Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Statesedit this page

From Familypedia

Template:WikiProject United States

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

Contents

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Maps of US. States

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

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

[edit] New GA-American middle class

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

[edit] US Airforce Memorial

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

[edit] American Civil War

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

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

[edit] Featured article review=

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

[edit] Bill O'Reilly

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

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

[edit] New template

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

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

[edit] Quality Scale

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

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The

[edit] Template question

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

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

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

[edit] World War I

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

[edit] Political Parties

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

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

[edit] Featured Article Vote on Indian Standard Time

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

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

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

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

[edit] United States House of Representatives

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

[edit] Project scope

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

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

Badbilltucker 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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


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

[edit] Minnesota up at FAC

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

[edit] First Amendment to the United States Constitution

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

[edit] General Motors

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

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

[edit] Joining

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

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

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

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

[edit] State Capitols

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

[edit] List of US projects template

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

[edit] The Star-Spangled Banner

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

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

[edit] State Townships

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

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

[edit] Recent policy changes limiting primary sources

There have been recent changes in the merging of

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

[edit] Help with Portal:United States

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

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

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

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

[edit] History of Alaska FAR

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

[edit] U.S. Census Pages

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

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

[edit] Census information here and on the Genealogy Wikia

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

[edit] Proposal/Suggestion about State Maps

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


[edit] Supreme Court of the United States FAR

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

[edit] Attack on Pearl Harbor FAR

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

== Plymouth Colony nominated for The article Plymouth Colony has been nominated at

[edit] Bilateral relations discussion

I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of == Howdy folks, we put the

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

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

[edit] Harlem Renaissance

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

[edit] Proposed new WikiProject

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

[edit] 12th Amendment FAR

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

[edit] First Ladies

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

This is a good start. ::Yeah,

[edit] New template for all US projects

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

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

[edit] Request for assistance: Thomas Pickering

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

You'll almost certainly have more luck at the appropriate task forces of ::Thank you for your suggestion ... I have added a note to the talk page of the American military history task force of ==First ladies - Presidential project, members of metaproject, or new subproject?==

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

[edit] US radio templates

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

[edit] Unsourced demographics and vandalism

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

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

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

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

The "citation" to this paragraph is a bare link to the Census Bureau's home page, which is about as useful as quoting the U.S. President and citing http://www.whitehouse.gov as the source. (Actually, it's much worse. Searching whitehouse.gov for text often works; searching the Bureau for a geographic name yields a slew of hits that can be very difficult to decipher for useful content.) Without a specific source, we cannot expect editors to Is there some effort, within or outside of this project, to replace these improper sourcing attempts with specific links to Census Bureau data for the specified Census Designated Places? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Trans-Border U.S. Regions

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

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

I am going to revert edits by Anon IP 71.146.50.237 because they appear to have been made to demonstrate a Modifying or removing the template from "Other designations" will prevent disruptive editing and accusations of U.S.-centrism. It would be no more acceptable to have a Regions of Canada or Regions of Mexico (only) template on these pages.

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

.s

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Bill Clinton

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

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

[edit] Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

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

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

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

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

[edit] Rock Springs massacre

Hello everyone. The article Rock Springs massacre, while not tagged by this project probably falls within its scope. It is a current Featured article candidate, if anyone here has the time comments would be appreciated after reviewing the

[edit] United States Congress featured article review

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

[edit] Energy policy of the United States

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

[edit] Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act featured article nomination

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act recently achieved Good Article status. I've nominated it for

[edit] American popular music

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

[edit] Third opinion needed

Alexander Hamilton was verifiably involved in the Newburgh conspiracy and was irreligious during the Revolution. I can find no secondary source which contradicts either, and have sourced both; one to the standard history of the Contental army, the other to Adair and Harvey's widely cited paper. Both are vehemently contested by a newbie, who cites no source, and whose arguments are "that can't be true of a Founding Father" and Please come have a look. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] FAR notice

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

[edit] Population standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Wikiproject American History Proposed

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

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

[edit] Please help

What is Just... adopt-a-range from the available

[edit] Proposal to move Georgia

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

[edit] Redirection of census-designated places

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

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

[edit] FAR

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

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

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

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

[edit] Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections

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

This page uses content from the English language Wikipedia. The original content was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with this Familypedia wiki, the content of Wikipedia is available under the Creative Commons License.

Retrieved from "http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States"