Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving inactive discussions.

Hello and welcome to the Wikipedia Project United States. I am very busy in my non-virtual life this morning (Pacific time) so please help me build this project and add to the main page. Thank you and once again Welcome! Signaturebrendel 15:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] WikiProject U.S. states - Matrix worksheet

We have a "worksheet" for coordinating U.S. state stuff at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states/Matrix. CQ 16:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you I will use the worksheet to expand the main project page and use it as a model in combination with a couple of other projects. Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Household income in the United States up for FA

Hi, the GA Household income in the United States is up for FA status see the nomination here:[1]. Please tell me your thoughts righ here. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 04:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps of US. States

Can someone tell me how these maps were created? I cant find the parameters on nationalaltlas.gov to reproduce them. I would like to have them in a bigger resolution on commons with a naming standard. --Huebi 08:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally i found them. I uploaded all of them into commons with the naming convintion Map_of_statename_NA.png in a size of 2100x1600 px. --Huebi 11:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry for not responding earlier but I'm on vacation currently and only check my watchlist briefly. Signaturebrendel 17:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New GA-American middle class

The article on American middle class just received GA status-after my vacation I will put it up for peer-review and try and nominated for FA. Also, the article Household income in the United States failed its FA nomination but remains a GA. Reasons cited were: The article lacks an explanation of how Census data is being used as well as chronological comaprsions. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Airforce Memorial

A section should be added to the USA Airforce article about the new Air Force memorial getting reading to open in Washington, D.C. From what I have heard and read, it will be something to behold and nearly all members of the Air Force from the top down are very happy with the final result. I would add the section, but I'm not a military aficionado like others. Reynoldsrapture 03:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Civil War

Anyone here interested in helping me start Wikipedia:WikiProject American Civil War? • CQ 18:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The American Civil War task force is now a "reality". Please join. • CQ 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article review=

Poetry of the United States is up for Featured article review. Please go here to leave comments and help us maintain its featured quality. Joelito (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill O'Reilly

Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Bill O'Reilly as to whether the Bill O'Reilly page should redirect to the commentator, the cricketer, or neither. Your input would be appreciated. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I just cast my vote in that discussion; thank you for bringing that discussion forth. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New template

Hi, we have a new template: {{Demographics of the United States}}. Add this template to any article disucssing the social, economic, racial, ethnic, or relgious demographics of the US. Fruthermore if you now of more "...in the United States" articles that discuss demographic attributes of this country feel free to add them to the template! Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your template has a graphic suggesting that the data all comes from the Census Bureau, but you're including articles on religion. In as much as the Census Bureau hasn't collected religion data for decades, and is forbidden by law from collecting religion data, either the Census Bureau graphic, or the links to religion pages needs to disappear.
I recommend the religion links disappear, as you have a rather bizarre selection, including the Episcopal Church, which has only 2,314,756 members in the US, while leaving out the Assemblies of God, the Latter Day Saints, the ELCA Lutherans, the Missouri Synod Lutherans, the Jews, the Presbyterians, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Methodists, all of whom have larger memberships. What's more, if you don't have criteria for who to include and who to exclude, (and I don't any criterion mentioned anywhere), even an advocate for the Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America, with 395 members in two churches in the US, could reasonably demand they be included in your links. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 22:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Religion is part of the American demographics. The template is not near finished and if you look in its mark-up you'll see that I ask for other editors to add more reiligions, if there are articles about these religion's in presence in the US here on WP. The Albanian Orthodox Diocese should be included if there is an article for their presence in the US here on WP. I did not set any criteria for exclusion. Now we have two choices, I guess, list all religions with an article about their presence in the US here on WP-which is what I originally intended, or not list any. I do see your point about the Census graphic, I wasn't aware that it would be perceived in that manner-so I just left the religion article in.Signaturebrendel 23:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Scale

Hi, have started developing a quality scale for articles in this project. It is supposed to be a more simplified version (for now) of those found on other Wikiproject. Please feel free to help me built a sustainable quality scale. One editor can only do so much ;-) I you have suggestion post them right here or edit the quality scale itself. Anyways, I should have a complete blue-print up and running in a day. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 18:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template question

I have noticed that there are a lot of articles which fall within the scope of more than one of the state projects and/or city projects. These have begun to clutter up some of the talk pages. Would this project be at all interested in changing the makeup of its project banner to something like the Template:WPMILHIST, or Template:WP Australia, so that it could highlight this project's interest in the article and also, by introducing the "drop-down" minor banners, reduce the overcrowding on some of the talk pages? I can't necessarily speak for the other projects, but, if they were approached about this idea, I think most if not all would agree to it in cases where three or more (for example) projects are involved. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read this and for any answer any of you may see fit to give. B2T2 14:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request - Gun violence in the United States

Lately, I have been working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks. Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (mainly peer reviewed, scholarly journals). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this topic, and am staying out of the Gun politics in the United States article. With the gun violence article, I have stayed with presenting the current state of research on this topic. I think is close to featured status, though some "gun rights" folks have already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Any suggestions on making in more NPOV. In reality, I feel that the article deals fairly with both POVs, citing strategies advocated by gun-control folks as ineffective, while citing some strategies advocated by the Bush administration as effective. Do you have any suggestions on improving the article? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Any help would be greatly appreciated. I have filed a formal peer request here, though feel free to leave comments on the article talk page if you prefer. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World War I

World War I is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 19:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Parties

Should the U.S. Political Parties fall under the scope of this project? So far only the Republican and Democratic parties are listed within this project, though I'd be happy to tag the others. --Tim4christ17 talk 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes of course. They are a very big part of American society. Please go ahead and tag the other parties as well. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 20:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article Vote on Indian Standard Time

Hi in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian Standard Time, I've accidentally noted similarity in names of different users participating in the vote & so I guessed that they might be from the same nationality -India. And 6/7 at the time were Indians.

I think that this is an "internal" systemic bias, since Indian articles are written mostly and only by Indian users & they're mostly likely to be the only voters on featured article nominations on India-related articles & in result, making Indian articles attaining featured article status inevitable.

(I want to note that Indians are a special exception from other nationalities in Wikipedia because most of them can speak and write fluent English & thus can participate more in English Wikipedia while other foreigners can't & thus limit their participation in fields related to their nationality/culture & making participation of other third parties more likely.)

I think that there is need for third party, especially across different nationalities. And I would like members of this project to come participate in the vote & read what I've written & what they've replied with & see the article & voice your opinions. Thanks a lot! (Wikimachine 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] United States House of Representatives

United States House of Representatives is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 14:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project scope

I applaud the creation of this project, as I am aware that there are a number of articles which are relevant to the US as a whole which are not necessarily specifically relevant to any individual states. I do have one question however. Do you believe that it might be possible to expand the scope of the project to include matters directly relating to specific states or other US entities which do not currently have individual projects dedicated to them. There are a number of states which fall in this category, and it seems to me to be unfortunate if articles related to them should suffer on that basis. Also, I wonder if the project would want to consider using the standard assessments as per the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team standards. If the answer if yes, I would be more than willing to help set the project up for doing so. Thanks again for creating the project. Badbilltucker 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes we would like to use the "assessments as per the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team standards." My attempt at creating my own assessment scale didn't work, so yes please go ahead! Also, this is an umbrella project for just about everything USA, so yes, articles pertaining to US states that are not covered by any other project would be covered by this one. The only problem this project has, is that it's new and hasn't kicked into high gear yet. I do think, however, that having an assment scale for US-related articles should help get more people involved (aside from providing readers w/ info regarding an articles quality and editors with a guideline). Best Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I will start working on the minutiae of the assessments immediately. Also, I think with the banners in place on at least a few articles, and the project listed on the Wikipedia:Community Portal, where I figure to be adding it at around 00:01 UTC tonight (to take maximum advantage of the 7 days a project is allowed to be listed), the amount of interest might increase and make the majority of editors more aware of the project.

Badbilltucker 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks! SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 23:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Speaking of project scope I'm concerned that the idea of any article about any person who may be a U.S. citizen as falling under this project is overkill. It seems kind of wierd that the same project rating that would apply to an article on the Constitution would be equally applicable to an actress. x 19:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota up at FAC

Minnesota is up over at FAC. Go vote! -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Amendment to the United States Constitution

First Amendment to the United States Constitution is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 17:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Motors

Seems a bit out of place, but General Motors seems to be part of the United States WikiProject. I added it to the list of articles needing help, because I noticed (and a lot of editors complained of on the talk page) that it reads like a PR piece. (I apologize if I wasn't supposed to do this and I wouldn't be offended if someone removed it.) --75.108.184.200 09:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well GM is a very inconic US based corporation-so I think it just borderlines this projects scope- though I am still somewhat undecided. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 20:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joining

Hey...I like the United States, I like writing, and I like Wikipedia! How do I join? --Mr.Weirdo 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! Just put your username in the members section and start helping make US related articles here better. Happy editing, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm in. I'll be sure to look out for any biased U.S. articles. --Mr.Weirdo 04:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds great! SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 07:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State Capitols

I just proposed something regarding the state infoboxes here - specifically, I'm wondering what people think about linking to the article on each state's Capitol building. Feel free to weigh in over there.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of US projects template

I know that there is some template that many of the US projects use which updates whenever new projects are added, but have no idea where it is. I'm looking to add all the projects that have recently been created to it, and maybe substitute it in directly into most of the project pages. Can anyone help me in finding where it is? Thanks in advance. Badbilltucker 00:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Star-Spangled Banner

Can yall give me your opinion of what is needed for this article to become Featured, or at least, pretty decent? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well first of all you need to make sure that there is no need for those "citation needed" and "This section does not cite sources or references" templates. That means that all info in the article needs to be referenced. In order to get to GA status you need more footnotes and references- as of now the lack of references is the article's main problem. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State Townships

I have a question reguarding these. With the Illinois project, we started putting the townships as, for example Marion Township, Ogle County, Illinois with the county in the name. Another person started saying we should not have the county in the title of the articles unless there is a duplicate in the state. I see that both Ohio, Pennsylvania, and a few other states were doing it that way (with the county), so we started following that example. Is there a standard by which we should be doing these articles? I know that the US Census puts the county in there with the township. I would appreciate any advice in this from others not currently involved with the Illinois Project.--Kranar drogin 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Here on WP you should only put the state behind the name, unless there really is another town w/ the same name in the state. Just like on a postal address it should be "Town, State." Wiki is used by users around the world and the nation. To someone in California or Sri Lanks the county where Midland is located is not of interest. That the city is in Michigan, however, does provide an essential piece of info. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 01:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand with cities, so that is the way it should be with townships also? The only reason I ask this was so many other states are putting it township, county, state. So you are saying that all the townships should be changed in all the projects? I am only involved with Illinois, so we will change them if that is what you are saying. Cities we are already doing it city, state for all the articles.--Kranar drogin 06:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes it think the same rule should go for townships. But I'm not really an expert on the subject and it might be wise to consult yet more editors on the matter. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent policy changes limiting primary sources

There have been recent changes in the merging of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS into WP:ATT, along with related changes at WP:N. One thing that may affect geographic projects is the tightening of the requirement for multiple secondary sources for all articles. Many geographic articles are created from a single primary source like census data or topo maps. Technically, this would subject these articles to deletion. If you have not checked these policies lately, you should. And be sure to check the supporting discussions. Remember WP policies and guidelines are supposed to incorporate a broad consensus. Dhaluza 20:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Attribution that prevents an article from referencing only primary sources. Anyway, it is trivial to find a commercial map that shows the place (most location articles already have several such maps linked in the external links), so the "threat" has no teeth. --NE2 21:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Also look at WT:ATT and WT:N and check the edit histories to see what people are trying to include, particularly the recent WP:N edit war prior to protection. Dhaluza 21:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not looking at notability, since that's not a policy, but attribution explicitly allows "descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge" from primary sources. --NE2 22:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Portal:United States

The portal was recently de-featured for lack of upkeep. I have been working on making it more 'automatic' using random portal elements. I've made some progress, but more needs to be done.

I'm going to be away from the project for a while, so if someone wants to help out, there's an immediate need: the anniversaries for each day need to be populated (see March for the format). I've just been copying items related to the US from the respective data pages (like March 7).

Anyone can do this - even a relative newcomer - so if someone is looking to get their feet wet, this is a good way to do so.

For the long term, I've developed a to-do list to get the Portal featured again. It's located on the talk page. — Zaui (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Alaska FAR

History of Alaska has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Census Pages

Hey.. should I make the U.S. Census pages below part of this wikproject. I know how to do it. I just was wondering if there's some sort of nomination process.--Dr who1975 05:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

v • d • e
United States Censuses (Census Bureau)
1790 • 1800 • 1810 • 1820 • 1830 • 1840 • 1850 • 1860 • 1870 • 1880 • 1890 •
1900 • 1910 • 1920 • 1930 • 1940 • 1950 • 1960 • 1970 • 1980 • 1990 • 2000 •
2010

[edit] Census information here and on the Genealogy Wikia

Genealogy Wikia is developing census-related pages, using Wikipedia as a basis for some. Emphasis is more on individuals than on population totals, but there will be plenty of overlap. I was interested to find Historical U.S. Census Totals for Franklin County, Massachusetts today, noting that it's in the category for its county (which is how I found it) but not any census-related category. How many other barely discoverable treasures like that are there? They should be tied together somehow. Maybe we can cooperate in devising some subnational census categories? Robin Patterson 06:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal/Suggestion about State Maps

Can the state maps be redone to make them more similar to the EU state maps, (i.e. Italy)? The EU maps have prettier coloring (opinion), and include geographic features (rivers). The current ones (i.e. Minnesota) are ugly (again, opinion). Just a suggestion. Chiss Boy 09:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Supreme Court of the United States FAR

Supreme Court of the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack on Pearl Harbor FAR

Attack on Pearl Harbor has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plymouth Colony nominated for featured article candidate

The article Plymouth Colony has been nominated at WP:FAC for featured status. I have been the primary editor at the article, and some concerns were raised that the article needed more eyes on it to improve it further. Some general oversight and editing for clarity, spelling and grammar, and organization is probably needed. Please comment on the state of the article at WP:FAC, or better yet, if you find anything that needs fixing, be bold and help out where you can. Thanks! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bilateral relations discussion

I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SPOTLIGHT work on Poor Richard's Almanack

Howdy folks, we put the spotlight on the stub Poor Richard's Almanack. Its now a fully fledged article.We started off with this. You guys can check out our changes at this link. If you want to join our efforts, just hop into #wikipedia-spotlight on the irc.freenode.net network. If you need any help with this just ask me. —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comments: Mexican-American War vs. Mexican War

The current title for the page on the conflict between the United States and Mexico, 1846-1848, is the Mexican-American War. However, it is argued ("Talk Page: Misnomer" and "Talk Page: Name of War = Name of Article") that the "Mexican War" is actually the most common name used to refer to that event. Kraken7 20:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harlem Renaissance

An anonymous user brought the article Harlem Renaissance to the attention of Wikipedia:Cleanup. It is a rambling, incoherent, unwikified, borderline pov borderline original research article. This was once a Good Article, and a Featured Article Candidate. Not anymore. I would like to ask anyone who knows more about the Harlem Renaissance, and about African-American culture in the US in general, to help restore this article to its former glory. AecisBrievenbus 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new WikiProject

Hi there, I've decided to propose a new project dedicated to Richmond, Virginia. Leave you comments here if you wish. Neldav 21:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 12th Amendment FAR

Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Marskell 07:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Ladies

Just a quicky - Who should I direct an expert request over a First Lady to? You folk? The presidential subproject? A new subproject proposal? Sarah Childress Polk needs some work, but I'm not really sure where to start looking for the necessary sources. MrZaiustalk 15:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a good start. WikiProject Biography is another good place. --Kimontalk 16:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, WP:BIO and the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents projects. The first may attract general good biography researcher types, while the latter may attract some with specific expertise. Both are likely to be valuable. This project is probably too general/"administrative" to be much help in this regard; a bit like turning to WP:SPORT instead of WP:CUE for help on the nine-ball article. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›

[edit] New template for all US projects

All of these "Related projects" sections in all US wikiprojects need to be replaced with a Template:US-related WikiProjects, or it's going to just be a maintainability nightmare. The eventual template should not be subst'd of course, or that would defeat the purpose. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've set up a skeletal template; has all the stock data in it. Needs:
  • Conditional code to prevent the current page from showing up in the list (we won't die if we don't have this, but it might look funny without it). I may do this myself but would prefer it if someone else did it.
  • Deployment on all relevant pages after the above issues are solved. I am definitely not volunteering to do that part. I'll put it on WP:WPNM and maybe a few others, but that's it. Not enough time!
Its documentation explains how to add custom sections (e.g. a section for WikiProjects relating to stuff in that state.)
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, it is now good enough to be used, even without the conditional code fix; hardly a crucial matter, and implementing it would probably cause massive code bloat, since it would need to be done for every link in the template. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for assistance: Thomas Pickering (Revolutionary War soldier)

I invite any editors interested in American history, particularly those with access to print sources, to take a look at the article Thomas Pickering (Revolutionary War soldier). One would think that the individual is notable, but the single source in the article seems to be the only information about the subject that is available online. For more details, please see the article's talk page. Thank you, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll almost certainly have more luck at the appropriate task forces of WP:BIO and WP:MILHIST. Despite the breadth of this project (well, really because of it), we actually have very few members. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion ... I have added a note to the talk page of the American military history task force of WP:MILHIST. I don't know that there is a general project for biographies, but anyway, I have already posted this message on 4 WikiProject talk pages (here, History, Ohio, and MILHIST American). If that fails to produce any results, I doubt anything else will. Thanks again, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First ladies - Presidential project, members of metaproject, or new subproject?

There are articles for each and every First Lady of the United States, but many are simply copied from government sources with little to no real editing. At least one, Sarah Childress Polk, has had an outstanding expert request filed with the Presidential subproject for some time. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about the topic, but would anyone else be willing to or interested in spearheading a First Lady daughter project, or should the expert request simply be pointed here instead? MrZaiustalk 07:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US radio templates

I was looking at the templates that show radio stations across the US, and was considering trying to make them uniform. I already did most of the NY radio templates, and was looking for some feedback before I continue. Any thoughts? --Smokizzy (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC) 'Addendum':If this is not the place for this question, please let me know.

[edit] Unsourced demographics and vandalism

I believe there is a significant accuracy problem with many U.S. geographic articles because of hard-to-spot vandalism that cannot be easily corrected. Over the past year or two, I've occasionally seen prank edits to the "Demographics" sections of these articles, in which the editors (always anonymous) merely change a few digits or insert some into the larger numbers (rearranging the commas to make the numbers look reasonably formatted). I watch very few of these articles, so the frequency that I see them makes me believe they are a regular occurrence.

I've also noticed that regular editors of these articles frequently fail to notice these changes. This means that such errors can remain in the articles for weeks or months, making it hard to spot when the change was made. Unless the change was an increase or decrease so obviously wrong (e.g., changing the population of a city to a billion or so), which is not usually the case, it becomes impractical to know whether any such change is the prank or an attempt to correct the prank.

The obvious way to resolve the problem, like for any other factual edit, is to check the sources of the edited information. But the sources for the demographics information in these articles seem to be missing. Instead of a proper, specific citation of the source, there is a peculiar link to a section of Wikipedia:Geographic references that merely explains where the information came from. This is not a source by Wikipedia standards, because it gives no clue as to how to obtain the actual information. For example, follow the link from Fairfax County, Virginia's demographics "citation" and you get the following:

GR2 - The United States Census Bureau's[20] 2000 Census data. …

The "citation" to this paragraph is a bare link to the Census Bureau's home page, which is about as useful as quoting the U.S. President and citing http://www.whitehouse.gov as the source. (Actually, it's much worse. Searching whitehouse.gov for text often works; searching the Bureau for a geographic name yields a slew of hits that can be very difficult to decipher for useful content.) Without a specific source, we cannot expect editors to verify the infomation, so it will either be edited in ignorance (as I just did for Fairfax County) or left with uncertain data, defeating the whole purpose of the demographics sections.

Is there some effort, within or outside of this project, to replace these improper sourcing attempts with specific links to Census Bureau data for the specified Census Designated Places? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I hadn't noticed this earlier. The U.S. Census data "highlights" are available at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html. Factfinder frustrates me to no end (and it beats the . . . out of searching census.gov), but it's a handy way to find some data by city/ town, county, or zip code.
Make sure you click on the 2000 tab after the "Fact Sheet" loads, because the 2005 American Community Survey is the default.
.s
X ile 04:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC) - Talk

[edit] Trans-Border U.S. Regions

The U.S. Regions project is on life support, so I'll raise this here and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Canada

Did anyone bother to consider how readers and editors in countries bordering the U.S. would respond to the inclusion of part(s) of their country as a U.S. region? (For instance, the inclusion of the {{USRegions}} template in the Pacific Northwest article.)

I am going to revert edits by Anon IP 71.146.50.237 because they appear to have been made to demonstrate a point. Otherwise, the article will need to be merged with Northwestern United States. After which, the whole process is likely to repeat.

Modifying or removing the template from "Other designations" will prevent disruptive editing and accusations of U.S.-centrism. It would be no more acceptable to have a Regions of Canada or Regions of Mexico (only) template on these pages.

I'm not in a big hurry to move on this, so feedback is welcome before I do.

.s

X ile 18:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) - Talk

[edit] Social class in the United States up for GA!

Social class in the United States is now up for GA. Please have a look if you can. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of former members of the United States House of Representatives

This list is the largest article on Wikipedia (600k in size). To ensure centralised discussion on what to do with it, could any interested editors please discuss the issue over at the list's talk page. → AA (talk) — 16:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Clinton

Hi, I am trying to get the biography article of Bill Clinton to FA. I however have been editing the article in great chunks over the last few months and am in desperate need of fresh perspectives from other editors, in particular on style, grammar and prose.

The article is currently at Peer review and I would most welcome any comments! Wikipedia:Peer review/Bill Clinton. The article has over 100 references and is very close to FA, it just needs some finishing touches by other experienced editors. Thank you for your help! (Barnstars will be given!) LordHarris 23:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 14:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Springs massacre

Hello everyone. The article Rock Springs massacre, while not tagged by this project probably falls within its scope. It is a current Featured article candidate, if anyone here has the time comments would be appreciated after reviewing the featured article criteria and comparing those to the article. You can see its entry and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rock Springs massacre. This message is an attempt to jumpstart lagging discussion, talk page posts on WikiProject pages which have tagged the article went unnoticed as the three projects are less than active at this juncture. Thanks ahead of time. IvoShandor 09:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States Congress featured article review

United States Congress has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sdornan 18:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy policy of the United States

This article is in need of help - the main problem being that, despite world interest in the topic due to the proportion of world energy consumed by the U.S., most section of the article contain very little information on past or present energy policy. Compare to Energy policy of the United Kingdom or Energy policy of the European Union / Energy policy of China, for example. Any volunteers? Gralo 01:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act featured article nomination

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act recently achieved Good Article status. I've nominated it for featured article status - please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act. Comments would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 22:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American popular music

This article currently has issues that need to be addressed for it to keep its GA status. See the talk page for details. T Rex | talk 23:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion needed

Alexander Hamilton was verifiably involved in the Newburgh conspiracy and was irreligious during the Revolution. I can find no secondary source which contradicts either, and have sourced both; one to the standard history of the Contental army, the other to Adair and Harvey's widely cited paper. Both are vehemently contested by a newbie, who cites no source, and whose arguments are "that can't be true of a Founding Father" and WP:IDONTKNOWIT respectively.

Please come have a look. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Rudolff Ford

The biography for Gerald Rudolff Ford who raised Gerald Ford and for whom Ford legally changed his name has been nominated for deletion as being non-notable. You can make your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Rudolff Ford. Americasroof 05:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR notice

Separation of powers under the United States Constitution has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --RelHistBuff 15:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population standards

Just wondering what you guys used (guys meaning general population term, not males...)? Illinois seems to be updated to the 2006 estimate but retains the 2000 official census citation. Either the citation or the number needs to be changed. Spryde 16:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To help out, here is where the new number came from. Spryde 16:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First ladies - Your purview or should they go to the United States project?

Initially asked of the Presidents subproject, but with no takers/no responses. The associated outstanding expert request has been in place since March

Do and should the First Ladies' articles be within the purview of this WikiProject? They're currently orphaned in the vast see of regular biographies, and, if the fawning government-written Sarah Childress Polk is any indication, in dire need of attention. Also, pending an answer, I went ahead and set up an expert request for you folk on that Polk. MrZaiustalk 05:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC) **bump Noone interested in a First Ladies working group? Admittedly, I'm not, but I haven't ever met a female government or poli sci teacher that didn't focus overmuch on the topic. Hard to believe there are no takers, or even parties able to clarify the points on Talk:Sarah Childress Polk. MrZaiustalk 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Generalizing {{Infobox Govt Agency}} to handle more than just agencies

Hi everyone. I just made a proposal at {{Infobox Govt Agency}} to generalize it to handle more than just agencies. In a nutshell, it would move the code to {{Infobox Govt Unit}} and then the agency template would call that. For non-agency pages, they could just use the more general {{Infobox Govt Unit}} instead of the agency template {{Infobox Govt Agency}}. This will allow all of the articles on government departments, offices, bureaus, commands, administrations, and programs to have a standard infobox, instead of just agencies. Right now this template is used in departments and offices (for example United States Department of Defense), but with incorrect subtitles (i.e. it labels it as an agency instead of a department), which my proposal will fix. I'd appreciate people reading the proposal and commenting on it at Template talk:Infobox Govt Agency#Proposed new version. Thanks, --CapitalR 00:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted this user has been unwilling to even discuss this matter at the infobox's talk page, being more inclined to enter a revert war over it yesterday which led to the article's protection. There now appears to be a bit of forum shopping going on to find a venue amenable to his ideas. I would suggest the talk page of the template is a better venue. Orderinchaos 04:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject American History Proposed

Comments would be welcome here. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 15:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Civil War GA sweeps review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I have recently reviewed American Civil War and have determined that it is in very good shape but need some assistance to remain a GA. I have put the article on hold for seven days until the issues on the talk page of the article are addressed. I wanted to mention it here so that members of the project, if interested, could assist in improving the article and help it to remain a GA. It currently has a few problems concerning the lead and citation templates & needs about 20 more inline citations for quotes, numbers, etc. Additionally, I will be leaving messages on other WikiProjects and editors affiliated with the page to increase the number of participants assisting in the workload.

If you have any questions about what I've said here, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I hope members here assist in addressing the issues within the article, and keep up the good work in improving articles on Wikipedia! --Nehrams2020 03:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help

What is Tag & Assess 2007? It's a Wiki-wide call for volunteers. To explain ... a month or so back, we ran a script to list all the articles in categories related to military history. This gave us about 165,000 articles. Some of these are already tagged and assessed as military history; some are military history but not yet tagged and assessed; some are not military history articles at all. This huge project — working thorough 165,000 articles — is called Tag & Assess 2007. To make it manageable, the list has been broken down into 330 ranges each of 500 articles. This is where youcan help.

Just... adopt-a-range from the available worklists then keep track of your tally on participants' list. The tagging is easy, just follow the simple instructions. Afterwards, as our way of thanking you, you'll be presented with service awards and barnstars based on the number of articles you process. Remember... the ranges are broken down into sub-sections of ten articles, so you work through them at twenty or thirty articles a day if you wish. To make Tag & Assess 2007 a success, we need your help. Please sign up now. Thanks. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to move Georgia

Hey everyone, I thought some of you might be interested in a poll that's currently underway over a proposal to move Georgia. The discussion is taking place here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georgia#Updated_Poll You can see the archived discussion of a previous poll on that issue here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georgia/Archive1#Poll Helvetica 20:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection of census-designated places

User:Polaron is proposing the redirection of CDP articles throughout Vermont to the towns in which they are located. If this is accepted, this would lay precedent for similar action to all other CDP articles to the governmental bodies in which they are located, whether towns, townships, or counties. Please offer your comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vermont. Nyttend 20:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't over-generalize my proposal. This would only cover those towns in Vermont that have a single CDP with the exact same name as the town. I don't see how this would be a precedent except for the exact same situations in other New England towns. --Polaron | Talk 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. However, what's the difference? If any CDP deserves to be redirected, all others do as well. Nyttend 20:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
CDPs nominally exist in unincorporated areas. However, the Census Bureau classifies towns in New England as minor civil divisions (MCD) alone when, in reality, they do serve as both MCDs and incorporated places. CDPs in New England are less important than those elsewhere because of strong civic identity of residents with the town. --Polaron | Talk 20:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

Music of the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

[edit] A WikiProject or task force for "U.S. presidential elections"

Hi, As I see there are several editors who work on the articles about "the U.S. presidential elections". I wanted to join but I couldn't find any wikiproject or task force relates to this issue. I propose making at least a task force in Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. --Seyyed(t-c) 10:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I found a more suitable place for a task force: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents--Seyyed(t-c) 10:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Since there are so many articles that pertain to elections and many editors as well, I think it would be best for a wikiproject to be started.--STX 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
(Reluctantly:) Thank you, and I second making US presidential elections either a WikiProject or a task force and will join if it appears. My leaning will of course be toward the current election, but it's a fine way to broaden my scope. STX is right about the wide range of potential articles (42 notable candidates this year, to start with, and over 30 other relevant articles), and I would add that members should have an above-average sensitivity to nonbias and proper weight-- and drivers should be prepared to handle disputes with above-average care and should include an admin or two. STX and I have collaborated well. On the project page we might specifically warn members against partisan editing. John J. Bulten 10:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections

Editors of this article are invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections.--STX 04:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:USA Award

I have created a WP:USA barnstar, before uploading it, I just want to know if you guys actually want a barnstar to award to people, i dont want to just upload one and be stepping on peoples toes or anything, so just reply if you support or oppose the idea. Cheers (♠Taifarious1♠) 10:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea and believe we should have for this project to recognize contributions that benefited articles under the purview of this project. Do you have a sample somewhere? --Kimontalk 15:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, its just a test, it's going to be modified to make it cleaner but heres the prototype, Image:BoNM - USA2.0.PNG, just leave ur suggestions on the talk page and ill see ways that I can improve it. (♠Taifarious1♠) 03:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This is what the award looks like, does everyone like the way it looks?? (♠Taifarious1♠) 04:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject United States Barnstar of National Merit
{{{xX-message goes here-Xx}}}


Looks nice, but is it possible to mention the name of the project or perhaps include a link to it. Otherwise I really the graphic. Great job! Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You mean something like that? (♠Taifarious1♠) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, like that. Good job, thanks. Signaturebrendel 04:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No probs, do you want me to put it up on the project page so you can officially give it away to deserving participants? (♠Taifarious1♠) 10:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unusual request

Hi. I'm finding difficulty in gaining non expert reviews of Sid Barnes, a biog of a former cricketer.

Since there is a stereotype of US indifference (or worse!) to cricket, I thought this might be a good place to round up some well-meaning, experienced Wikipedians who know little or nothing about cricket, to test out whether the jargon in the article is comprehensible with the wikilinks etc.

The article is currently at FAC. Please do pop over to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sid Barnes and critique it.

Many thanks, --Dweller (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. NB As a non-American and a frequenter of PR and FAC, I'd be happy to review any of this WikiProject's articles. Just drop me a line at my talk page. --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The link is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sid Barnes --Dweller (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CIA Articles

A new user who seems pretty intelligent (no pun) on CIA articles has been contributing some good, but difficult to use stuff. I've started a general template Template:Central Intelligence Agency because the article needed one anyway. But If there is a better prose writer who could help with this, it owuld be much appreciated. Mbisanz (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange sections on main project page

This edit seems to have transcluded {{WP:CBTF}} into various WikiProjects, including this one. I'm not quite sure if the original editor meant to use {{WP:CBTF}} but there's some weird stuff about communities and adopting abandoned babies in New Zealand as a result. I suggest removing everything below the section titled "Members". —Viriditas | Talk 05:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham Lincoln assassination GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have left this message at this WikiProjects's talk page since the article falls under its scope and so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed Abraham Lincoln assassination and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. I left messages for the other WikiProjects/task forces and the main contributors to the article so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

Dear all. A peer review has been requested for the article Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States. Your comments on how best to improve it would be appreciated. John Smith's (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History task force

What would you guys say to an American history task force of WP:HIST? We don't currently have many people interested in this, so we'd like this project to provide some editors.--Phoenix-wiki 20:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea. We've been talking about this on WP:HAWAII. Even if this project won't support it, you could just start the task force and just ask the descendent projects to join. If you do start it, let us know so we can change the template and start tagging American history articles relevant to the history of Hawaii. —Viriditas | Talk 12:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Treaty of Tripoli

The Treaty of Tripoli page has gone through some major revisions as of late. Could people weigh in on the issue if the controversy section should be expanded (I say no, because it will just create feuding about "POV balance") and re-examine the page. Also, if there is anything that can be added in regards to U.S. history, Adams, Jefferson, etc, that would help. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Square Deal

Can someone take a look at Square Deal? There seems to have been significant vandalism and deletion this month, I think the last good copy is from Jan.10, but I'm not sure. 70.55.85.35 (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reflists in US City articles

I randomly came across Lone Elm, Kansas and noticed that the footnotes were unclickable. I added a reflist template and they showed up OK. I checked the rest of Anderson County, Kansas and all but one of the seven "cities" had no reference section. I fixed those, then looked around a bit.

I see that Danville, Iowa also has unclickable footnotes. It looks as though maybe there could be a very large number of these situations and not easily fixable by hand. Presumably a lot of information was created/added by a bot and this aspect was missed.

If this is indeed a problem, it looks like this will be best handled by a bot. I'm not gonna check every city, town and village in the US, so I thought I'd just pass this along. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the result of a recent conversion (since the beginning of the month) of the various versions of the {{GR}} templates, used in every municipality and CDP article nationwide. A bot has already been requested, and I expect that we should see work beginning pretty soon. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Indiana is up for Featured portal candidate discussion

Portal:Indiana is up for Featured portal candidate discussion. Your comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Indiana. Cirt (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Update

Actually, at this point in time all of the Featured portal candidates up for discussion are relevant to this WikiProject. Your comments would be appreciated at all of those discussions. Cirt (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Virginia

After not getting any suggestions the first time I nominated Virginia for peer review last month, I put it up a second time here. Still without a review, I'm asking where I can for editors to help give suggestions on our article. Thanks!--Patrick Ѻ 02:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Revolution GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed American Revolution and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with other task forces/WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requests

Isn't there a requested articles page for the US somewhere? Richard001 (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date of formation of the United States?

The editors of the United States article have settled on 1776 as being the foundation of the state (I note with concern though that this date lacks any external referencing, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY).

But this article - List of countries by formation dates - claims that the 'Date of statehood' of the United States was actually 1787 (again, completely unreferenced). Both articles cannot be correct, so which is it? Please come to the party armed with some proper external refs, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The question really is: Which United States of America are we talking about. The Confederation that existed under the Article of Confederation certainly dates from 1776, but the Federal Union that exists today under the US Constitution only dates from 1789. The States - as organized governments - date in most cases from 1776, although some have organizational histories that predate that year. For example, New York had an organized government since its Dutch Days as New Netherlands which continued to function right up to the date when it declared its independence from Britain. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EARLY US HISTORY

It has occurred to me that you guys are starting this project too far forward in time. You need to go back and show how the arrival of the various European powers started the ball rolling that eventuated in the US coelescing the way it did. For example, the various Anglo-Dutch wars that resulted in Britain trading Curacao for New Netherlands, and the Dutch and British adjusting the border between Connecticut and New Netherlands, and even the Dutch and the British establishing a border partitioning Long Island. Those are just examples, but you get the idea. We all have looked at American History as a pre-packaged history where we opened a box, and the USA jumped out fully formed. Of course, that is not true, but that is the impression that you've arrived at. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAR notice for the Bill of Rights (please discuss here)

United States Bill of Rights has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main page nomination for Manzanar

With the 39th Annual Manzanar Pilgrimage coming up on April 26, I have nominated Manzanar to be on Wikipedia's main page on that date. Please add your support for that at Today's featured article requests. Thank you! -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blackstone Hotel

Can someone tell me if Blackstone Hotel belongs in this project. Drop a note on my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Jackson and Hitler

This is being posted at this project page based on the recommendations of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Turn to others for help. There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Andrew Jackson#Search for Consensus -- Jackson and the "Final Solution.

The issue is whether an article in a Swedish language newspaper quoting a professor of comparative religion constitutes a reliable source justifying linking Jackson’s Indian Removal policy with Hitler’s Final Solution attempt to exterminate the Jewish race. There is a wealth of credible, academic material available to offer valid and harsh criticisms of Jackson’s policy without resorting to the extremes of comparisons with Hitler.

In any event, I would appreciate anybody with an opinion on the subject to weigh in at the Jackson link above. As the matter stands, there is only one editor supporting retaining the language, but I am not sure that a consensus for removing it currently exists (many in opposition are IPs or infrequent editors). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Major League Soccer season standings

For those of you who cares about American soccer, there is a discussion about the standings format here and there is a vote of consensus here. The topic is about whether to use Wins-Losses-Ties or to use Wins-Draws-Losses. Kingjeff (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Peer Review

I have requested a peer review of the CIA main article, in order to gain some new perspective on the page. I invite anyone interested to please contribute their thoughts. Please find the peer review page for it here. Thanks! (Morethan3words (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:United States ghettos

The related Category:United States ghettos has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

[edit] Merge proposal

There's been a merge suggestion on Talk:Celebrations_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks#Merge.3F. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article requests

Perhaps this project should have its own article requests page, separate from the larger list I have linked to recently on the project page (Wikipedia:Requested articles/Other categorization schemes#United States)? Richard001 (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)