This is anarchive of past discussions aboutWikipedia:WikiProject United States.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.

You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:You didn't build that#Removed verified content.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)20:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many editors deal with the Book namespace but I am trying to build up some Wikipedia books for the various US related projects. I recently went through and did a few tasks related to books and the United States as shown below.

1. I went through all the community books and added the applicable US State category
2. Created categories if missing for all the remaining states. Now every state has a Books namespace category atCategory:Wikipedia books on US states.

next tasks

1. I am now going through and making sure that all the states has at least one book.
2. I am going to look at moving some of the 6000 US related user books to the Books namespace rather than the User namespaces where the book tool builds them by default.

If anyone is interested in helping out or thinks they have a good topic for a book please let me know.Kumioko (talk)12:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see thediscussion here for regarding the use of No-importance or not. Thank for your time.JJ98(Talk /Contribs)19:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Virginia Senator Richard Black - 13th District.jpg has been nominated for deletion --76.65.131.248 (talk)20:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

On the Spanish Wikipedia we now have WikiProject Florida online:es:Wikiproyecto:FloridaWhisperToMe (talk)20:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

One list under this project's scope (List of shopping malls in the United States) is in dire need of work, but I'm not sure how to tackle it. I would appreciate some feedbackhere.Ten Pound Hammer •^{(What did I screw up now?)}18:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a proposal for an an umbrella organization for chapters and other groups in the US called the Wikimedia United States Federation. A draft of the bylaws is now up atmeta. There will be an open comment period on the bylaws 17 September, 2012 to 1 October, 2012. The comments received given will be incorporated into the bylaws and they will be put up to a ratification vote from 8 October, 2012 to 15 October, 2012.--Guerillero |My Talk21:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Uncle Sam BW.png has been nominated for deletion --76.65.131.248 (talk)03:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have nominatedDemand Note for afeatured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meetsfeatured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process arehere.JJ98(Talk /Contribs)20:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Pin gold.gif has been nominated for deletion as unsourced... though shouldn't this be a US government source? --70.24.245.122 (talk)04:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Puerto Ricans in the United States#POV infobox.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)07:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I just posted this on the talkpage of the WP Wisconsin, but you may have an idea too. I just added referenced information about Diane Hendricks, the wealthiest woman in Wisconsin and a political donor, widow ofKen Hendricks, on his page. Should this be split into two separate pages?Zigzig20s (talk)02:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As long as there are enough references for the 2 of them it seems reasonable to me.Kumioko (talk)10:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I just created it after consensus from WP Wisconsin. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk)14:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I am going to revise the article “Racial achievement gap in the United States”. One of the prevalent inequalities in the United States is the racial educational achievement gap. Even though education is a basic right to all citizens in the United States, throughout the years research and data has shown large differences in success rates between students within the educational system in the United States. As the United States moves away from manufacturing and blue-collar jobs and towards white-collar jobs education is becoming more important. Education will be essential for getting jobs and a stable career and is essential in breaking the cycle of poverty and securing a more sound economic future, both individually and as a nation. Under-educating certain groups of students leaves them less ready to compete and contribute in a new global economy, thus leaving them poorer and disadvantaged. Providing more information on this topic furthers understanding of public and political reaction to the achievement gap in the United States as well as clarify root causes and methods that are helping to either mitigate or perpetuate the achievement gap. The racial achievement gap has political, economic, and social implications, which is why it is important that we explore this issue of the achievement gap and more specifically the attempts being made to close it. I plan to draw on many academic journals, especially educational and sociological. This includes works from Ruth Turley and Adam Gamoran, Wendy Schwartz, James Ainsworth, Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, Cynthia Prince, and the research from Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE). I would appreciate any comments or feedback.

Mmcolson (talk)04:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Besides being rated poorly by Wikipedia standards while also missing substantial amounts of important information, the importance of the subject matter in the “Racial Achievement Gap in the United States” article merit its expansion. I believe racial inequality – specifically educational racial inequality – to be an important American social issue. For decades, White and Asian American students have systematically outperformed Black and Hispanic students. Why is this the case? What factors contribute to this gap? What interventions effectively close the gap? Should interventions even be pursued? The answers to these questions are not only important for understanding educational achievement gains. Specifically, the racial achievement gap ultimately affects what type of jobs students pursue, how much money they earn, and whether or not they become productive citizens contributing to the American and global economies. Analyzing and understanding the racial achievement gap allows administrators and policy makers to effectively evaluate public school systems. Martha Nussbaum’s (2011) Capabilities Approach includes “asking not just about the total or average well-being but about the opportunities available to each person”(Nussbaum 2011:18). Thus, one must question and investigate whether or not the lack of educational opportunities contribute to these achievement gaps and ultimately limit the students’ human capabilities. In order to provide the most relevant and neutral information on this topic, I will be specifically be using research conclusions from Rumberger (2010), No Longer Separate Not Yet Equal, Heckman and LaFontaine (2010), and a variety of other sociological sources. Any feedback or comments would be greatly appreciated!Morell21 (talk)16:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Several seals for US counties have been nominated for deletion atCategory:All Wikipedia files with unknown source, should these all be PD-USgov, or is local/state government not covered under that? --76.65.131.79 (talk)03:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

PD-USgov only covers works of thefederal government; the copyright policies of the various state and local governments varies, and in most cases, their works are subject to copyright.Imzadi 1979 →04:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Asian American#Infobox ethnicity representatives.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)07:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a student at Rice University studying poverty, justice, and human capabilities. For one of my classes we are supposed to find a topic on Wikipedia that we are interested in and expand or edit it. I have chosen to work on the page, Immigration regulation. Right now there are only a couple of sentences on the page, it needs a lot of work. My ideas for this page include changing the name to Immigration Policy then I would like to create a sub-section titled Immigration policy in the United States. Then within this sub-section, I will give information on the two sided debate going on in the US - should the borders be open or closed? I will give the benefits and disadvantages of each side and the political parties or important figures with these opinions. I also want to include a part that compares the policies of the United States to surrounding countries such as Canada and Mexico and I also want to compare the US policies with a country like Denmark. I feel like this is a very important issue that needs to be expanded on because immigrants make up such a large part of the United States' population. I feel like right now is a crucial time to work on it with the United States elections coming up. Also, the current page needs to be cited, so I will also work on that. I will use scholarly articles on immigration policies. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for me or any other ideas, I would really appreciate some feedback and guidance. Thanks!Amacune (talk)21:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to take a look atImmigration to the United States andIllegal immigration to the United States. They may be a better fit for some of what you plan to do.Acdixon^{(talk·contribs)}20:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been having a discussion aboutWashington Initiative 502 as to whether "(2011)" should be appended to the end of the article title. The general disambiguation policy would say to leave it off, since there is not other initiative 502 in Washington, but it seems to be the practice to include the year. I would like to note that Washington does not reuse initiative numbers each year, but other states apparently do. Comments?Ego White Tray (talk)16:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am strongly in favor of including parenthetic years for all US ballot measure articles, whether a state re-uses those are not. The basic title format of State + Type + Number + (Parenthetical year) provides maximal information very concisely:California Proposition 13 (1978),Oregon Ballot Measure 9 (1992),Washington Referendum 71 (2009) andWashington Initiative 502 (2011),Colorado Amendment 64 (2012). Redirects such asProposition 13 can easily be established for famous items or from year-to-year, with those easily converted do disambiguation pages as needed should similar titles beWP:Notable. The State + Type + Number + (Parenthetical year) format is well established for many states, if not most, and this seems to me the simplest, soundest, most comprehensive and least ambiguous solution.KEEPRorybowman (talk)20:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a Request for comment about the need/redundancy ofLargest cities/city population templates. This is an open invitation for participating in the request for comment onWikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please seesuggestions for responding.10:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

My casual examination oflast year's discussion on overzealous tagging byKumioko (talk ·contribs) revealed that consensus was mostly against him, but he was hell-bent on tagging everything in sight anyway;Zigzig20s (talk ·contribs) has taken up the torch and resumed (automated?) tagging of WP US and many, many other country-related WikiProjects. I have persisted in removing these tags for only the articles I curate. I have resisted going through his contribs and removing all of them. However, I have not been reverted; this indicates a tacitconsensus that is either neutral or against inclusion of these tags. I did not have much luck on his talk page. Investigating this today, I found that he does not even count himself a member of this WikiProject. I know it is not against policy for non-members to tag articles, but his apparently automated mass-tagging against consensus needs some accountability and attention from concerned editors. This is my last stop beforeWP:ANI. Thank you for your consideration.Elizium23 (talk)21:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The editor has been contacted about this thread - I dont realy care about the over-tagging as wp:bio is in the same position (others may not feel this way). However I do believe tagging all theses articles without taking the time to article rate and/or assess is just making work for others. If your going to tag articles on mass at lest have the knowledge and courtesy to fill out the banner properly. If their not sure in how all theassessment processes works perhaps this venture is not in our best interest until understanding of what to do is acquired or/and explained.Moxy (talk)22:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding more articles to any project is always problematic. Part of the reason for projects is to steward the articles for improvement. However in the case of this project, excessive tagging results in growing cleanup lists and the project seems incapable of dealing with the growing load. I offer the sheer number ofpages requiring disambiguation for some links as an example. I have given up on this task since the project seems more bent on adding articles and not doing any work on the articles already included.Vegaswikian (talk)22:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

WOW - Great example - perhaps your right and the scope of the project is simply getting overwhelming, thus deterring involvement and overall improvements to the articles.Moxy (talk)22:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not automated. I don't see a good reason why American citizen wouldn't fall into the purview of WP United States, especially when they are actors on American television or in American movies. They're pure American soft power. Note that this is far from the only thing I do on Wikipedia btw. I created two pages today, on members of the current Tunisian government:Abderrazak Kilani andAbderrahman Ladgham. Obviously, if my work is undone, I will stop, but that seems utterly obscurantist to me.Zigzig20s (talk)22:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - any WikiProject with the scope proposed by these taggers is manageable only by a well-organized army of tens of thousands of Wikipedians. Since we at Wikipedia have limited resources, and the WikiProject even more limited, we should endeavor to limit the scope of projects so that they are manageable by the corps of editors on hand. WPUS certainly should not be seeking to expand its article base so much as recruit new editors and retain existing ones, to help with what's already here.Elizium23 (talk)22:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what the big problem is. It's a massive country, so a lot of articles fall into its purview if you compare it to Monaco. But I don't see what the fuss is about. Simply saying an article is relevant to this project does not obligate us to work on it right away. It does suggest we ought to pay attention to it whenever we have time, though.Zigzig20s (talk)22:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If your not sure in how all theassessment processes works perhaps this venture is not in your and our best interest until understanding of what to do when tagging is acquired.Moxy (talk)22:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't it better to at least tag the article as long as it's relevant to the project? The next person who has some free time can then assess it. Then the next person can improve the page. Someone else can add more references, etc. I thought this was supposed to be a collaborative effort and a work in progress?Zigzig20s (talk)23:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

At the rate the tag is being spammed its impossible to catch up unless we get an army of editors on it. SeeCategory:Unknown-importance United States articles.Moxy (talk)23:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If you take a look at the expansion boxes atWikipedia:WikiProject United States/Statistics you'll see we have assessed a little over 50% and a little of 61% of the importance. The importance will be easy because 99.999% are low but I have found a few mid's and a couple high's mixed in. Currently I am going through cleaning up a group at a time and adding Stub tags and then periodically I pull them in and do the assessment a couple hundred at a time. Frankly 75% of the ones that are left to be assessed are start class and just need to be marked as such and IMO if we guess wrong on a couple its ok, cause a lot of assessment between Stub and start class is subjective anyway. Its just a rough gauge to see where the article development lies.Kumioko (talk)23:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

WoWWikipedia:WikiProject United States/Statistics those stats are very very depressing - worst then I was thinking. See if I can make a memo on this see what we can do.Moxy (talk)23:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your right, they are depressing and you wanna know the worst part? They are far better now than they were a couple months or a couple years ago when I started. These stats are the culmination of more than 100 United States related projects, over 50% of which are Inactive, Semi-active or in a state of decline, and no not since they have been supported. Most, were already struggling or worse before they became supported. The state of WikiProject in general throughout WP is in a state of decline. They areall struggling, even Military history. Our best chance is for the projects to work together, to share resources and support rather than try and protect our articles from every other project trying tosteal them.Kumioko (talk)23:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again, Elizium23 first let me address the first complaint that the consensus was against me. That's not really true. Second, that this project is too big, several projects are bigger including Biography so by your logic these other projects should be split up too right? Third, there is nothing wrong with having multiple banners on an article showing that it falls into the scope of multiple projects. Nothing at all, unless of course a certain project claims ownership over that article in which casethat is a problem. Next, your example of pages requiring disambiguation is a good one however, there are also a lot of examples where problems are being mitigated. Article alerts for example, we are slowly reducing the number of articles that need to be assessed and having importance set. We have started to make some Books for some of the states and I created categories for each state to have some Books created (although they are not all filled in yet). ON the automation note, your right, more automation is needed. However, that's due to several factors outside the projects control. Many of the bot operators like Rich Farmbrough got blocked from automated editing or banned so that's having a negative affect on many projects including WPUS. The bot ops that still exist mostly don't want to help WPUS or me or both. So we are left with the manual method. Next, too many people have the attitude thatthere's no rush. I could do a lot of tasks faster but I'm not allowed too without getting AWB rights taken away or blocked or both. I also argue it doesn't take tens of thousands, it really only takes a few of active editors to make progress, look at Milhist, they have a lot of editors but the majority of the high profile stuff comes from the same core group of 10 - 15 people. In summary the scope of the project isn't the problem. The problem is finding willing editors to do the work...a problem plaguing all the projects and WP in general. Also I agree with ZigZag.Kumioko (talk)23:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this guy should be tagged with WP US on his talkpage:David Ayer. He just producedEnd of Watch, an American movie about Los Angeles. It doesn't get more American than that. But is this allowed? Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk)23:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't get too wrapped up in a fight over tagging. I would tag that one as WP California and keep rolling. As long as its tagged as a US related project (as applicable of course) then thats ok.Kumioko (talk)23:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I want to make sure something like THIS[1] never happens again! Undoing someone's work is absolutely counter-productive and horrible.Zigzig20s (talk)23:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see[2]. I would like us to reach a decision.Zigzig20s (talk)12:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No response at all on either page. I guess I should go on adding our WP tag on American talkpages?Zigzig20s (talk)17:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't. It is meaningless to categorize all of the American films under WikiProject United States. We have an American task force within WikiProject Film, which is sufficient.Erik (talk |contribs)19:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Only after you start cleaning up and improving the articles already tagged! That is the major goal of a project and the goal of the encyclopedia.Vegaswikian (talk)19:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you addressing me? An individual American film likeElysium is in the purview of WikiProject Film to improve, especially with its guidelines and main forum. WikiProject United States is not suitable. In contrast, a topic likeCinema of the United States can fall under WP:US as well as WP:FILM since it can be a collaboration for either WikiProject or both.Erik (talk |contribs)19:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

But why? It's an AMERICAN movie. Who decides? Also, why wouldn't an American citizen, for example an American actor, require the WP US tag?Zigzig20s (talk)22:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There really is no good reason why they can't although some have tried to indicate otherwise. That has been the problem with the WPUS project from the beginning is people not wanting it to tag anything.Kumioko (talk)22:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, WikiProjects like WP:FILM, WP:ACTOR, and WP:MILHIST deal with common content. Guidelines can be fairly universal, and knowledge can be pooled. I'm less familiar with WikiProjects for countries, but it seems like they would deal with the broad strokes (history, geography, culture) and go from top-down, where WP:FILM and WP:ACTOR are very narrow topics that come from bottom-up. Middle topics such as national cinema or major studios would be in the purview of top-down WikiProjects and bottom-up WikiProjects; both pools of knowledge would be relevant to be tapped. So is it really fair to say that a country WikiProject has any responsibility or consideration for an individual actor?Erik (talk |contribs)01:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me difficult to justify a kitchen-sink approach to tagging anything that has even a tangential relationship to the United States in a Wikiproject that is already so overburdened it has no hope of actively maintaining the current articles in its scope. Now, for a small country such as Ukraine or Papua New Guinea, perhaps a case can be made, especially on en-wiki which is unavoidably US/Anglo-centric, that everything can be tagged that has a relation to that country. But to tag every American person, place and thing is sheer folly. Find a worthwhile project maintaining the articles we already have. Find a backlog of maintenance tags that can be cleared. Copyedit some stuff. Why insist on tag-spamming nearly every article we've got here when you're not volunteering to take care of it, or recruit people who can?Elizium23 (talk)01:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I only agree with Kumokio. Especially as it's a work in progress and a collaborative effort. It's not "sheer folly" if you simply disagree. I do improve and even create American pages btw.Zigzig20s (talk)02:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, as a former member of the project, I kinda agree with the concerns, like most American animated series and films are mostly done by American animation work group of WikiProject Animation, except WPUS does not use any Bottom and no-importances, along with US comics which is done by United States comics work group of WikiProject Comics, since the Comics WikiProject does not use Project-Class and any importances for work groups.JJ98 (Talk)08:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see a good reason for American citizens. Except obscurantism. But with regards to animation, which I care nothing about, you assume most articles are American. Wikipedia is not an American-themed articles. We have articles here about every country in the world. We can't assume the norm is the US, which would explain why we wouldn't add WP US to American pages. We should just add the WP of the specific country (if any) that the page belongs to, be it the US or Swaziland.Zigzig20s (talk)13:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s requested an opinion on this at Talk:ANI. I have provided one, here:Wikipedia_talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Adding WP US to a talkpage. Note, I'm not an admin. No admin will enforce a decision on project banners, you're a self-sufficient group that has to come to your own decisions by consensus. Some of the repeated "but they're American" comments above are totally not getting the point as to how WikiProjects function. Cheers,Ma®©usBritish^{chat}23:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting out of hand. Obnoxious tagging such as[3], where WPUS insists on tagging portals it does not maintain, andWikiProject pages belonging toother WikiProjects, needs to stop. As has been said above, I can'tmake you stop, but this sort of behavior totally destroys any credibility or goodwill or any sort of working relationship you have with U.S. Roads or any other projects. --Rschen775408:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well you know Rschen7754 that statement is a double edged sword. You say the project cannot tag the portal and the project has gotten a lot of giref for tagging things like USRoads articles but the fact is if the article isn't tagged for the project then the project has no obligation to participate in the developement of that content. So, if the project isn't allowed to tag it, then your right we wouldn't be involved in its maintenance or development.Kumioko (talk)14:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that it's OK to add WP US as long as we classify the page. It can be low priority for us, or mid, or high. That should solve the problem.Zigzig20s (talk)14:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It is especially ok if you include the associated supported project such as|USTV=yes,|USfilm=Yes,|USmusic=yes or the appropriate state project if those are supported by WPUS.Kumioko (talk)14:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"So, if the project isn't allowed to tag it, then your right we wouldn't be involved in its maintenance or development." That's right. We're fine maintaining it ourselves, and don't want WPUS to be involved in this. Frankly, you've tagged way more articles than you can maintain at this point, anyway. --Rschen775416:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Rschen its really not up to you or USRoads if WPUS or its members want to assist in the maintenance and development of the USRoads portal and articles. Your statement is completely absurd and childish and wreaks of article ownership. I have tried to play nice and be the mediator and cater and compromise but the fact is it really doesn't matter if you want our help or if you want us to tag it. If we want too we can and you can't and shouldn't do shit. I'm tired of this childish us and them mentality that some projects like USRoads and its members have with other projects. If you don't want to work with others to build an encyclopedia then quite. This is a group effort not a USRoads and our little buddy's effort. You all have donea lot of great work and it would be great if we could all work together, but the more and more I see this nonsense form the same dozen editors about the same childish bullshit the less I care about being nice. Like it or don't I really don't care at this point but this project has just as much right to tag articles and content it feels are in its scope as it wants. If we decide that every article in the english WP is in its scope and want to tag it then fine and if you think its absurd then fine but its our right and you and the other whiners need to knock off this bullshit time wasting and lets get to building articles and collaborating.Kumioko (talk)17:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Which is the more common term in the United States?Anna Frodesiak (talk)06:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. I'm referring to the hunk of wood known at enwp asbutcher block. I'm trying to figure if it should be called "chopping block", and Google isn't providing conclusive information.

See:Talk:Butcher block#Page move: Butcher block --> Chopping block

Many thanks,Anna Frodesiak (talk)06:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Cutting board" and "chopping block" are more common in my non-expert experience, with "butcher block" referring to a specially-crafted, free-standing, single-use piece of furniture. A "chopping block" will usually sit atop a counter or small table, providing more heft than a cutting board but more versatile and much simpler to sanitize.Rorybowman (talk)14:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to let everyone know that we are still making significant headway in the assessment of the articles. As of October 9, 2012 we are down to 6,806 articles from 28,647. We have also reduced the articles needing importance from 73,309 to 22,115. All of the State projects have been assessed except for Texas and Washington and a few remaining for Ohio which should be done in the next day.Kumioko (talk)16:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

file:Apalachicola1.jpg has been nominated for deletion as unsourced --70.24.247.66 (talk)05:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

After hearing the term during the MSNBC analysis of the Biden-Ryan debate, I whipped up a quickLunch pail Democrat article. I reckon it'd be good to strike while the iron is hot, and put this up forWP:Did you know? on Monday or so; I posted it today and there's a 5-day limit for DYK, as well as other items to meet on the checklist.

If anyone is interested in helping out, this could be a really topical DYK given the usage in front of so many MSNBC viewers last night. Happy to share the banners and wiki-love for any other substantial contributors if this hits DYK and gets enough views to be awarded.

Thanks for any help or suggestions!MatthewVanitas (talk)18:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

AnRFC on whether this article is too long and contains too many references has been opened. You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Alben W. Barkley#RFC.Acdixon^{(talk·contribs)}13:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Some time ago I got theAmericana page to a reasonable state of consistency by weeding out all the examples, relevant and otherwise, to provide a reasonable guide to what the term means and encompasses. This is quite an important topic with around 500 hits a day.

Now, an editor is adding what I consider to be unbalanced and misleading material, making a case for including what may be completely wrong examples, certainly not sufficiently typical or iconic. An obsession with Lana Del Rey and David Lynch seems to underpin this. If there are going to be examples they need to be carefully balanced and cover a reasonable range of relevant subjects.

Help needed to sort this out.ProfDEH (talk)06:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in starting aPortal:American film orPortal:Film of the United States? The French havefr:Portail:Cinéma américain but the English Wikipedia doesn't have it yet.Thanks,WhisperToMe (talk)17:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"Film of the United States" would be better. "American film" has weird interpretations considering what is considered foreign and not at the Oscars. --70.24.247.66 (talk)04:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, so "Film of the United States" would be a good title :)WhisperToMe (talk)13:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Got an email about this talk....I can make the portal ...but dont know the topic at all...would need a list of content to fill the portal with (hopefully GA and FA articles). Also would need the colors that would be used.small list of portals I have done - pick a style!Moxy (talk)18:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking a break but wanted to comment. Thanks Moxy for the help as always. May I suggest using the same naming as is used forPortal:Television in the United States and call itPortal:Cinema in the United States orPortal:Film in the United States rather than of? I would also recommending linking the portal to the USFilm parameter inTemplate:WikiProject United States.Kumioko (talk)19:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi.this user - Valdezmcc has lately been adding unhelpful content to articles of the "[someone] is gay" variety. But more troubling is that he has gone to town - over the summer - on quite a number of locations in the US changing all sorts of demographic/census statistics. I think hiscontribs need to be gone through (or you could just decide to revert him all over, I guess). I didn't know what to do for the best and you seemed the obvious project to alert. --bodnotbod (talk)15:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• One Hundred Years of Evil

I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, —Cirt (talk)01:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

file:Card trick.jpg has been nominated for deletion, I assume because it's not believed that this is a work of the US military? --65.92.181.190 (talk)08:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Donkey Punch (novel)

I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, —Cirt (talk)18:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

File:360px-Henry-E-Erwin.png has been nominated for deletion --65.92.181.190 (talk)07:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Asian American#Selection nominations.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)23:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

List of U.S. states and territories by area is messed up, it lists multiple different values for the same measurement --65.92.181.190 (talk)13:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, guys! See:

• Blake, John. "Do you believe in a red state Jesus or a blue state Jesus?"CNN. Friday November 2, 2012.

Could be a good source to useWhisperToMe (talk)23:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear members of the United States WikiProject. This notification is sent from theArticles for Improvement team to let you know that the articleVigilante Vigilante: The Battle for Expression, which has been tagged as part of the project, has been selected to receive a community improvement. Users and members of the project that are willing to help, may do so in thearticle's entry on the Articles for Improvement page.

Regards. —05:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

New article, created, atFreedom for the Thought That We Hate. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, —Cirt (talk)08:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Top Hat, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thegood article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.GamerPro6416:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to join GLAM-Wiki US

Hello! This WikiProject aligns closely with the work of theGLAM-Wiki initiative (Galleries,Libraries,Archives, andMuseums), a global community of volunteers who assist cultural institutions with sharing resources with Wikimedia.GLAM-Wiki US is a new community initiative focused on organizing cultural collaborations within the United States. GLAM organizations are diverse and span numerous topics, from libraries and art museums to science centers and historic sites. We currently have a backlog of interested institutions- and we need your help! Are you interested in helping with current or future GLAM projects? Join→Online Volunteers We hope you'll join the growing GLAM-Wiki community in the US. Thank you! -Lori Phillips (Talk), US Cultural Partnerships Coordinator For more information visit→The GLAM:US portal orGLAM-Wiki on Outreach 24 March 2012

— Precedingunsigned comment added byLoriLee (talk •contribs) 24 March 2012

Please see discussion atTalk:United States presidential election, 2012#Article name, to change ", 2012" to "of 2012".Apteva (talk)22:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is just a general FYI for anyone who might include a photo of an historical plaque on any article. I just ran acrossCommons:Deletion requests, which would indicate there is a copyright issue in play. These are not my images, and I have no idea who took most of them. However, there are a couple of west Texas ones I vaguely remember seeing, and thinking they were obviously somebody just playing tourist and snapping the photo. However, it's something to think about if an editor has any kind of marker photos posted on Wikipedia somewhere.— Maile (talk)23:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I have nominatedList of U.S. states and territories by population forfeatured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets thefeatured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process arehere.Arsenikk^(talk)20:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Which U.S. cities require disambiguation by state? Example:Atlantic City orAtlantic City, New Jersey?

SeeWikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#RfC: US city_names.older ≠wiser01:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering if there should be a central article for the Jill Kelley mess? Right now it's spread out betweenJill Kelley,Paula Broadwell,David Patreus,John R. Allen. Also involved are the articles forCIA,Director of the Central Intelligence Agency,Joseph Dunford,ISAF. --70.24.250.26 (talk)12:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's atPetraeus sex scandal now --70.24.250.26 (talk)07:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

file:Sphere before Sept 11.jpg has been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.26 (talk)12:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(Note: The message below was left on the Texas project. I'm duplicating it here, because there might be more traffic over on this talk page.— Maile (talk)20:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

The article located athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medina,_TX is referring to two distinct places. The introduction is referring to the unincorporated town in Bandera County, and which is part of the San Antonio Metropolitan Statistical Area. However, much of the data provided in the article (including all data from the U.S. Census) is referring to the Census Designated Place (CDP) in Zapata County, Texas (in the Rio Grande Valley), which was created prior to the 2000 U.S. Census and used in that census.

Medina CDP was created by separating Zapata CDP into two parts (Zapata County has no incorporated towns or cities and all the significant settlements are CDPs); the western part kept the name Zapata CDP, while the eastern part took the name Medina CDP. The U.S. Census has no specific data for the unincorporated town in Bandera County; the best data source for population (2000 pop. of 515) appears to be "The Handbook of Texas Online":

Vivian Elizabeth Smyrl, "MEDINA, TX," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hlm52), accessed November 16, 2012. Published by the Texas State Historical Association.

Under Geography, the geographic co-ordinates are correct, but the area is incorrect, as it describes Medina CDP in Zapata County, TX. Therefore, the entire Demographics section (including population figures) needs to be revised with whatever information can be found from non-U.S. Census sources.

I've edited the Bandera County, TX article athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandera_County,_Texas to move Medina from the "Census Designated Place" category to the "Unincorporated Areas" category, at it was clearly the intent of the author to describe the unincorporated town in Bandera County and not the Census Designated Place in Zapata County. I've also added Lake Medina Shores to the "Census Designated Place" category in the Bandera County article, since it is a newly created CDP within Bandera County that first appears in the 2010 Census. Since the U.S. Census only has a 2010 population (and no 2000 population) for Lake Medina Shores CDP, I updated the population figures for Bandera City and Lakehills CDP as well to 2010 (those figures, being U.S. Census data, are both readily available from American Factfinder website athttp://factfinder2.census.gov/).

Those changes to the Bandera County, TX page were rather minor. I unfortunately lack the technical expertise to overhaul a whole article, but I wanted to alert the Texas WikiProject that the Medina, TX page needs major revision.

Sincerely,

Scott PusichCenter for Urban and Regional Planning ResearchUniversity of Texas at San Antonio— Precedingunsigned comment added by129.115.2.154 (talk)19:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and splitMedina, Bandera County, Texas out from the article, and moved the original page toMedina, Zapata County, Texas, since that was the original topic of the article. Thanks for pointing that out.TheCatalyst31^{Reaction•Creation}00:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this.— Maile (talk)00:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Asian American#Representative approval.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)06:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The court hose raid was to break out Reyes Tijerina out of jail for disturbing the peace. Reyes hid out in Henry Rivera's cabin while 4500 national guard could not find him. Henry is gradchild to J luis rivera of the TA land grant? Six months later an old class mate saw Reyes in a seven eleven in Santa Fe and call the cops. Reyes had returned from Spain with original paper work proving land ownership to the original settlers. After chaining off echo canyon amphitheater and having a party for two months, since it was there land. Disturbing the peace was all the could arrest Reyes on. Your story is not even close to the truth.— Precedingunsigned comment added by72.211.154.233 (talk)07:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• 
  English version
• 
  German version

Hey =)

Recently I uploaded these two graphics describing the political system of the United States. It would be nice if someone could review and may improve them or do some bugfix (in case I've depicted sth wrong). Thanks and greetings()13:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)PS: The main talk is atWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/American_politics (but I don't know if somebody recognizes it there ;)

You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Americans#Black and African Americans.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)01:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems France is far beyond our capabilities with infoboxes such as: "Infobox Paris street" link:Template:Infobox Paris street

Therefore I believe it is a good idea to develop a better infobox. Here is the page of a Department Store in Paris, France:Boulevard Haussmann and here is "The Pentagon".

Does anyone have the expertise to build up a template for Washington, DC?

Twillisjr (talk)17:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

{{Infobox Paris street}} has been a candidate for merger into the more widely used{{infobox street}} to remove all of the flashy styling. Such ornamentation doesn't quite have a place in an encyclopedia because it distracts from the content with flash and style instead of putting the information front and center. I would oppose any efforts to transition other infobox templates to use unneeded ornamentation, and I would seriously convert the Paris street box to look like the standard street box.Imzadi 1979 →18:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle -You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. LocationSeattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event Aneditathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registrationhttp://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or useon-wiki regsistration. Yours,Maximilianklein (talk)03:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi folks just wanted to let you know that the articleManufacturing in the United States is a stub. I can't believe such as important article has been left out on Wikipedia considering that the United States is one of the largest manufacturers in the world. SeeManufacturing in Australia,Manufacturing in Mexico, andManufacturing in the United Kingdom as samples. Let's get this toWikipedia:Good article status. —Ahnoneemoos (talk)05:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Could some experienced editors please take a look and see if thePetraeus scandal article is anywhere nearWP:FAC status yet. I have been trying to bring it up to speed. Thank you,IZAK (talk)11:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone else concern with the size ofthis template? I dont think we need to link everything do we? The history section is so bloated its confusing.Moxy (talk)19:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Erk! I agree. I've responded atTemplate talk:United States topics#Template size. --Orlady (talk)21:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It needs to be reduced to the main points, then each of the sections becomes subtemplates --70.24.247.127 (talk)07:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I'm trying to reboot the inactiveWP:WikiProject_Pennsylvania_State_University and one of the first things I wanted to do was try to harmonize banners, userboxes, etc. and start trying to recruit membership to help out. I'm a little confused on how WikiProject United States project banners work — the fact that there even exists a WikiProject for Penn State is difficult to ascertain without poking around and the importance class given in terms of WP US is misleading in reference to its importance to Penn State's presence on wikipedia. Is it okay to develop a separate Wikiproject Penn State banner that I could display prominently on talk pages? I'm not trying to disassociate the (now-semi-active) project from WikiProject United States — just trying to make sense of the situation. I also find it quite confusing that we're not further nested within WikiProject Pennsylvania — does that operate independently from this WikiProject? Thanks for the help in advance! --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs)21:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to set importances for PennState in particular use the parameter "|PSU-importance=" which sets the importance for WPPSU. --70.24.247.127 (talk)05:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

When I pulled the project under this ones scope it was pretty much inactive and WIkiProject Pennsylvania didn't want to add it under its scope at that time. If you look atTalk:Pennsylvania State University in edit mode you can see how the template works. Here is an example from that page of how to set the class and importance:

{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=Low|PSU=yes|PSU-importance=Top}}

Just my opinion here but its fine with me if the project breaks away on its own again. I'm the one that was maintaining all these projects and I'm not editing much anymore and after a few years of getting beat down I gave up trying to make this project work. I doubt anyone else is going to do the maintenance work to keep this projects going. Let me know if you want some instructions on what to do.Kumioko (talk)13:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion ongoing atFranklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness over the weight that should be given to a 2003 journal article arguing that FDR had Guillain-Barre Syndrome rather than polio. The opinions of other editors would be welcome. --Khazar2 (talk)00:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The primary meaning of "yuba" is under discussion, since this is a place in the US, I thought I'd let you know. SeeTalk:Tofu skin --70.24.247.127 (talk)00:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Asian American#Cambodian American infobox representative run-off.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)06:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I createdUnited States at the Summer Universiade, but other articles of this type have yet to be written. Does anyone want to help? --Kasper2006 (talk)16:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is this (United States at the Summer Universiade) rated as "mid" importance to WPUSA? This seems very odd, since it adds very little to the understanding of the topic "United States" --70.24.247.127 (talk)06:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also agree, I don't believe that Unversaide has the same level of notability as the Olympics, and the article should be downgraded to low or below.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk)21:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

NOTE,Category:American track and field athletes was renamed toCategory:American athletes without discussion earlier this month.[4], I don't see a discussion on it. This seems to be anWP:ENGVAR violation as well --65.92.180.225 (talk)23:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for aWP:REFUND on it --65.92.180.225 (talk)23:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The category and talk page have been undeleted. But at the moment, it's still empty, due to being emptied out of process --65.92.180.225 (talk)02:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, some of the issues surrounding the American category are now being hashed out at the CFD for the Canadian category, seethis CFD discussion --65.92.180.225 (talk)23:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI, many American athletics categories are up for renaming away for the ambiguous "athlete" forms to "track and field athletes" and "athletes (track and field)". SeeWP:CFDALL --70.24.248.246 (talk)05:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

All's in the title :Wikipedia:Featured article review/Detroit/archive1. Thanks for your attention,Esprit Fugace (talk)20:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Tobaggan slide at cornell.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion --70.24.248.246 (talk)06:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello all. The following is a neutrally worded courtesy message:

Portal:Massachusetts has been nominated for Featured Portal status. The nomination page isWikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Massachusetts.

As a WikiProject with a related sphere of interest, you are being notified of the proceedings, and invited to participate in them.

Yours,SvenManguardWha?17:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

With Martin Luther King Day around the corner in the US, I'm making a push to bringhis article up to Good Article status. Anybody who would like to help out is welcome. --Khazar2 (talk)13:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

file:USSCumberland1842.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion --76.65.128.43 (talk)06:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

United States v. Lara is a Featured Article candidate. Anyone wishing to comment may do so at thecomment page.GregJackP Boomer!21:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

John Paul Jones usage is up for discussion, seetalk:John Paul Jones where it is suggested that the Led Zeppelin member is primary over the sailor --76.65.128.43 (talk)05:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion if theEnvironmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split correctly from theDeepwater Horizon oil spill and if it should be merged back there. Relevant sections for this discussion arethis andthis. Your comments are appreciated. Thank you.Beagel (talk)21:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Janice Rule appeared in the 3rd episode of the TV series The Streets of San Francisco, 1972, "The First Day of Forever".— Precedingunsigned comment added by2001:558:6045:34:65DA:EDE1:7FD9:C539 (talk)03:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The articleBenjamin Pierce (1841–1853) has been vandalized three times today. I have reverted, but am requesting admin action against the AnonIP.Boneyard90 (talk)15:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You'll probably be better off taking it to ANI or finding a freindly admin thats active at the moment. This project is pretty dead these days so I doubt anyone is going to take much action quick enough.Kumioko (talk)16:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I haverequested temporary semi-protection for the article in question. Hope it helps.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk)20:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Balloonist photos up for speedy deletionFile:AlanRHawley-AugustPost-1910Bennett-takeoff.jpg ,File:AlanRHawley-AugustPost-1910Bennett.jpg ,File:AlanRHawley.jpg ;Alan R. Hawley photos. --76.65.128.43 (talk)07:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Ron East.JPG has been nominated for speedy deletion --76.65.128.43 (talk)07:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

image:WallaWallaSymphony1925.jpg has been nominated for deletion --76.65.128.43 (talk)09:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Our local Wayne County (Utah) Historical Society group meets once per week. A local historian provides a lecture related to theme, then we share our knowledge and resources related to the topic. For 2013, we've decided to specifically cross-check our activities with Wikipedia and identify areas of need. I'm guessing many of these will be edits to existing pages focusing on the American West and specifically southern Utah. I created a page onAlmon Harris Thompson, a member of theJohn Wesley Powell expeditions to kick off the project.

If anyone is already specializing in this area of American West history, I'd like to make a connection and find out if there are already some areas of need.

Eduscapes (talk)03:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It's great to see an organization becoming interested in adding positively to the project. May I suggest that your group also look towardsWikipedia:GLAM andWikipedia:WikiProject Utah for additional assistance. If there is anything we can assist your group with, there are many active editors who watch this talk page, who maybe able to offer advise.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk)11:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• (Discuss) –Whig Party (United States) →Whig PartyWhig PartyKauffner (talk)00:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

File:USS Kentucky (BBG-1) concept artwork.jpg has been nominated for deletion --76.65.128.43 (talk)03:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

seeWikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 January 18 where several WWII-era US military images are up for deletion --76.65.128.43 (talk)04:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"Nevada Test and Training Range" is up for discussion at two different locations at once, seetalk:Nevada Test and Training Range andtalk:98th_Range_Wing where it is disputed whether the unit or the area should have the name, and whether there should be two articles or one. --76.65.128.43 (talk)23:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

{{PA-geo-stub}} has been nominated for deletion. --76.65.128.43 (talk)01:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference betweenCategory:American publishers (people) and the sub-categoryCategory:American publishers? Can they be combined?Senator2029 ➔leave me a message01:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There are issues concerning the current setup for automated archival ofTalk:2012 Benghazi attack, please see the talk page for the discussion --76.65.128.43 (talk)05:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Americans#Country names in infobox.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)16:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Dixon (USCG).RightCowLeftCoast (talk)19:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Korean War#American casualties number.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)04:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A discussion has been started about making WikiProject Kansas a standalone project separate from WikiProject United States. Please join the discussion atthe WikiProject Kansas talk page.Kumioko (talk)08:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A discussion has been started about making WikiProject SUNY either a standalone project or a supported project ofWikiProject New York separate from WikiProject United States. Please join the discussion atWikipedia talk:WikiProject New York.Kumioko (talk)08:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I mergedSeal of Virginia intoFlag of Virginia to make the newSeal of Virginia. I also mergedFlag of New Jersey intoSeal of New Jersey to make the newCoat of arms of New Jersey.

In both cases the Flag was just the Seal/CoA on a solid-color background. In both articles the vast majority of content was within the scope one article was within the scope of the other (with the exception of the "Reverse" section of the Seal of Virginia article). The dived effort severely deteriorated the quality of both Jersey articles and the Virginia flag article, and left them stubs. The new articles are far more complete. I just noticed that allot of other US flag/Seal articles seem to have the same problem, so I guess Virginia and New Jersey can serve as test cases. In slimmer cases to the Virginia and New Jersey, should we merge the articles, and if not how should we handle this problem of overlap and dived efforts across two articles?

Please respond atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology#US Flags and Seals.Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk)23:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The usage of the name "Hell's Kitchen (U.S.)" is under discussion, seetalk:Hell's Kitchen (U.S.) --76.65.128.43 (talk)01:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Please note thatGeorge M. Dallas, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become aToday's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in theTAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to theTAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia'sMain Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk)11:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team)

Could WP:United States assessVilyam Genrikhovich Fisher for A class? It would be appreciated.Adamdaley (talk)06:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done— Maile (talk)12:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Slave Ranch— Maile (talk)15:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My concerns about this article have been rectified, and I am withdrawing the AFD nomination. We need an uninvolved editor to please close it. Thanks.— Maile (talk)23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done - NAC,GregJackP Boomer!01:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much.— Maile (talk)01:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Several US military badges are up for deletion atWP:PUF --65.92.180.137 (talk)02:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Historical Society of Washington, D.C., has announced aWikipedia Edit-a-Thon for March 23, 2013.

Oh really? 'Cause as a member ofWikiProject District of Columbia, I've heard nothing. The Edit-a-Thon is being hosted by the Historical Society of Washington, D.C.; the Washingtoniana and Black Studies Divisions of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Public Library; and George Washington University. The event includes a private, behind-the-scenes tour with the Director of the Kiplinger Resarch Library at HSDC, a tour of the HSDC exhibitWindow to Washington: The Kiplinger Collection at HSW, lunch, and the edit-a-thon itself. Location is the HSDC headquarters in the Carnegie Library building, 801 K Street NW (K Street entrance).

So far, I see no announcement on the WikiProject District of Columbia talk page, and there's been no BOT announcement to project member pages, either. This is aHUGE event, because the HSDC and its Kiplinger Research Library (with archives newly opened to the public!) contain vast quantities of non-copyrighted images, and a wealth of sources about D.C. history. Understanding how to access the archives, how to use them, and the sometimes difficult-to-navigate copyright issues around photographs and other images is critical to anyone interested in helping to work on WikiProject District of Columbia.

Is there some way the WikiProject United States can get the word out? It has about past Edit-a-Thons. (BTW, I heard because HSDC sent me an email, as I'm a member.) -Tim1965 (talk)00:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Tim, you might want to look intoMediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details for having this posted on the watch lists of editors in that general area. I've noticed my watch list displays Edit a Thons for my area. I've always wondered how they know, because I don't say where I am. But they sure do know, and can probably post this for you.— Maile (talk)00:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! I had no clue this existed. -Tim1965 (talk)00:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, Tim. I seeWikipedia:Geonotice already has this set up as approved. And it seems there is another one Feb 15 at the Smithsonian.— Maile (talk)00:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Several WWI aviator images are up for deletion atWikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_January_31 --65.92.180.137 (talk)05:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm posting this here in hopes this project has enough members to keep a long-term eye onDavy Crockett. I'm not sure at this point it would qualify for semi-protection, but I sure wish it did. I've recently done a number of edits on the article, and it could stand to be improved even more. But what struck me about the article is how much total junk was in the article, sitting there for years unchallenged, a large chunk of which has been dropped in years ago by an IP editor. The article has been in bad shape for a long time. Some of it has appeared to me to be deliberate hanky-panky. And some of it looks to be good faith edits by persons with limited knowledge of the subject matter. The legend aside, this man was a United States Congressman. It needs watchful eyes to make sure it doesn't disintegrate again. And in an ideal world, such a public figure would merit some dignity in a Wikipedia article. I think it might take some re-working to raise it up to the level of FA or GA, but I'm always hopeful.— Maile (talk)16:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have been involved in a nice conversation atTalk:Americans#nationality and ethnicity?. Would love to get a few others opinions of the topic as its hard to come to a conclusion with just 2 of us. Basically we are talking about the lead statement"Americans do not equate their nationality with ethnicity, but with citizenship".Moxy (talk)18:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this falls underWP:CANVASS, what this was not was not transparant. A notice at the linked discussion should have occured prior to the posting of this request for additional opinions. Therefore this can be seen as falling understealth canvassing.

Having followedWP:CANVASS#Appropriate notication myself numerous times,Template:Please see is suggested to be used.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk)20:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what your problem is there no canvasing (one notification that does not take a side) and note on talk page - just informs the main project of a problem - do you not want more involved? Do you not think more involved would help move us forward. Pls take the time to read the links (in full) you provided before assuming bad faith on an editor with a clean record and much more experience then yourself. We are just talking and more need to get involved do you not agree? Are you trying to deter more from getting involved by diverting the topic of this post (see how bad faith works).Moxy (talk)03:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith, I am sure that Moxy has the best interest of the article in mind, as I hope Moxy believes so do I, even if we both disagree. However, per CANVASS part of it is that it is suppose to be open. Prior to engaging in appropriate notification, one must be open that one is doing so, thus why I stated that it would have been appropriate to make a notification in the discussion that canvassing for additional opinions will occur.

By not doing so, it was not transparent, and thus isnot appropriate.

Furthermore, the proper course, would be to leave a neutral message, at each of the respective wikiprojects involved in the article, as not to appear to be favoring one wikiproject over another. Additionally, the reason why the please see template is suggested is that, as can be seen above, it only leaves a new section, and a link to the discussion. Those who choose to follow the wikilink can gain an understanding of the discussion by reading what others have previously posted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk)06:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation of what is appropriate and open is bewildering to me. If anyone here actually is interested in the topic raised by this post over this bureaucratic public scolding in am receiving pls join us atTalk:Americans#nationality and ethnicity?. Last post in this section for me.Moxy (talk)06:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the canvasing issue. Moxy posted a neutral comment inviting others to join in.GregJackP Boomer!16:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - one of the purpose of WikiProject talk pages is to serve as a noticeboard for precisely that kind of notice. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.}10:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I never said that this choice of WikiProject talk pages was inappropriate, or that the posting was in appropriate; I stated that the process was what was inappropriate. That a notice on the discussion page should have occurred first, for transparency for those who were already involved in the discussion. If I had not already been monitoring this talk page (which I do as a member of WPAA), I would have never known of this notice.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk)14:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The notice is to tell people of the discussion, not vice versa. If you already knew of the discussion, there's no reason for you to need to know of the notice. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.}15:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Transparency.

Others have been accussed of inappropriate canvassing, at other projects (such as WikiProject Conservatism) for not posting a notice prior to making appropriate notification canvassing.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk)18:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey folks,

Please see the discussion atTalk:List of nature centers in the United States#External links, which concerns the use of external links to identify every entry in list articles. Opinions and suggestions are welcome over there. Thanks.Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk)14:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have requestedAudie Murphy Peer Review with the eventual goal of nominating the article for FA.— Maile (talk)21:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to request input from military interested editors who are experienced enough at WP to help improve the article. If you click the above link, you will find the peer review by MarcusBritish has specified areas in which the military aspect of Audie Murphy's career can be enlarged and wikified. Medal of Honor experts would be helpful. Please assist if you are able.— Maile (talk)15:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion atWP:RSN#Japanese American Veterans Association.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)07:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Seetalk:Tomato purée where a WP:ENGVAR issues has popped up. --65.92.180.137 (talk)01:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Redirect-Class United States articles of NA-importance, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you.Thryduulf (talk)14:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

During some last months there has been an active development of cleaning up theDeepwater Horizon oil spill article by splitting off large sections into separate articles. A Deepwater Horizon series were created (all the articles accessible byTemplate:Deepwater Horizon oil spill series. You are invited to assist by cleaning-up and copy-editing these articles. There are also ongoing discussion concerning additional split-offs. You could see split-off templates at the article's page and find discussions at the talk page. Your input would be useful for building consensus on these issues. Thank you.Beagel (talk)23:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi...I am a member of a few of the subprojects here. I do a lot with the Editor Retention Project, and we have started an editor recognition program. I am just gonna post the ad, and you all can do what you would like with it. Hope some of you would contribute a nomination or two!Gtwfan52 (talk)05:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you know an under-appreciated editor that should be recognized?

Hi! The folks over atWER-Editor of the Week are looking for some help! We need nominations for"Editor of the Week". The ideal candidate is an editor who works hard, possibly doing behind-the-scenes kind of stuff, that just doesn't get recognized as much as they should. Although we have a preference for newer editors, any under recognized editor is eligible. So please make a note of this, and give us your nomination at:WP:EotW/N.Gtwfan52 (talk)05:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The pageTalk:United States of the Ionian Islands is apparently of interest to WikiProject United States, and is even given a B rating on this project's scale! But of course it's that other United States, the one in 19th century Greece ...

I'd fix it myself, except that I'm new to WP and don't know how. The categories onTalk:United States of the Ionian Islands also include some USA ones - maybe that's part of the problem?SteepLearningCurve (talk)15:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the WPUS banner. It was put on that page by a bot. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.— Maile (talk)16:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So some state WikiProjects have their own tags, and others appear as subordinate projects under the main WPUSA tag. I assume that's based on activity or something, and that's fine. But why is it that when I tag something for WikiProject Idaho, it's automatically ranked low importance when that's not the case for, say, WikiProject Vermont? I'm not trying to be a partisan here. I know many Idaho topics won't have greater importance for WPUSA as a whole, but the auto-ranking seems very dismissive. What's up? --BDD (talk)21:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Check the talk page edit history on whichever articles you're talking about. Find out the editor who is doing that, because I think it's an individual thing. A lot of project articles out there have no importance ratings, because there's nobody at the project who knows to do it.— Maile (talk)21:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not an editor; it's built in. Check your sandbox—put{{WikiProject Idaho}} and{{WikiProject Vermont}} and check the preview. --BDD (talk)21:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Since that wasn't a protected template, I just removed the "low" and left the importance blank. That should resolve this for Idaho.— Maile (talk)22:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. I checked your diff, and it looks like it was an easy fix. I'll do the same with any similar state templates; I believe I've seen this happen with others. --BDD (talk)22:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If this was somehow policy, or for whatever reason needs to be reverted in the future, I've made this change for Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Utah. --BDD (talk)22:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko originally put that in Idaho. Is that what the history of the others shows? It may not have been WPUS policy as much as it was a decision he made at the time. He would have to answer for himself, but he's taking a wiki break for a while and only editing under an IP address when he is editing. As much as I understand, he stopping being active on this project a while back.— Maile (talk)21:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As an article of interest in this wikiproject, opinions from project participants are solicited for thisRfC. Thanks.JakeInJoisey (talk)18:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment atTalk:Bill_Clinton#WP:OVERLINK_.3F or just step in and edit as you see fit.--TonyTheTiger(T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)06:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing,John Allen Muhammad, has been proposed for amerge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by goinghere, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)14:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

There has been a rather lengthy discussion atTalk:United States with implications for the broad collection of articles encompassed by the topic of the United States. The issue centers on whether the article should treat the concept United States as the sovereign entity (and thus encompass all territories and possessions) or the geographical concept (and thus primarily the 50 states and D.C.). Both meanings, along with a narrower U.S. Government meaning, have been discussed in the sources, and have been used interchangeably in numerous primary and secondary sources.

I hope to bring the discussion here because I believe it has implications for the entire range of United States articles. At one point, an editor suggested compromise, and referred to the usage in the articleTerritories of the United States as counseling deference to one side. However, upon review, I have noted that two of the involved parties have been active on that article for a very long time, and thus I argue that the problem has extended to other articles, and may represent a disconnect in article structure that should be addressed.

My general proposal is this:

• United States should ultimately be restructured to refer, at a high level, to the ambiguity in terms. Below that level, it should be sectioned into individual discussions of the country as a geographical entity (i.e., the 50 states and D.C.), a sovereign entity (all lands, territories, and possessions), and as a governmental entity. As sourcing for this general structure, I suggest we look to two respected legal encyclopedias for guidance,American Jurisprudence andCorpus Juris Secundum (77 Am. Jur. 2d United States § 1; 91 C.J.S. United States § 1).
• Sub-articles should be restructured to reflect this overall concept of ambiguity where necessary (i.e.,Territories of the United States), or make note of the definition used where appropriate (while avoiding unnecessary self-references).

I apologize for the length of this post, and in advance for the storm of posts this discussion may trigger, but as a previously-uninvolved editor who was invited to participate in a dispute resolution process onTalk:United States, I believe a clear consensus (I am unsure that one does not yet exist there) can only be established by the involvement of more experienced editors who have a stake in the outcome of this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/19:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I believe this is an important discussion, and I believe you are correct to have a discussion here. I would like to make some suggestions:

• Put the proposal on a subpage. It you want it at WPUS, then make the discussionWikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America, or whatever you want to call it, wherever you want to make it a sub page.
• After you have explained your proposal on the target page, then below that have two sub sections, one for "Support" and one for "Oppose".
• The proposal needs to be more widely advertised than just here. Put it onTemplate:Centralized discussion. . You can also go toMediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details and request it be put at the top of editor watchlists. But I would definitely list it at Centralized discussion.
• Because the discussion has happened both here and at theUnited States talk page, once you have it set up on a sub page, then also put a notice here and on the US talk page where to find the proposal.

— Maile (talk)21:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal up.Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America. Thanks for the suggestion, Maile! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

file:Fort howard.jpg is up for deletion --65.92.180.137 (talk)06:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I am on the right track to do a prooject in North Carolina thru A&T unversity. I leave in Edgecombe County and like to have 10 chicken houses with a dream of a chicken farm. Edgecombe is very low in jobs and I see an opportunity. My contact is @ rayhus@aol.com at anytime or mail by;Dennis R. Hussey Drawer Q Pinetops,NC 27864. cell 252-903-1454

Thanks in advance— Precedingunsigned comment added by184.4.98.140 (talk)12:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 Southern California shootings has been requested to be renamed, seetalk:2013 Southern California shootings --65.92.180.137 (talk)23:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The Peer Review process has been completed onAudie Murphy. It is now aGA nomination.— Maile (talk)16:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This made it to GA. Thanks to those who helped.— Maile (talk)19:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case#Blanking of content verified by multiple reliable sources.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)18:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Jose Antonio Vargas#Blanking of content verified by multiple reliable sources.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)18:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Naval Auxiliary Air Station Charlestown circa 1945.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion --65.92.180.137 (talk)06:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

File:JesseVenturaGovernorsPortrait.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.92.180.137 (talk)06:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity.BigJim707 (talk)15:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

file:AHEPA Archives Supreme President George Demeter 1923-24.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.92.180.137 (talk)05:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Fort Hood shooting#Request for Comment.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)20:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please weigh in.--Amadscientist (talk)21:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This category is being discussed atWikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_10#Category:United_States_Coast_Guard_weapons.DexDor (talk)06:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a number of templates such as{{EstcatUSstate}} and its relatives that automatically put their articles in United States categories regardless of date - see egCategory:1726 establishments in Connecticut. It seems that the generally-accepted usage for pre-1776 categories is the Thirteen Colonies, regardless of the exact niceties in the use of that term - could someone perhaps adapt the templates to accommodate that distinction?Le Deluge (talk)19:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Greetings!User:PeteForsyth andUser:JimHarperDC have organized aLegislative Data Workshop to find out how we can use data about legislation passed by the U.S. Congress to enhance Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. We've set up a provisional WikiProject atWikipedia:WikiProject United States Federal Government Legislative Data (WP:LEGDATA), and would love to get others involved. Please join us there, share your thoughts, and we can help you find a task if you'd like to help!WWB (talk)18:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

file:CaptainLarryChambers.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion --65.92.180.137 (talk)00:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a local in the area of the Mohican-Memorial State Forest. I saw that the page was underdeveloped and decided to work on it. here are the changes I made:Mohican-Memorial State Forest is located in southern Ashland County, Ohio. Mohican-Memorial State Forest is used for forest research, demonstrations of good forest management, tree seed for nurseries, recreation, and protection of soil and watershed. There is great scenery in the forest which makes a great experience while hiking, biking, and canoeing in the Mohican-Memorial State Forest.Forest DescriptionMohican-Memorial State Forest comprises of 4,525 acres and is carefully wached over by the Ohio Division of Natural Resources. Mohican-Memorial State Forest is at the heart of “Mohican Country”, the third most popular tourist destination in the state (1). The ODNR Division of Forestry manages the forest under a multiple-use basis. Recreation, forest protection (insect, disease, regeneration and fire), wildlife management, law enforcement, soil and watershed management, and forest management for timber and non-timber are practiced (1). The Clear Fork River and Pine Run are the major streams that run through Mohican-Memorial State Forest. These streams then merge together to make the Mohican River which is one of the biggest rivers in the area. The forest has many types of trees like oak, hickory, cherry, white and red pine, maple, aspen, and many other types of trees. Many species of animals thrive in Mohican-Memorial State Forest. Deer and turkey have been successfully reintroduced. Grouse and pheasant are occasionally seen. Fox, coyote, raccoon, skunk, rabbit, red and gray squirrel, amphibians, black snakes, owl, heron, and bald eagle are among the many species reported (1).History of the State ForestLand acquisition started in 1928 and has continued with the accumulation of over 4,500 acres. Some of the land acquired was land that was deforested for agricultural use. The land had become eroded and unfertile, and it was eventually abandoned. When the land was acquired, it was a goal to reforest the land as quick as possible. Much work was done by the Civilian Conservation Corps who planted many trees during the 1930s. Their camp was located in the in the State Forest (2). They replanted native hardwood trees like oak, hickory, beech, maple, and other trees like gum, aspen, ash, cherry, and walnut trees. Native pine trees are also found in the forest too.Also, found within Mohican-Memorial State Forest is the Memorial Forest Shrine Park. This is 270 acre part of the Forest dedicated to 20,000 Ohio men and women who lost their lives in battle. In the Memorial Forest Shrine Park there is a chapel like shrine that has the 20,000 names of the Ohio soldiers who lost their lives in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Persian Gulf War (3).

References1. Ohio Division of Natural Resources. (date unknown). “Mohican-Memorial State Forest, Five Year Management Plan Addressing Recommendations of Mohican-Memorial Ad Hoc Advisory Council” Retrieved fromhttp://ohiodnr.com/Portals/18/forests/pdf/Moplan.pdf 2.Ohio Division of Natural Resources. (date unknown). “Mohican-Memorial State Forest” Retrieved fromhttp://ohiodnr.com/DNN/forests/mohican/tabid/5160/Default.aspx3.Ohio Division of Natural Resources. (date unknown). “Memorial Forest Shrine Provides a Peaceful, Woodland Setting for Remembering Ohioans Lost to Battle” Retrieved fromhttp://ohiodnr.com/oct01/1025shrine/tabid/12642/Default.aspx— Precedingunsigned comment added byJwise13 (talk •contribs)19:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Folks, we had an e-mail at OTRS following up on a reply posted atTalk:List of counties in Texas#Original Counties. If anyone has time, would you please take a look and see if a further response is needed? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk)19:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia talk:Meetup/LA#San_Diego Comic Con.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)01:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Republic of China–United States relations has been requested to be renamed, seetalk:Republic of China–United States relations --65.92.180.137 (talk)03:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

IsPitkin, Louisiana a CDP? If so, would somebody mind adding the CDP census info?ThanksWhisperToMe (talk)07:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just found that it's a CDP - It needs census infoWhisperToMe (talk)19:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I haveadded some brief demographic information, but I am sure more can be added in the future.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk)03:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

file:Flag of Suffolk County, New York.png has been nominated for deletion --65.92.180.137 (talk)02:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

file:Harrisburg pa flag.png has been nominated for deletion --65.92.180.137 (talk)03:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to invite you to help organize the 2013 Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest in the United States. Last year, over 22,000 files were uploaded (90% by new Wikipedia users) to illustrate articles about historic places in the United States. We need all the help we can get, so if you're interested in organizing the contest, please add your usernameat this page. If you have any questions, please don't post them here - place a new message onUser talk:Mono. Thanks,Mono15:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

About the Bill of Rights. Thanks.[5]USchick (talk)22:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You are proposing that the folks here wade through a huge discussion so if I may offer a recommendation. Could you present a short summary of what it is they may be wading into.KumiokoCleanStart (talk)01:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

file:Skylab 2 crew walkout.png has been nominated for deletion --65.92.180.137 (talk)01:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

file:HuntingtonBeach-1904.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.92.180.137 (talk)01:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

file:Scott Vincent.png has been nominated for deeltion --65.92.180.137 (talk)01:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

File:William R. Roesch.jpg has been nominated for deletion atWikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_March_27 --65.92.180.137 (talk)01:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, there's a proposal to create a new US wikiproject, seeWikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/United States House of Representatives elections --65.92.180.137 (talk)23:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

file:1st Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF) Navy Unit Commendation Citation 2004-2005 Iraq War.pdf has been nominated for deletion --65.92.180.137 (talk)06:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

US Army'sEngineer Branch (United States) has been nominated for deletion. Apparently this article is about the sapper corps, and not the US Army Corps of Engineers. --65.92.180.137 (talk)02:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. However, "sapper" is a gross simplification and mischaracterization of role of theEngineer Branch (United States) which is a uniformed branch of the U.S. Army likeInfantry,Armor,Field Artillery,Signal Corps,Transportation,Medical Corps, etc.
See also:Category:Branches of the United States Army for both current and historic branches.
SBaker43 (talk)04:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

sapper (generic) is used as a synonym and slang term meaning "combat engineer", it derived from the older term related to fortifications, (under)mining, and demolition. --65.92.180.137 (talk)04:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my comment about "sapper" being a mischaracterization of the Engineer Branch of the US Army. TheSapper Tab is a skill tab; one doesn't have to be an engineer to be authorized to wear the tab; being in the Engineer Branch doesn't make one a sapper or authorize one to wear the Sapper Tab.
"fortifications, (under)mining, and demolition" is a significant understatement of the responsibilities and roles of the Engineer Branch. Neither the Civil War usage nor the British usage is applicable to the Engineer branch, except historically.
SBaker43 (talk)07:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please seeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engineer Branch (United States).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk)17:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

File:P. F. Changs.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.92.180.137 (talk)22:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

file:Tom thumb peter coopers iron horse 6092027.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.92.180.137 (talk)23:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

file:Guibourd2855.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.92.180.137 (talk)23:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn'tHomosexuality in the Batman franchise be under this Wikiproject's scope? If WPUSA covers everything made in the USA, and Batman is a US comic book property (both creators are American and DC Comics is American), plus the criticism came from US sources, surely this would be under this project's guidelines.

Discussion originally atUser talk:Euchrid#Scope of WikiProject USA

While the article is under the DC Comics work group and the Batman work group, AFAIK those work groups are not under the hierarchy of WPUSA. It would be fine if it was under a sub-project within the WPUSA hierarchy.WhisperToMe (talk)23:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a regular at this project, but I agree with Euchrid that Batman, and subcategories of batman, are not within the scope of this project. That would be an explosive expansion of the topic. I don't think it includes everything with a tangential U.S. connection. The one you're talking about easily fits within the comics project and theLGBT projects though.Shadowjams (talk)08:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I would think at least the core articles of the Batman franchise are within the scope of the project. The character has had an indelible mark on US culture. Tangential and nuanced topics, such as the one under discussion, or articles on other aspects of the character's career & personality, or articles on very specific comic book issues or storylines, might be more appropriately covered by specialty projects.Boneyard90 (talk)09:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

But the only nexus between the two remains "created in" the U.S., or as you say "had an indelible mark." I think you're overstating the relevance of Batman on pop culture (movies lend some recentism to it... but people forget quickly), but even if it is incredibly relevanton pop culture, the same could be said for James Bond, and the movies, many of which were made by U.S. studios. I hardly think that is a sufficient nexus for this project though. Otherwise it opens the floodgates to pretty much everything ever created in the U.S. (and by your definition, that influences it). It would become a parlor game guessing what fraction of Wikipedia didn't meet either definition.Shadowjams (talk)09:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There had been multiple movies: the 1960s Adam Wests, the 1980s and 1990s series, and then the latest ones. There will probably be more in the future, too. The LGBT issues, as seen from the article, have continually recurred in the Batman franchise. Usually I tag anything that is made in the US, as WikiProject USAor a regional project (depending on the state/city/etc) - Often films have multiple countries of production so I just tag all of them (i.e. a coproduction between the US and South Africa would be tagged both)WhisperToMe (talk)07:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah, ok. Tag it with multiple projects sure. I, and I assume Euchrid, are opposing what I think is an expansive scope of "country" projects. I think the "produced in" or "impact on" test of inclusion isway too inclusive, and in practice dilutes the work within individual projects. If you want to tag things categories are the way to go (tellingly, you'll probably find a lot of resistance to this kind of tagging in the category project), but projects are about working on a set of articles that share a common theme. Hopefully people will have knowledge that applies to those, and experience, so there's some efficiency. That's hardly the case when the link between the two is tenuous. Why would someone interested in theHistory of Oregon be more likely to know about Batman than any other random wikipedian? Projects have a practical purpose. Arguing about definitions is missing the point; projects are a pragmatic, perhaps the most pragmatic, organizational form on wikipedia, and so arguing from a technical standpoint seems misguided to me. I just don't see what the upside is to including it in a project when you can't realistically expect any additional help on the article by doing so.Shadowjams (talk)09:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Shadowjams is trying to be so exclusive here. I would say that "American pop-culture"is still part of American culture. And I would think, yes, James Bond movies (if made in the US), deserve to be tagged & included. As a child, Iheard about James Bond long before I saw any of the movies. I saw Batman on TV long before I knew he was part of a comic book; and movies have been made for almost 25 years. Image, character, and mannerisms are all instantly recognizable and associated with the US; now, am I talking about Batman, James Bond, John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, someone else...? I do not think it dilutes anything to include fictional characters or aspects of pop culture. We might ask if we should include the nuanced articles, like the homosexuality & Batman orJames Bond's car, which really would need the attention of a specialist in that sub-field. I would think any editor could make the call, with disagreements brought to this Talk page for consensus.Boneyard90 (talk)13:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Not only that, "American pop-culture" is one of the most recognizable parts of American culture and one that has been spread to the rest of the world. In some countries people complain about US music getting too much air time on the radio, etc. Also a work's impact on American culture, beliefs, and ideals would be part of a common theme with the country. WikiProject editors specializing in the United States may be able to find sources that discuss how a work of pop culture intersects with American culture.WhisperToMe (talk)17:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"The character has had an indelible mark on US culture" etc - that's not why you tag with WikiProjects. SeeWikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Over-tagging - "The presence of a project banner indicates to readers that the article has been, or will be, developed by members of the project, and that questions about the article can be directed to members of the project. When the project does not expect to support an article's improvement, it should not add the project's banner to that page.". The point of WikiProject banners is to ensure that an article at least has one Project to call home - but in general there should be no more than 2-3 Project banners (hmm, that's formalised in a guideline somewhere, can't find it now), and they should be as "specialist" as possible. Obviously that won't always be the case for something like theAtlantic Ocean, but for most articles 3 WikiProjects is a pretty good maximum. The point of generalist projects like this one is to act as a "backstop" for those articles that aren't covered by more specialist Projects/taskforces, and to act as a forum for issues that cut across sub-projects. In the case ofHomosexuality in the Batman franchise, it's obviously well covered by the LGBT and Comics projects, so there's no need to add another Project. Compare that with something likeAmish way of life which doesn't really fit in any one specific state project and is only a Low priority for the Baptist workgroup of WP Christianity. With 9000 hits/month, that would be a good use of this Project's time.Le Deluge (talk)19:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Le Deluge, when "The character has had an indelible mark on US culture" is true, I have a reasonable expectation that the article can be, or will be, developed by members of the USA Wikiproject, and that USA WikiProject members would be good resources for questions about the article. After all an American or someone interested in the United States would know where to find resources discussing the cultural impact. As for "but in general there should be no more than 2-3 Project banners " - We have articles which have four, five, or even more - because they are relevant to that many projects. Hence we have Wikiproject banner shell to consolidate them. I do not believe that there should be an arbitrary limit on the # of Wikiprojects, and trying to impose that would be harmful for many projects.WhisperToMe (talk)19:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Also I establishedWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Limit_to_.23_of_wikiprojects_per_article just to confirm about the #s of WikiprojectsWhisperToMe (talk)23:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought but this project and WikiProject Filmm both support the American Cinema task force. Why not just add{{WikiProject United States}} with|USFilm=Yes and call it a day?108.18.194.128 (talk)00:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me :) (the article does discuss Batman in the film version so it's absolutely relevant to American film)WhisperToMe (talk)19:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

If there are no further comments within 7 days I am going to take the solution proposed by 108.18.194.128WhisperToMe (talk)02:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

An IP user added a lot of questionable information to the Apache Wars article.

Compare this version,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apache_Wars&oldid=542445300

to the IP's version,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apache_Wars&oldid=543511814

I made a few edits removing some POV terminology like "terrorism" and so forth. None of the edits the IP added were cited. It would be nice familiar with the Apache Wars to fact check what he added, and make adjustments where necessary. It may be necessary to remove everything he added though.ScienceApe (talk)05:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If the content is not cited, remove perWP:BURDEN. The editor adding content should providereliable sources toverify newly added content. I hope this helps.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk)18:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirectCV-22. Since you had some involvement with theCV-22 redirect, you might want to participate inthe redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). --65.92.180.137 (talk)08:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

File:PAR.png has been nominated for speedy deletion --65.92.180.137 (talk)05:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Sake barrels.jpg is in the list ofWikipedia:WikiProject United States/Recognized content, how is this image related to the US?Mercurywoodrose (talk)21:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I mistagged it last year. You removed the WPUS tag in November 2012. The bot that updates the recognized content page hasn't run since October 2012. So that was before you removed the tag. Feel free to remove it from the recognized content page.Kumioko (talk)21:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Filipino American#Malay or Austronesians?.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)22:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Several Houston MetroRAIL maps are up for deletion, seeWikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_April_7 --65.92.180.137 (talk)06:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi All! I just updated a stub article called theMendocino War. Check it out and edit or give me feedback if you want!Bellitan (talk)20:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I just took a look and made some changes.

• Footnotes can be named and reused. That way duplicates can be combined together.
• When there are multiple citations to different pages in the same source, it just looks better to switch to shortened footnotes. The author name in each footnote now links to the full citation below it.
• We render headings and subheading in Sentence case instead of Title Case around here based on the guidance atMOS:HEAD. According to that section of the Manual of Style, we normally wouldn't repeat the title of the article ("Mendocino War") in any of the headings ("Walter S. Jarboe and the Mendocino War"), but I didn't change that.

I hope this helps.Imzadi 1979 →20:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I createdJ. Lindsay Embrey's page and a few minutes later someone tried to delete it. Mr Embrey was critical in the development ofRichardson, Texas and a big donor to SMU, where a scholarship and a building are named in his honor. Please support the page by explaining why we should keep it[6]. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk)21:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

{{Largest cities and metro areas of the United States}} &{{Largest cities of the United States}} &{{Largest cities of California}} have been nominated for deletion --65.92.180.137 (talk)03:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

{{Largest cities of New Hampshire}} has also been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)04:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

And tens more have shown up atWikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 13 --70.24.250.103 (talk)05:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Demographics of Asian Americans#Sexuality.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)17:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a new portalPortal:Film in the United StatesWhisperToMe (talk)03:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:USDB2002.jpg (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs) has been nominated for speedy deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)05:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have found the original sourcepage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk)17:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears thatcommons:File:USDB2002.jpg was deleted without actually examining your changes, when you added the source, since it was deleted as no-source. This seems to happen frequently, since sources are added, and files are still deleted as no source. Lack of diligence in examining the page I suppose. --70.24.250.103 (talk)00:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Did thecommons:File:USDB2002.jpg page get updated on Commons with the source link. I might have missed it, but I didn't see an edit to add the source.
SBaker43 (talk)05:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes it has, how do we go about petitioning it to be undeleted? I had added the source to the wikkicommons page, but it looks like IP70.24 is right, deletion without proper review.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk)16:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I have left a message on the deleting admin on wikicommonshere.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk)03:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the image is restored, but it was not automatically re-added to where it was previously used.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk)17:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed a "merger/move request" betweenList of U.S. state partition proposals andList of proposed states of the United States, because I feel there is considerable overlap. If anybody is interested participating in the discussion, please feel free to do sohere. Thank you.Green Giant (talk)22:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

File:USS Mohican off Tonga.jpg has been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)03:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:County government in the United States

Greetings folks, I am having a disagreement withUser:Orlady, and in response, he or she has begun posting the issue to all 50 states. I am willing to have a discussion or two, but not 50!

My claim is that although county officials may be elected or appointed locally (i.e. not statewide), the actual county government itself is an arm of the state government. This is consistent with the powers they exercise (elections, law enforcement, etc.). If we could have some academically informed input, I would appreciate it, because the general impression and intuition that people have is that county government is "local government," but to those who actually study political science formally, the difference is known. The compromise that I propose is the persons should be categorized under "local politicians" while the offices should be categorized under "state government."Greg Bard (talk)01:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Gregbard,you started the discussion of this topic on my talk page, atUser_talk:Orlady#County_government and quite a lot of discussion has already occurred there. I posted on several pages to alert other users to the ongoing discussion, as it's not something that interested users were likely to notice; I did not attempt to start new discussions on those other pages (contrary to your accusations against me). Now you are the one who is inviting people to startde novo discussions on WikiProject pages that you selected; please don't do that. --Orlady (talk)02:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Not helpful.Greg Bard (talk)02:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats right, your descriptor of Not Helpful before your name is one I agree with. Your claim is like any other claim, YOU need to provide the data. As you have stated you are educated to the difference, GREAT!I suggested the simple legal distinction of home rule. You then asserted I hanged my hat on it. AND NOTE: its hung, not hang, people are hanged, hats are hung. Well, I would strongly suggest that you talk to each and every Alaskan, Hawaiian and Virginian because they have thousand of voters who hung their hat on home rule. OR, you could go to West Virginia AND Connecticut where NO home rule is declared. In fact, the WV Constitution has LAW stating, NO HOME RULE. AND that LAW was as you correctly point out a function of the state, which PEOPLE elect. Categories are seldom neat in politics, and to date, its fact, Counties are a form of local government. AND YES, I studied political science formally and YES, I think you are sadly mistaken because for the last ~2 hundred years, people have hung their hats and voted on the very concept. Reading the state constituions would actually give you FACTS which you can the REFERENCECoal town guy (talk)02:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Not helpful.Greg Bard (talk)02:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Not helpful makes it clear to people why others beg for help to communicate with you. I can see how you can think its not helpful because you are not getting your way. I usually tell my 10 year old to go read a book when nobody agrees with them. Try it out. I replied to this entire thread in utter sincerity and out of enormous respect for a fellow editor. AND I get a limp lame, totally emasculated, Not Helpful. WOW. I am at this time UNinvolved with your "assertions" BUT I will ALWAYS help my respected editorsCoal town guy (talk)02:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering that my local government body is the county to classify it as state government would be confusing and misleading. Now if you want to address the issue ofhome rule have at it remembering that issue affects counties and cities and other forms of local governments.Vegaswikian (talk)02:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, VW, my claim is that to the average person with no education and experience on the issue, they are going to think, and even believe very strongly that county government is local government. However, to people who have actually studied the issue, the impression is different. So we are left with the usual Wikipedia conundrum: anyone can edit it, so even very uniformed views can prevail. The website which Orlady points to as supporting his or her view does not in fact support his or her view, it supports my view. Take a look atNACO. It states that "When our national government was formed, the framers of the Constitution did not provide for local governments. Rather, they left the matter to the states. Subsequently, early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state." Later in the same text it states that "Barely half the states allow counties to impose a sales tax. " Do you see that terminology? It says "allow." I think I provided a very reasonable compromise in placing the officials under local, and the offices under state. Furthermore, I have been very patient with this editor who has spammed over a dozen talk pages with this issue, and then when I attempt to consolidate the issue to the two relevant WikiProjects he or she tries to portray ME as starting new discussions when there are existing ones. This person is disingenuous, and immature. Home rule is an issue for conspiratards, and trying to use it as support any claims about the nature of county government is asinine.Greg Bard (talk)03:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well Greg old friend I think your claim of being educated and not pedestrian is asinine. To the un initiated who have not tried your narcotic, HOW then do you explain all of the laws in state constitutions that express what Home rule is and is not. OH WAIT, you told me that you need a reason to read those. That means you have not read them That means that you have become so educated that your opinon must be carved in stone while all of humanity stares in naked awe of your rectum and feel blessed to have you among them. No. YOU must prove it, YOU need the rfes, thats how it works and that how everyone does edit. What data are you statuing, whats the source, you cant interpret, thats original reaecrh. What book, what source, how, why??????....Coal town guy (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC

I've pointed out to Gregbard that we need to use reliable sources to support our points at Wikipedia, rather than playing the game of "my credentials trump your credentials". Unfortunately, it appears that the argument he makes is based primarily on his statement that he "war taught formally in no uncertain terms that a county is an agency of the state government". That's not a verifiable basis for much of anything. Seeing the trend of this discussion, the reference to "in no uncertain terms", and Greg's statement that he was educated in philosophy, I am coming to the conclusion that he understands government from a profoundly philosophical perspective. Thus, I think he is saying conclude that his point is that the authority and much of the direction for county government in the United States is derived not from the people in the local county, but rather from the state government. That is generally true, consistent with Dillon's rule (as discussed above in the discussion from my talk page), and the same thing is true of pretty much every city, town, school district, library board, zoning authority, and other substate unit of government in the United States. That is, they are not autonomous, but have authorities that are limited by the state -- and the state often hands them responsibilities (i.e., tells them what to do). If one chooses to define "local government" in a philosophically rigorous fashion (as suggested by the words "in no uncertain terms") to mean "government that is under the direct and sole control of the governed community and derives its authority solely from the citizens of that community", then I submit that there is no local government anywhere in the United States. I take a more practical approach to government, however, and I do not choose to think of government solely on the basis of pure philosophical principles. Local governments are those governments that are inherently local in their scope of activity and that take direction (even if not their fundamental legal authorities) from the local communities they govern. I believe that the National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and Britannica Online (the three sources I cited in the discussion on my talk page) all share my view that "local government" does exist in the U.S. and that both counties and cities are forms of local government. Gregbard has not yet argued (but I imagine he may be thinking about it) that in most states counties are required to assume responsibility for more functions of the state government than municipalities handle -- for example, counties are more likely than cities to have functions like issuing state licenses, operating courts that are authorized to enforce state law, administering elections, or running public health services. I'll rebut that argument before he makes it. That kind of delegation of state responsibility does not somehow convert counties into units of state government while keeping cities inherently local -- particularly when you consider that these delegations vary from state to state, and that most states assign or authorize some types of "state government" functions (such as operating public schools) to city or town governments. --Orlady (talk)04:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Dillons Rule was based on a mock interpretation of Locke and to some degree Hegel. AND YES, Dillojn read them. AND YES, he ripped them off in his "philosophy". And if you actually read through the dialectic etc etc, you would see that this is a enormous waste of pomp and self certitude. It was quite the thing in 19th century America to have the "unique ideas" of self determination and of course create a government where of course, all power was given/vested from a singular source. I am not in any way impressed with a philosophical interpretation because ar has been stressed to me and possibly everyone else, thats useless where qwe are supposed to have a Neutral POV and proceed. Sadly, we are the un initiated to philosophical discourse. I had my fill of superior interpretations in grad school near 20 years ago and didnt like enduring it then much less now.ESPECIALLY when its a 19th century rip off of stuff that got hashed out centuries before that. Can we just write the damned encyclopedia and have a coffee chat about how we feel about it later??? Hey, the first cups are on meCoal town guy (talk)12:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

To Gregbard-in answer to your comments on thePolitical subdivisions of Wisconsin article talk page-The Wisconsin Constitution- Article IV section 23&23a, Article VI section 4, and Article VII section 14 sets forth the constitutional basis for county government in the State of Wisconsin. I agree with Coal town guy about checking out the constitutional references of the various county governments in the United States. Thank you-RFD (talk)10:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in writing articles about government in individual states, the state constitution is critically important. However, Gregbard isn't writing about any particular state. At the newly createdCategory:County government in the United States, he is asserting ("in no uncertain terms") that "County government in the United States is an extension of the state government, which is administered by officials who are locally elected and appointed" and that articles and categories about county governance do not belong in "local government" categories because county government is an extension of state government. I think this is an absurd interpretation -- particularly absurd in that he is asserting that there is a difference between county and municipal government, even though Dillon's rule has the same effect on both counties and municipalities.

The question to be answered is not about the specifics of a particular state, but whether U.S. counties are, in general, (1) a level of government that manor (2) an arm of state government. The articlePolitical subdivisions of Wisconsin states "In Wisconsin, governments of general purpose government include counties, cities, villages and towns", clearly indicating that Wisconsin counties are governments of government. I contend that the same thing is generally true nationally, with the exception of those states that don't have county government (and thus aren't relevant to this categorization question). --Orlady (talk)13:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The answer, in part, would be that you cant have a singular category for the question at hand. Point of fact, and that you have rightly pointed out, some states would fit, otherr would not, and still other might require a third category, see Alaska.Coal town guy (talk)13:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Given the unfortunate tone of this discussion thus far, I'm reluctant to add my voice, but I am interested in counties generally because they are a pretty big deal to most folks here in Kentucky (both because we have so many and because most of our cities are so small). I don't pretend to have formal training in political science or government beyond the American National Government class I took as an undergraduate elective, but I can point tothis, which is an online copy of an entry inThe Kentucky Encyclopedia. (I have the dead tree version to verify the text, as well.) This entry is for "Government, Local" and states: "Having been part of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Kentucky developed its system of government that manon the southern model,which features counties and incorporated cities as the basic units." (emphasis mine) My credentials might not stack up, but those of the editors of this work certainly do.

Further, Kentucky has two forms of merged city-county government: the "urban county government" (effected inLexington andFayette County) and the "metro government" (effected inLouisville andJefferson County). So far, those are the only two consolidated city-county governments in the state, but several other areas have been considering creating them. I specifically remember reading that aboutElizabethtown andHardin County a few years ago. So to me, this distinction between city government as local and county government as state gets a little blurred with such an arrangement. Coal town guy already mentioned the "independent city" phenomenon in Virginia, and though I don't claim to understand that fully, it seems to put independent cities and counties on equal footing, which makes it hard for me to understand how one should be local while another is state.

Finally, I must say to Gregbard that the tenor of your argument is off-putting and is, I think, hurting the point you are trying to make. Responding to legitimate attempts at presenting a viewpoint with "Not helpful" without elaboration is, well, not helpful. Dismissing reliable sources written by qualified people as invalid only because it doesn't jive with what you learned in your formal training and further attacking those presenting those sources as having an inferior understanding of them, whether true or not, is not in the spirit of collaboration that Wikipedia is all about. At this point, even if you brought reliable sources to the table defending your ideas (which I really think you should, by the way) I think it would show little more than the fact that there is legitimate academic debate on the issue. In such a situation, there is no "right" answer, and community consensus should dictate how wechoose to handle it, which must, of a necessity, reflect one of the two competing views.Acdixon^{(talk·contribs)}13:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur, we also need to look at extraordinary externalitieshow about a leper colony? in Hawaii. So, in 1969 when fgiven the opportunity to integrate, the community, which was part of said county, said NO. WHY? Well they are lepers, and the disease is under control, BUT they CHOSE NOT to integrate, AND the government said, OK. They allowed them to have self governance, because I guess, hugging the stuffings out of lepers is not their style? Who knows? BUT, there is not a snow balls chance in hell, it fits ANY of the proposed molds or categories, UNLESS, you want to create the self governing leper category which is bound to be rather small in populationCoal town guy (talk)15:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the focus of discussion is a category for articles about county government, I don't think we need to worry about categorization of places that don't have county governments. Where there's no county government, it's highly unlikely that there will be an article in this category. The question is whether county governments (when and where they exist) are (1) local governments or (2) branches/arms of state government. --Orlady (talk)16:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Like Acdixon, I'm hesitant to jump into this discussion given the tenor up to this point. While I can to a point understand the point that county governments are agents of the state in enforcing state laws and regulations and also that in many states, they were historically more directly extensions of the state. But I very much agree with otherr commenting here that most readerr would see it as peculiar to state that "County government in the United States is an extension of the state government". Certainly in my own experience, mostly in the Michigan and Ohio, counties are seen as units of local government and effectively function as such without any much direct intervention from the state.older ≠wiser16:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Acdixon and BKonrad that there are just too many variables and variations to account for to just lump them into one group. I think there are cases were Orlady is right and some cases where Greg is right but I can't bring myself to offer solid support either way. Frankly if we have been doing it a certain way up to this point we should probably stick with that.Kumioko (talk)17:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding what we have done up until now: Up until yesterday, we didn't have a "County government in the United States" category. County government topics were handled under "local government" categories, such asCategory:Local government in the United States. Yesterday, Gregbard created the new category, listed it underCategory:State governments of the United States, and began to add the category to articles about county government that previously had been in the "local government" category. After I moved the new category from "state government" to "local government", he reverted my change and added a descriptive statement that "County government in the United States is an extension of thestate government, which is administered by officials who are locally elected and appointed."My next edit, which hequickly reversed, led to his posting on my talk page (discussion copied above), where he has expressed the view that everyone involved in this topics heretofore was uninformed. IMO, the "County government" category is a good contribution, but it should be slotted under local government (not state government) and it should not be a mini-article filled with unsourced "factual" assertions about the topic. --Orlady (talk)17:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

If thats the case ar far as this cat history, then WHY are we changing anything when we already have several people saying, it may not be a good idea. ESPECIALLY when we have asked justification and the only response we get is that we are not educated on the topic because we dont agree with the editor......I mean REALLY??Coal town guy (talk)17:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the new categories for the county governments but I also don't think they should be automatically linked to either the State or Local government cats. It would be more appropriate to me to simply make it its own category in line with the state and local governments and call it a day. Because again, some are and some aren't state or local so to try and make a one size fits all just doesn't work. Some states are common wealths and don't really even use counties. Louisiana uses Parrish, etc.Kumioko (talk)17:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree, BUT now we have the descriptor in the category which is AT BEST a dubious claim. The descriptor needs to be modified or removed because a new editor will restart the entire process.Coal town guy (talk)18:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Since Alaska was brought up...Article 10, § 2 of theAlaska Constitution states what types of municipalities are recognized (boroughs and cities) and that their authority to exist ultimately derives from the state. Specifically, "The State maydelegate taxing powers to organized boroughs and cities only". The only mandatory functions of a borough are taxation and assessment of property (as granted by the constitution, see above), and education (which is not expressly mentioned in the constitution; it would take too long to look it up, but I assume this is established by statute). Boroughs and cities are considered political subdivisions of the state, just the same as theUniversity of Alaska, theAlaska Railroad, thePermanent Fund, etc. TheAlaska Legislature also functions as the ex-officio assembly (governing body) for theUnorganized Borough, since it has no governmental structure of its own. Political battles during the 1950s, revolving around impending statehood and the protection of the interests of existing municipal units (which at the time were cities, public utility districts and independent school districts), just happened to be one of the more contentious issues faced during the statehood debate in general, and the constitutional convention in particular. Home rule is mentioned in Article 10, § 9–11. Once again, it favors the view that the ultimate authority derives from the state and not from the concept of "local government" as a preexisting institution. General law boroughs and cities (all boroughs and cities which are not home rule boroughs and cities, in fact the vast majority of them) are called such because they operate under strict constraints (as found in Title 29 of Alaska Statutes) when compared with a home rule municipality.

I stumbled upon this discussion when I noticed an effort made to categorize assemblymembers of Alaskan boroughs. Here's another issue: despite what's been written on Wikipedia to the contrary, there are only four unified local governments in Alaska:Anchorage,Juneau,Sitka andWrangell. A great amount of effort has been made on Wikipedia to classifyYakutat as a consolidated city-county equivalent merely because the municipality ir called the "City and Borough of Yakutat". I don't know how wellthis link will work for you, but theAlaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development classifies Yakutat as a "Non-Unified Home Rule Borough". There's dozens of other sources out there which will state pretty much the same thing. Obviously, local government structure in Alaska is greatly misunderstood, and probably downright confusing, to the uninitiated. Consolidation and unification are legally distinct processes in Alaska local government. Nonetheless, we appear to have no problem fitting this square peg in the round hole of "consolidated city-county". The four municipalities I mention above enjoy their current structure through unification. Boroughs such asHaines,Petersburg,Skagway and Yakutat enjoy their current structure through consolidation, again a distinct process from the aforementioned unified governments. The law allowing Wrangell to become a unified municipality, despite there not being a separate borough and city to unify, came into effect in 1994. Under the law in effect in 1992, when Yakutat consolidated, they would have had to become a borough first, then go through a whole other process to become a unified municipality. I haven't researched this, but Yakutat's name may reveal their ultimate intent in that regard. However, they are only a borough which calls itself a city-borough. That was kind of a tangent. Back on point: in the case of the four unified municipalities I mention above, the governing body ir called the assembly. However, this body is a city council in addition to being a borough assembly. Should members be placed in both relevant categories, or should the category page carry explanatory text delineating who is considered a borough assemblymember and who is considered a city council member? RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy18:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A most excellent analysis! IF I understand, it would be difficult, at best to have a singular category, UNLESS of course there were a radical change to the current cat proposed with extenssive verbage, refs etc etc. WHICH, aint so at the momentCoal town guy (talk)18:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have read and considered the climate here, and despite the reality, I will proceed with the Wikipedia consensus in mind. I feel it is my duty to report to the group that this will consist in a "dumbing down" for the purposes of appealing to the widest consensus. So, to be clear, I will be placing all county level persons under "local politicians" and all other county categories under both "local government" and "state government" categories. I thought it would be a good idea to reserve "local" just for cities and towns, but perhaps we can make that distinction clear some other way at some point in the future. (We can't use "municipality" to do it because counties are "municipalities" too.)Greg Bard (talk)20:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Greg, much like the way that local governments in the U.S. have no authority other than what is authorized/granted by their states, none of usowns articles at Wikipedia, and you -- as the most involved party here -- do not own this discussion. I suggest that you take back your "conclusion' statement and let someone else determine the consensus here. --Orlady (talk)20:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The only "dumbing down" was trying to interpret your edict as it interrupted editing. I have yet to note any agreement, except, I conclude you should be thankful that otherr have contributed time to this discussion.....Coal town guy (talk)20:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but if the politicians are local government then the government must also be local. Anything else is simply confusing and probably incorrect. In cases where there is documentation to show otherwise,ethen the dual state/local could make sense. But at this point, to do that for everything does not appear to make sense.Vegaswikian (talk)23:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg has been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)05:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:CalebVHaynes-Amarillo1951.jpg has been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)05:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

file:Frederick md seal.png has been nominated for deletion --65.92.180.137 (talk)06:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And it has been renominated --70.24.250.103 (talk)05:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:P-38Monti.jpg has been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)16:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

file:WW Culbertson.jpg has been nominated for deletion -70.24.250.103 (talk)16:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

file:James Holmes, cropped.jpg has been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)05:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:BostonSuspect1.jpg andFile:BostonSuspect2.jpg have been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)23:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention to the bug inList of counties in Nevada for the Carson City entry. Carson City is not a part of any county, so the syntax given is different. However, the way the syntax is right now, "class=Nickname" appears inside the link target, causing the words "Carson City" to link toCarson Cityclass="Nickname", Nevada. The problem may be withTemplate:Countyrow or with the syntax for its usage on the page. Either way, I'd prefer if someone with a bit more wikicode knowledge would take a look at this; I'm not able to find the problem.Someone the Person (talk)14:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have copied your message over to theVillage pump (technical). I think you are correct about where the error is, but you might find more help at the Pump.— Maile (talk)14:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Someone the Person (talk)14:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

image:TuskegeeP40.jpg has been nominated for deletion--70.24.250.103 (talk)00:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:USS Worden.jpg has been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)01:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

image:SumnerTN seal.JPG has been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)01:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

file:Scott Joplin 19072 rd.jpg has been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)01:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

image:Atlanta 1996 Olympic bid logo.png has been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)01:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Dolley madison obverse.gif has been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)01:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fuck (film)

Ar part of a quality improvement project on a topic related tofreedom of speech, I'vegreatly expanded upon and improved the quality of the article at page,Fuck (film). Any further suggestions for additional secondary sources and referencing would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. —Cirt (talk)20:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Mascotowu.jpg has been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)01:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Milton S. Hershey c1915.jpg has been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)03:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

file:Oorang.jpg has been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)03:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:ESAM FC 079.jpg has been nominated for deletion. --70.24.250.103 (talk)01:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• The file has beenrenominated for deletion. --70.24.250.103 (talk)03:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

File:AHEPA Archives Supreme President George Demeter 1923-24.jpg has been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)03:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps someone here can help me understand Gregbard's logic in his history of reverts atCategory:County law enforcement agencies of the United States. I am at a loss, and he won't let me post on his talk page, so I can't ask there. Aren't county law enforcement agencies part of county government? Shouldn't this category of government agencies be allowed in some category for levels of government? --Orlady (talk)18:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It is generally local electionbs as permitted by the State level government. Again, its apples and oranges here. AND AGAIN its the same principal. IF a state permits the activity at a local level, its a local level event. Its local. Example, In WV, the creation of a new county and its new naming are in most part done by criteria set by the state,HOWEVER a 2/3 majority of the new residents must approve the said creation of the new county. SO, thats LOCAL. Yes, its done sop because a State level agency said, you may, BUT the problem I have is IF we apply the logic to states, its the same thing. States rights are spelled out in the Constitution and of course in the speciofc state govt laws. So, by that logic, didnt the US government permit it? Shouldny everything be Federal? AND following that logic, its gets non sensical. You might as well have a Wiki super category called Nouns and just walk away.Coal town guy (talk)18:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of "local" versus something else. Gregbard won't allow this category to be included inCategory:County government in the United States, and it's not in any other category that is a subcat of that (nor in some similar category, such as "state" or "local" government). I can't figure out what his concern is. --Orlady (talk)19:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Orlady, you are right. Law enforcement in the United States is paid for by tax payers and is a part of the government of whatever level is paying them. That's the bottom line - follow the money.— Maile (talk)20:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I have asked this editor Orlady, to not contact me further due to her immature behavior. At that time, I also asked her to refrain from editing in the areas I am working in, so I can get some work done without her creating more work for me. She obviously doesn't care to cooperate. My advice to the reasonable, decent, and mature editors here is to completely ignore this person. She does more to confuse the issues than bring any light to them. However, if there are any points that any other editors believe are valid, then I would be more than happy to answer questions and engage in a civil discussion about them.Greg Bard (talk)19:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Who are you?!?!? You own nothing here. This is a group effort. seeWP:OWN. The only lack of maturity I see is that you have no data to back up your position or if you do, you dont want to post it. I agree, that can suck. It takes time. BUT, its the deal behind being an editor here. There are tags, yes, that can convey, hey, I am editing the article NOW and would like to complete the edits, yes, thats a fair use, ergo, wait til I am done. BUT, sorry, the deal is, on this planet, lots of folks will read the data and it has to make sense. NOT just to you, NOT just to me, BUT to the entire community. WHAT is meant byWONT ALLOW IT? I have to concur with Maile66 "Law enforcement in the United States is paid for by tax payers and is a part of the government of whatever level is paying them. That's the bottom line". Sounds rather exacting, at least as far as taxes go. UNLESS you have an idea to the contrary and wish to actually explain it without sounding like you are chewing on a waspCoal town guy (talk)21:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted it back to Orlady's edits. Yes, Coal town guy, one thing that really stood out to me is that Gregbard comes across with an ownership attitude, his way or the highway. Orlady is correct on this one. If Gredbard reverts again, that makes 3R for him.— Maile (talk)21:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

From, a structural view point, we are all asking, what is North of the North Pole.....That does not work. Following the local money is indeed the way. AND although levying taxes is not necessarily local, the services ARE LOCALCoal town guy (talk)21:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Right. Law enforcement jobs are civil service jobs. The money to pay those law enforcement people are in some government budget, whichever level is appropriate. In particular, a sheriff and his deputies are always county. Police can be city, county, state. It all depends on whose budget is paying them.— Maile (talk)21:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Responses can be made here:CFD County law enforcement agencies of the United States— Maile (talk)22:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

image:The-tsarnaev-suspects-fbi-photo-release.jpg has been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)04:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In looking at theUnited States Constitution article, just to refresh my memory on some points, I happened to notice that while the date of adoption by the Constitutional Convention and the effective date are given, the specific dates on which each of the original states ratified the Constitution are not provided. While this is not essential information, granted, it would be easy to include that short list of states and dates in the article, or in the relatedHistory of the United States Constitution. So I came here, for want of knowing any better place to go, to make the suggestion that someone with more time on their hands than I have add the list to either or both of those articles. Thanks.Textorus (talk)10:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The list exist in a collapsed list atHistory of the United States Constitution#Adoption and beginning.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk)18:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

image:Suspect1and2.jpg has been nominated for deletion --70.24.250.103 (talk)23:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate is currently a candidate for consideration of Featured Article quality status. The discussion page is atWikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1.

Thank you for your time, —Cirt (talk)04:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Montgomerycounty.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)21:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Motcopa.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)21:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to create a category for Union support in the South during the Civil War (for articles likeState of Scott), and a subcategory for Southerners who supported the Union (for biographical articles likeJohn Netherland), but I'm not sure what to name them. Any suggestions?Bms4880 (talk)15:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

How about one named Confederate/Southern Sympathizers???? Indiana had a few for sure.Coal town guy (talk)16:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to consult with the members ofWikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force. Their main interest is military topics, but they likely have some thoughts on this topic. --Orlady (talk)17:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I posted the question on their discussion page. I also noticed there is aSouthern Unionists article. And yes, Coal town guy, I assume there will need to be a similar category for Confederate-sympathizers in the North.Bms4880 (talk)13:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like "Southern Unionists" could be a good category name, to go along with the article. --Orlady (talk)14:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I went with the longer name, as apparently "Southern Unionist" can also refer to UK supporters in Ireland. I'll wait a day or two before mass-adding pages to the category, in case the Military project comes up with any objections.Bms4880 (talk)15:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

AtSan Leon, Texas someonetried to update the census info but only changed one value.Would anyone mind adding the proper 2010 and 2000 census info here?ThanksWhisperToMe (talk)04:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Tench Tilghman Grave Site.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)00:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

TheWP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (akaWYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devscurrently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it willnot be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe thatWP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go toSpecial:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at thetop of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a noteWikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated.The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message onmy user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out.WhatamIdoing (talk)01:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced bymw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor.WhatamIdoing (talk)14:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

File:1915-1916 glee club.JPG has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)05:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Heuschrecke10.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)06:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

File:TUhawkins.jpg andFile:TUNewell.jpg andFile:TUStephConstr.jpg have been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)07:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

file:2013 Boston Marathon finish line explosion.png is under NFCR --65.94.76.126 (talk)08:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The usage ofCentral Time Zone is up for discussion, seeTalk:Central Time Zone (North America) --65.94.76.126 (talk)05:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There is an MIT study about the decline in US air travel

• Wittman, Michael D. and William S. Swelbar. "Trends and Market Forces Shaping Small Community Air Service in the United States." (Archive)Massachusetts Institute of Technology International Center for Air Transportation. Report No. ICAT-2013-02. MIT Small Community Air Service White Paper No. 1, May 2013.

The WSJ has an article summarizing the study:

• "Leaner Airlines Mean Fewer Routes, Study Shows."Wall Street Journal. May 7, 2013.
  • Yahoo version of the article:http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/leaner-airlines-mean-fewer-routes-233000930.html -http://www.webcitation.org/6GUuDJ8fy

WhisperToMe (talk)23:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

File:James Herbert Knight 1921.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)04:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Bert Kinner.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)04:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Mural LA Central Library.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)04:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Edward-T-Garvey.jpg.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)05:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

image:Laura Ingalls aviator 2a.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)04:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

file:1938WoodenNickelNorthwestTerritory150thCelebration.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)05:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

File:1852 $1 US Liberty Head Gold Piece (New Orleans).jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)05:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I have a question--what are all of your opinions on the U.S.-related articles that I created, such as:

• Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections
• The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge
• List of autobiographies by Presidents of the United States
• Grover Cleveland Presidential campaign, 1892
• Urbanization in the United States
• Historical racial and ethnic demographics of the United States
• List of United States Presidents by net worth
• And maybe some other U.S.-related articles

Thank you very much.Futurist110 (talk)00:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad start. I think some of your paragraphs are too long, but that's a personal opinion. Also, the urbanization and the racial and ethnic demographics articles have too many photographs. In the latter, it affects the formatting, creating a giant block of white space.Bms4880 (talk)14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I just finished trying to follow your advice in regards to improving these two articles of mine that you mentioned. How do these two articles look right now (after my improvements/changes/edits)?Futurist110 (talk)07:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Much better. Nice job.Bms4880 (talk)23:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

{{United States Military Aerial Refueling Aircraft}} has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)03:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

file:BaltimorePoliceBadge.png has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)04:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

image:Former VPSB.png has been nominated for deletion, seeWP:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_May_12#File:Former_VPSB.png --65.94.76.126 (talk)00:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

All of the above are prime examples of why I don't waste my time uploading images. Unless you took the picture yourself it just gets deleted...unless its uploaded to commons and its porn, then its fine.Kumioko (talk)02:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some of the people nominating things for deletion are rather undiscriminating in their selections. If it doesn't have the proper template in the properly filled in manner, it gets a speedy deletion tag, instead of actually fixing the errors (like a typo in the parameter name, or placing info into the wrong parameter) or examining the edithistory/uploadhistory for the missing information (such as well there's a bot error deleting information) Some of these deletionists even think that sourcing means requiring a live URL, so anything without a URL is "unsourced" regardless of non-URL sourcing, or the fact that X years has passed since upload and the source has died in the meantime. --65.94.76.126 (talk)04:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

file:East GA College seal.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)05:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Auburn statue.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)06:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

File:BaltimorePoliceBadge.png has been renominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)05:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Alice T. Littlefield pastel.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)06:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

image:Map of Harbor Gateway neighborhood, Los Angeles, California.png has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)06:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:M Meier.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)02:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Tyler Clementi.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)02:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

file:Phoebeprince.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)02:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Jamey Rodemeyer.png has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)02:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

image:RyanHalligan.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)02:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

image:Discovery by Kenneth C Madsen.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)06:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

image:Piccadilly Emergency Service.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)07:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Alex Haley thank you note.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)07:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

File:SpiritCaveMan.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)08:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

File:NativeHawaiianGroup1890.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)08:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Benjamin R. Jacobs - March 15 1954 - 83d40m - 75 years old.JPG has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)07:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

image:Portrait of Jessie Tarbox Beals standing outside with her camera, ca. 1927-1929 PC60-9-14.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)07:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Harrison.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)08:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:NormanAFox.jpg was nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)08:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Viola Davis Brown, Graduation photo, Nazareth School of Nursing, 1959.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Saint Peter's Prep Logo.png has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)05:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

image:Sigma Upsilon Zeta crest.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)05:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Lake Iamonia Steamboat.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)23:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Florence 2008.jpg has been nominated for deletion. --65.94.76.126 (talk)23:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is up for deletion because it has no metadata --65.94.76.126 (talk)23:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Blakely Plantation House.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)00:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The article "United States debt ceiling" contains an incomplete sentence that I cannot fix. It is the following sentence in the section "Default on financial obligations:"

"In 2011, the Treasury that it cannot prioritize certain type of expenditures because all expenditures are on equal footing under the law."— Precedingunsigned comment added byEighttone (talk •contribs)00:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Governor corbett.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)04:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Governor pat mccory.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)04:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The usage ofOnesie (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) is under discussion, seetalk:Onesie (UK) --65.94.76.126 (talk)00:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

image:Allied Kommandatura building 1948.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)05:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've recently edited theUS enlisted ranks template to include all insignias and the seals of each branch. This was an addition of 3,934 characters. A before and after comparison can be foundhere.Soffredo (talk)01:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks great to me. You may want to leave a note on the Military history project though. This project isn't very active and your probably going to get a more helpful response there. Happy editing.Kumioko (talk)01:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

New York City, 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 thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.AIRcorn (talk)02:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I started a discussion about the DC WikiProject scope atWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_District_of_Columbia#Expand_scope.3F. I would like to extend the project's scope to the whole metro area.WhisperToMe (talk)03:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Wales on millionaire.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)06:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

image:Kommandatura Berlin.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)06:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

image:Latte stones 2.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)07:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• File:Drawing by Pfc. Gary Hodson of alleged aliens.jpg (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
• File:Drawing of aliens and spacecraft by Pfc Gary Hodson of US Army.jpg (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

--65.94.76.126 (talk)05:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

SeeWT:MILHIST for a notice concerning this article --65.94.76.126 (talk)05:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Fuck (film)
2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1

I've listed the articleFuck (film) for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, atWikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.

—Cirt (talk)00:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit when I saw the string that wasn't what I expected to see.:-)Kumioko (talk)01:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress, has been nominated fordeletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress and please be sure tosign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content ofWikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.Kumioko (talk)21:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

image:Hvnaerial112011.png has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)07:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• File:Reynosa-McAllen.png
• File:Matamoros-Brownsville metro area.png

have been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)07:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Vmiflag.PNG (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs) has been nominated for deletion --65.94.76.126 (talk)07:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

file:Walt Disney World logo.svg has been nominated for deletion --70.24.245.196 (talk)06:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

IsPeter Stuyvesant within the scope of your project? --70.24.245.196 (talk)06:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Several headshots of the 105th Congress are up for deletion, seeCategory:All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status --65.94.79.6 (talk)05:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Several headshots of the 106th Congress are up for deletion, seeCategory:All Wikipedia files with unknown source --65.94.79.6 (talk)05:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello can any editor here improve this much needed list.Solomon7968 (talk)16:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Pythian Baseball Club.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)05:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

image:Walkara.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)05:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

image:First Gentleman's Cookbook - Bill Orr.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)06:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

image:Morro Castle 1.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)06:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

I've gone ahead and created a new article for the book,Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

Collaboration and particularly suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page,Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. —Cirt (talk)06:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Dug pond.gif has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)04:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

AtTemplate talk:WikiProject United States#Additional changes to the template, there is a discussion concerning the GLAM projects which are relevant for the US project. I have proposed toremove all GLAM projects fromTemplate:WikiProject United States. Articles which are a relevant topic for both a GLAM project and the US project can be tagged by both separately; making the US tag include the GLAM project as well creates problems though, with duplicate class and importance ratings, likehere. Since there is no obvious benefit to having the GLAM tags in the US project tag as well, and there are clear disadvantages, I don't think it makes sense to keep this in an already very, very long and heavy template.Fram (talk)14:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

image:Ndlicenseplate.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)06:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

image:The Office of the Whistleblower(SEC) Symbol.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)06:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

image:Non-GMO Project Verification Mark.jpeg has been nominated for deletion -- `65.94.79.6 (talk)05:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Currently atWikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jack Pope (Texas jurist).Hugo Black is the Good Article I'm trying to follow, but won't be able to edit further until the 17th. Any assistance appreciated. The Texas State Cemetery information (currently reference #2, was submitted by Pope himself, and several of the sources are involved, but so far I've only formatted what the submitter had already. I'm cross-posting this to WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Law.Dru of Id (talk)16:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

image:USAirwaysA330.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)05:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

image:ChevyVent f.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)05:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

image:Andy Warhol's imagine of Jackie Kennedy mourning at John F. Kennedy's funereal.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)05:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

image:M ogrady.jpg has been nominated for deletion--65.94.79.6 (talk)05:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• File:1st National Convention, Denver, Colorado, July 1937.jpg
• commons:File:1st National Convention, Denver, Colorado, July 1937.jpg

have been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)05:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

image:Ariana Savalas at Los Angeles Greek Film Festival.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)05:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

image:Carl Anderson (politician).jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)05:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

image:CWMcDonnell.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)05:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

image:Hemolch-2.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)05:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Should redlinks be included onWikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. counties?Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk)01:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That stuff already appears on the Main page so I deleted it from the talk page. That is the standard outline when creating an article for a county but it shouldn't be on the talk page. Please let us know if you see anything else.Kumioko (talk)02:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant to ask about the weather navboxes that use{{US county navigation box}} should include redlinks, I must have copy-pasted the wrong thing.Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk)23:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that would depend on the redlink but it would probably be fine. Could you provide an example?Kumioko (talk)23:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Sscard.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)03:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

template:Five Civilized Tribes has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)02:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

image:Leo-and-lucille-frank.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)03:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

file:Sidhatfield.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)03:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

image:ArthurThompson.jpg has been noninated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)03:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

image:BenLarkin.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)03:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

File:BertaBaker.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)03:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

File:ElmerCart.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)04:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

File:ErnestNelson.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)04:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

File:EverettBrant.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)04:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

File:OttoKrueger.jpg has been nomianted for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)04:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

File:SSMcDonald.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)04:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Cartoon Network is up for peer review. Please commenthere. Thanks.JJ98 (Talk)09:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

image:View of Pike's Peak.jpeg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)02:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

file:WVWCOfficialSeal.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)04:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

file:William pogue.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)04:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

image:Chopra.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)02:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

image:RedSea.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)06:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Karl Pojello wrestler.jpeg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)01:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

SeeWT:IPNA and the TfD on the matter where discussion of the proper contents of this template is underway. Despite the title, this is still restricted to the US, and is not about removal of Indians in South America by Brazil, etc. --65.94.79.6 (talk)04:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

file:Aisg.history.jpg has been nominated for deleting --65.94.79.6 (talk)10:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans#Asian American interracial trope.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)02:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

image:Reed-College-Eliot-Hall-fall-lrg.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)05:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The demographic section of most American cities now follow the following order:

1. List White, Black, and AIAN by populations
2. List other ("non-native") groups by populations

Take Ohio as an example, it's

# White American: 82.7% (Non-Hispanic Whites: 81.1%)# Black or African American: 12.2%# Native American: 0.2%# Asian: 1.7% (0.6% Indian, 0.4% Chinese, 0.1% Filipino, 0.1% Korean, 0.1% Vietnamese, 0.1% Japanese)# Pacific Islander: 0.03%

This is a critical discrimination against all "non-native" groups and the AIAN, and a obvious White-Black POV, in that

1. For those "non-native" groups, White-Black are not "more native" than them and should not be grouped. They have realized that the list are not in a "by population" order because Native Americans are listed before them. They dare not protest because if they do not want to fight against the Natives, who suffered more than them. But they've been clearly classified as second-class citizens because the White-Black do not place themselves after the AIAN but place those "non-native"s after the AIAN even if their populations are more than the AIAN.
2. For the AIAN, grouping them with those White-Black means they are now helping those who took their home preventing those home-tookers' home from being token by new hometakers, which is a severe emotional strike.

For those reasons, I propose to use following order:

1. List AIAN by populations (Pacific Islander for Hawaii)
2. List all other groups (Neo-Residents) by populations

Take Ohio as an example, it's

# Native American: 0.2%# White American: 82.7% (Non-Hispanic Whites: 81.1%)# African American: 12.2%# Asian: 1.7% (0.6% Indian, 0.4% Chinese, 0.1% Filipino, 0.1% Korean, 0.1% Vietnamese, 0.1% Japanese)# Pacific Islander: 0.03%

--114.132.245.59 (talk)15:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Any objections or comments? --118.186.196.62 (talk)13:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I object. The sequence currently used in these articles is the sequence found in the Census Bureau tables that the information comes from. It's fairly arbitrary, but it's consistent. Any deviation from that sequence is likely to increase the rate of errors in transcribing the data. Additionally, I can easily formulate credible arguments for why any of about six different ways of arranging this information is "best", and I am sure that you could find dozens of Wikipedians who could argue about the sequence for months -- but those months of arguing would gain us all absolutely nothing of value. --Orlady (talk)14:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

image:City-of-Gilroy-seal.svg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)05:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

image:Seal of California, 1998, Riverside County Family Law Court, Riverside, California.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)06:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

File:General George Grunert.JPG has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)23:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Newarklocator.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)01:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Milledoler.jpg has been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)02:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• image:Radoff 3.jpg
• image:Radoff 2.jpg

have been nominated for deletion --65.94.79.6 (talk)03:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)