Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Archive 12

Quick Request for Closure

Can someone please close this TfD discussion about Template:Infobox United States federal court? The consensus is very clear; it just needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor. Ergo Sum 23:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Images

I have posted a question about image size for BLP infobox portraits (specifically American political figures). Please see:

wolf

00:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Families Belong Together

There were hundreds of Families Belong Together demonstrations throughout the U.S. this past weekend. Project members are invited to help complete the list(s) of locations. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Laura Ingraham

There is a discussion at the Laura Ingraham talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Independence Day (United States)

WP:OTD section of the main page for tomorrow. Unfortunately, it has a fair amount of unreferenced text, and will have to be pulled unless it's fixed. I'm hoping someone watching this page may be able to help. Vanamonde (talk

) 07:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Trump administration family separation policy

There is a discussion at the Trump administration family separation policy talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Infobox Criminal

The discussion is located here:

• Template_talk:Infobox_criminal#RfC_on_"trial"_parameter

--K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Martha McSally

There is a RfC at the Martha McSally talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

American vs. US in titles (parenthetical disambiguation)

Pinging

Redditaddict69 who brought it up at the help desk

. Is there a preferred style for the disambiguating parentheses between (US politician) (or U.S., or U.S.A., or...) and (American politician) in biographies? If not, should there be?

For what it is worth, I guess the same question applies to pretty much any (US/American Foo), not just politicians, though the biggest use case will probably be biographies; "American/US politician" would be too precise a

WP:PARENDIS if "politician" was enough, but some names are common enough to refer to multiple politicians of different countries. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me}

09:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think "U.S." is best. In many Latin American countries, "America" means the continent (similar to how Australia can be country or continent, America can be as well). If there's only one politician named Steve Bullock, then just leave it as politician. If there's two, then one should be "U.S." and the other from wherever. If you type the following phrases into the search bar, you'd be surprised at the differences between the two. Many are redirects to the opposite one, which would actually prevent page moves until those redircets are deleted.

• intitle:"(American politician)"
• intitle:"(U.S. politician)"
  

69

09:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Redirects blocking page moves are a technical problem, so not really a problem; the real question is whether there is consensus for a massive move to either version. FWIW I agree with your point of view but I have no strong feeling either way. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Jim Bankoff draft article

Resolved

On behalf of

This request has been answered. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• Desire Projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm hoping someone with a clue will check recent edits at this article. They introduced a new image which might be perfect, but on the other hand it was just uploaded and I don't know anything about it. There is also a problem with the change to "population" in the infobox: if "1,830" is correct, the comma needs to be removed to stop the error. The edits look fine but it would be better if someone from this project checks them. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

https://www.mediaite.com/online/new-sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-60-minutes-exec-jeff-fager-he-was-on-a-power-trip/

Apparently more people came forward on Him at the same time as the Les Moonves scandal came into play at CBS as of September 2018.

https://wcbs880.radio.com/articles/cbs-ceo-les-moonves-step-down-amid-sexual-misconduct-probe

https://www.businessinsider.com/les-moonves-6-more-women-accuse-cbs-chairman-sexual-misconduct-2018-9

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/leslie-moonves-six-more-women-accuse-cbs-ceo-of-sexual-assault-or-harassment/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:BCDA:FB96:296B:21B2 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Judge (writer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Judge (writer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated William Matthews (priest) for Featured Article status, and it is currently under review here. The article failed once before for failure to generate enough comments. I believe it is very close to FA, and meets all the criteria. Any further input would be greatly appreciated. Ergo Sum 04:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here on whether to condense and reform many parameters. Ergo Sum 04:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:John McAfee#Media attention and false news (permalink). --Krinkle (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

At least a few states have municipalities in two completely disjoint categories, one for towns and one for cities. These are technically container categories, because each category contains a list of categories (one for each town or city) and no individual pages.

I found this extremely confusing at first. I can see that "People by populated place in (state)" often exists (or perhaps always exists), but it is not just a union of the "towns" and "cities" categories, it also has "census designated places" and boroughs within cities (like Manhattan within New York City) and neighborhoods within boroughs within cities (like Greenwich Village within Manhattan within New York City).

I'm not saying we should change the tree structure at all, I think having a category of categories for all "populated places" is good, and I think having totally disjoint categories of categories for towns and cities is fine, but I probably wouldn't have started that way, but we already have it.

Here is what I propose:

Near the top of the "People by town in (State)", there should be a big link to the related "People by city in (State)", and a note that the state in question contains both towns and cities, and this one page doesn't have all the municipalities in the state.

Not only is the link not big, and not at the top, the link is nowhere. I had to think of a specific "town" that I thought was missing from a state, look up that "town", confirm that it is in the state I thought, and then realize it is a city. Then all the pieces fell into place.

If someone shows up in Nebraska and asks themself, "Hmm, I wonder what famous people are from Nebraska", Wikipedia should have that ready to go for both cities and towns. I realize there is a page for the whole state, but even the smaller states have very big lists, and there is no feature to sort by how awesome the people are (nor could this feature ever be implemented), so the temptation to drill down by town or city is probably the first thing that an aimless wanderer will try.

I think a major use of these category pages is when someone just got a job offer in Delaware, they have never been to Delaware, it is 4 AM, and they want to figure out "what's up with Delaware?" The question is purposefully vague, and Wikipedia is the best possible place to answer these questions. "You don't know what you're looking for, but Wikipedia knows exactly what we have, and here it is."

(I chose Nebraska and Delaware randomly because they are relatively small in population, but not the smallest (Wyoming), and because I get a general sense that people do not know "what is up with" those two states. Although looking at the list sorted by population, I think that is just true in general for the least populous states.) Fluoborate (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this! Can we have a script or bot do this so the links don't have to be added manually though? Thanks for bringing this up! –Daybeers (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

At Talk:2018 Schoharie, New York limousine crash there is a discussion ongoing regarding the article naming, one aspect of which is about whether or not to include the state name or not. There are currently no guidelines or conventions on this that either myself or user:Daniel Case have found. There is no consistency in the naming of articles, for example:

• 1999 Bourbonnais, Illinois, train crash and 1971 Salem, Illinois, derailment; but
• 2008 Chatsworth train collision and Garrison train crash

I feel it would be beneficial to have a naming convention for these articles and so I propose the following:

• Articles about transportation accidents and incidents in the United States should normally include the name of the state in the title, except:
  • Where the main article about the location does not include the state name (e.g. Chicago, Oklahoma City); or
  • The
    WP:COMMONNAME of the event does not include the state name (e.g. Big Bayou Canot rail accident
    ).

The state name should only be added where disambiguation is required, that is, where there are multiple places with the same name. For example, there are multiple Chatsworths and Garrisons in the US, so the relevant state name should be included. Schoharie, however, is unique, so the state name is unnecessary. WWGB (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Three unbroken words Use one location, the affected thing and what happened to it. More often than not, this is how the news has always done it. They also have a way of making previously unfamiliar places familiar, as the place where the thing happened to the thing;
  2018 New York City Eurocopter AS350 crash of March 11 is way too full. The World Wide Tours bus crash of March 2011 is just right (those first three words count as one). InedibleHulk (talk)
  01:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, if we adopt guidelines for this sort of thing, we should:

• Extend them to all events whose article title would use a comma-separated toponym, regardless of country, as a descriptor, not just transportation accidents/incidents (and I would qualify that as "ground transportation accidents/incidents", since we use flight identifiers for most aviation incidents (at least commercial ones) and the waterbody or vessel name for navigation accidents)
• Also settle the question, my real question, of whether a comma is required after the name of the state in a title when the location is used as a descriptor. I am leaning towards no, because we don't generally use commas after modifiers, but there might be others who think differently.
• Decide whether the above two issues are also applicable to events that are described by MDY dates of occurrence. We won't always have it as easy as where we could eventually take "2001" out of the title of September 11 attacks and all other articles titled that way since everyone knows which September 11 we're talking about.

Honestly, since as suggested above I believe this issue extends beyond the naming of articles about transportation accidents, we should really be discussing it at the MOS talk pages. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I just followed the link from the limo crash talk page, figuring it went all the way to the top. Noticed afterward we're technically only talking about American transportation. My advice applies equally to wherever this general discussion is likely to wind up. As for your second comma dilemma, yes, generally leave it out; same as when referring to "the October 19, 2005 episode of Such and Such". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I figured that transportation accidents was a broad enough scope as they mostly tend to be named similarly in relation to a place. Other incidents are less predictable (e.g. mass shootings tend to get named for more precise locations such as institutions or neighbourhoods), once agreement is reached on either including it always, never or in defined circumstances it can be expanded if desired. I decided to limit the discussion to places in the US because the "comma convention" of geographical location naming is not applicable worldwide so the question of whether to include the state name in the title isn't relevant to most places outside the US. The guideline agreed here (whatever it is) can be applied to other places where it makes sense if people want it to (assuming consensus of relevant editors/projects) but it wont make sense everywhere (e.g. in the UK). I don't have any opinion about the number of commas and that's slightly beside the point about whether to include the state name or not. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• In regards to adding state names, in the case of the Schoharie limo crash, I'm not sure people are going to remember the name of the small town the crash happened in it, just that it was in New York State. Also, do we not care about the year? I feel like the title is incomplete without it, but I could be convinced otherwise. :) I do strongly believe this needs to be brought up in the MOS talk pages as proposed above. –Daybeers (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Whether people remember anything we tell them in any part of any article is ultimately out of our hands. But by calling it the Schoharie limousine crash in big bold letters upfront, they're more likely to leave permanently (and correctly) associating the limousine crash with Schoharie, rather than loosely tying it to a state or year their minds have already linked to a mish-mash of memorable and forgettable things. "Schoharie" is strange and new, thus virgin and fertile, just like "Kyoto", "Nuremberg" or "Jonestown" were, before they grew into autocompleting root words.

And yeah, we care about the year. It's just not used by any reliable sources (like most events), so flatly fails

WP:COMMONNAME. "Only" suitable for the infobox, lead, categories and body. Without the year, "Schoharie, New York, limousine crash" is used by one single source. "New York limousine crash" is pretty much the only viable alternative here, and is one letter more concise but obviously less precise. InedibleHulk (talk)

05:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This is discussion is not specifically about the limo crash - it's about all (ground) transportation accidents in the US and it's about establishing consistency for all such accidents that occur outside the ~30 major cities listed at

WP:USPLACE. Whether or not to include the year is entirely independent of whether or not the state name should be included. Thryduulf (talk

) 12:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Any other thoughts on this? Daybeers (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as someone from outside the USA, I find it is useful to include the state as a disambigator as it give some indication of roughly where the incident was. I would suggest that if the location is not disambiguated on its Wikipedia page, the there is no need to disambiguate in the title. Also, there is probably less need to disambiguate for State Capitals, but this should not be a hard and fast rule. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• • State capitals vary in their significance - Atlanta is the largest city in Georgia and internationally known, Augusta is only the 9th most populous city in Maine, and I'd say that Augusta, Georgia is likely significantly better known outside the USA. I think therefore it's not a great criterion by which to judge the need for disambiguation or not. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I have been working on the Stub for Darr H. Alkire, and I feel it has come quite a long way. Could you please review it and determine if it can be elevated out of the stub class? Thank you KlausVonVilver (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Last year, we had to omit

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the

Following quite nasty edit-war, I started discussion on the Great Power article talk page about map in the article. Main topics for discussion: What countries should be on the map? Should the map show some sort of hierarchy of great powers (eg. using colours)? Would not be better to remove the map altogether? So far, only IPs and new accounts entered this discussion, so input from experienced editors would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Pavlor (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

In connection with a master's level class in U.S. food policy at Tufts University, I am tempted to help organize students to make some coordinated edits to pages on (topics) food policy, agricultural policy, food labeling policy, (programs) SNAP, WIC, (legislation) Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, Farm Bill. We have been learning how to use templates for infoboxes for organizations, legislation, court rulings. Question: Is there anybody at this WikiProject who I should tap for advice or coordination before beginning? Parke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkewilde (talk • contribs) 18:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

We (I and an IP editor) have a bit of a disagreement about the usage of a lead image in the lead of this article. Please see the talkpage for more information - additional feedback to form a consensus (pro or contra) would be appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I have started a formal RfC at Talk:Germany–United States relations#RfC on lead image. Any additional input would be welcome. GermanJoe (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Please comment, at

A requested move to lower-case the name of the astronaut driven vehicle used for Moon exploration is at the link above. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Project members may be interested in the discussion about whether or not the District of Columbia (until 1871) article should exist at Talk:District of Columbia (until 1871). Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter:

Please consider contributing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historic properties in Williams, Arizona. --Doncram (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the

NathanPeters406 (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

CONSENSUS IN FAVOR

There is consensus in favor of removing these charts from the pages of the states themselves. There is a weak consensus that they should instead be put at the "politics of ___" articles. Closed per request at

WP:ANRFC, if you have an questions about this close please ask me. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure

)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recently noticed that the State articles have had multiple Federal elections charts added to them. I am not sure the State articles should feature these Federal charts and believe most should be moved to the main articles on elections per state. These charts are causing a few format problems ( like

WP:PROSE is preferred - it should be a chart related to state level elections at best. I propose moving charts like at Massachusetts#Politics to Politics of Massachusetts. What do others think about this? --Moxy (talk

) 16:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with these points. Carlstak (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree too. I tried to trim the lists at Massachusetts about a month ago and was reverted; another editor raised similar concerns at Talk:Virginia. My main concern, besides the sandwich issues, is that we can show all this stuff at more specific articles per Summary style. Those election map/county chart things are often too specific as they focus on one election in one year, and the gov/pres election results can be shown using just the last few decades - we don't need to go back to the Korean War. Another option might be collapsible lists. AlexiusHoratius 22:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this to the WikiProject, I'm the editor who raised concerns at
  main article fixation, where a user has spent time creating these graphics, and doesn't want to see them buried on subarticles, even if that's a more apropriate place. On Virginia#Politics, I tried to split the baby by trimming the gubenatorial and presidential charts to 1992, and using Template:Stack to get them to stay vertical above one another, but my first preference is to move these charts to either the Politics of (insert state) article, or perhaps Elections in (state).-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞
  20:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be possible just to make them collapsible/mw-collapsible in order to conserve space? Mélencron (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

This would be a good idea even if most think it's best to move.--Moxy (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Also agree that this is too much detail for state articles. Number 57 21:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Also agree that this is too much detail. Bondegezou (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• I noted this discussion at WikiProject Elections because I'm curious about where (if anywhere) this data should belong longterm. Sounds like users agree with moving the presidential/gubernatorial vote total tables to a subarticle, but should they then be expanded back from the 1950s to earlier elections? What about third parties or independents? Should they be converted to an official template like Template:Compact election box? I've been looking for an equivilant to these charts nationally, and only found the article List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin. Additionally, I wanted to specifically bring up the SVG box charts of largest counties that can be seen in the screenshot Moxy provided. I think they belong solely on articles like 2016 United States presidential election in (state), but maybe on a states' Elections page if the 2016 election is discussed in the text.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 02:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a discussion on the

NathanPeters406 (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

CONSENSUS IN FAVOR

There is consensus in favor of removing these charts from the pages of the states themselves. There is a weak consensus that they should instead be put at the "politics of ___" articles. Closed per request at

WP:ANRFC, if you have an questions about this close please ask me. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure

)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recently noticed that the State articles have had multiple Federal elections charts added to them. I am not sure the State articles should feature these Federal charts and believe most should be moved to the main articles on elections per state. These charts are causing a few format problems ( like

WP:PROSE is preferred - it should be a chart related to state level elections at best. I propose moving charts like at Massachusetts#Politics to Politics of Massachusetts. What do others think about this? --Moxy (talk

) 16:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with these points. Carlstak (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree too. I tried to trim the lists at Massachusetts about a month ago and was reverted; another editor raised similar concerns at Talk:Virginia. My main concern, besides the sandwich issues, is that we can show all this stuff at more specific articles per Summary style. Those election map/county chart things are often too specific as they focus on one election in one year, and the gov/pres election results can be shown using just the last few decades - we don't need to go back to the Korean War. Another option might be collapsible lists. AlexiusHoratius 22:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this to the WikiProject, I'm the editor who raised concerns at
  main article fixation, where a user has spent time creating these graphics, and doesn't want to see them buried on subarticles, even if that's a more apropriate place. On Virginia#Politics, I tried to split the baby by trimming the gubenatorial and presidential charts to 1992, and using Template:Stack to get them to stay vertical above one another, but my first preference is to move these charts to either the Politics of (insert state) article, or perhaps Elections in (state).-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞
  20:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be possible just to make them collapsible/mw-collapsible in order to conserve space? Mélencron (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

This would be a good idea even if most think it's best to move.--Moxy (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Also agree that this is too much detail for state articles. Number 57 21:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Also agree that this is too much detail. Bondegezou (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• I noted this discussion at WikiProject Elections because I'm curious about where (if anywhere) this data should belong longterm. Sounds like users agree with moving the presidential/gubernatorial vote total tables to a subarticle, but should they then be expanded back from the 1950s to earlier elections? What about third parties or independents? Should they be converted to an official template like Template:Compact election box? I've been looking for an equivilant to these charts nationally, and only found the article List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin. Additionally, I wanted to specifically bring up the SVG box charts of largest counties that can be seen in the screenshot Moxy provided. I think they belong solely on articles like 2016 United States presidential election in (state), but maybe on a states' Elections page if the 2016 election is discussed in the text.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 02:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 You are invited to join the discussion at

There has been a discussion on how to spell the word "aluminum"/"aluminium" at Talk:Charles Martin Hall#Re my revert. It will be greatly appreciated if you see the discussion and provide your opinions.--R8R (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team