhile. jengod 00:14, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for reverting Cantus' changes

  1. Federal district: District of Columbia (Washington, [District of Columbia]) is (a.) redundant, (b.) we're refering to the district not the city, they are separate entities oddly (see Georgetown, District of Columbia for more insight)
  2. The flag is now oddly in the center of the header on my browsers, which is out of sync with several other templates; (a little fugly)
  3. The edit button leads to mischief because the "set" is permanent--there are 50 states, 1 federal district and X number of insular areas. (also, a little fugly)

jengod 19:20, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

  1. Fine. sigh
  2. Looks fine in Safari. I still prefer my version, so I'll revert that and try to make it work in other browsers.
  3. The object of Wikipedia is that everyone can edit everything. It is not immediatly obvious how to edit a Template for new people. It is also a headache for savvy people because you have to construct the URL to go to the Template page and then edit it... way too many steps. And lastly, there is no reason to believe that these Templates should remain static once they're created, as evidenced by us now editing them.
--Cantus 10:32, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, the content of the template should be restricted to the *content* of the templates alone, and shouldn't confuse itself with the mechanism for changing that content. The content of the articles doesn't contain edit buttons -- Wikipedia provides them. Likewise the content of the templates shouldn't contain edit buttons, that's something that Wikipedia itself should perhaps provide in some manner (e.g. by listing the templates used in a page after each article -- perhaps)
Adding self-edit buttons *to* the content is messy and goes against a philosophy of separation between content and mechanism, the way I see it.
Are you going to change all the footers listed here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes ? Are you even going to change *all* the templates, including the ones for stub, and such matters?
Aris Katsaris 17:23, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've already done massive formatting on ALL footers before, so adding an Edit link to all of them sounds like a good idea. Thanks! (P.S.: I've expressed my reasons for adding an Edit button before, so I won't repeat them again. I will only add though that the code {ed|template|text} was specifically added so you could have an Edit link added to Templates. The Edit link was not just added to all Templates, because Templates vary greatly in format and style, so an obligatory Edit link would probably look bad in a lot of templates, that's why the optional Edit link code was created.) --Cantus 19:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I moved the Edit button from the top/left to bottom/right... Personally I think it looks worse now. I prefer the button on its former location (top/left), but "JenGod" doesn't like it there for "aesthetic" reasons. He(?) probably won't like it where it's now either. He just doesn't like the button at all. I'm sorry but this button isn't going away. To quote my dear "friend" User:172, "If I have to fight the mother of all edit wars..." --Cantus 21:46, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Your rigidity should serve you well in the fractured, self-interested and parochial world of the future! We who are about to (continue to) be annoyed, salute you! jengod 22:11, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:General_complaints I've added a comment requesting a solution for this. The way I see it both of you are right -- edit buttons are annoying and ugly. But at the same time editing *without* edit buttons is also annoying and ugly and tiresome.
If you agree with what I say there, then offer your support and/or comments at that page -- or if you know any other page where such a request would be better made, make the request at that place also. Aris Katsaris 22:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Interlang link

[edit] Conversion to use Template:United States 2

I've partitioned the content out into a separate template so that the content can be included in United States without the footer style. One of the complaints when trying for featured article status was that the footers in the middle of the article were just too jarring. So, this template has been separated into two parts, the content at Template:United States 2 and the footer wrapper, here at Template:United States. The content is directly included in United States and in the wrapper (this template), and the footer is used in all other articles (which, presumably, put it at the bottom, where a footer traditionally goes). Future changes to the content or content style should be made at Template:United States 2, whereas changes to the footer/wrapper style should be made here. -- Dpark 12:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Standardization of state templates

There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding standardization (primarily regarding layout and styling) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates. An effort was made earlier this year to standardize Canadian province templates (which mostly succeeded). Lovelac7 and I have already begun standardizing all state templates. If you have any concerns, they should be directed toward the discussion page for state template standardization. Thanks! — Webdinger BLAH | SZ 22:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help

I want to use this template to work off of to create a different template for a different project. However, when I click on edit, I don't see an editable template. Where do I go to see the editable version of this template? Kingturtle (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Here. Greetings!, Daniel dj87 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)