Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main page Talk Embassy Requested
Members Portal Recognized
To do Help
Welcome to the discussion page of WikiProject United States

Positions on Jerusalem

I added the WikiProject's template to the talk page of Positions on Jerusalem but it was removed. I think that it's on the scope of the project because it has two sections, "United States" and "United States Embassy", related to the United States. Do you think that it should be re-added?

Inquiry about Joaquín Miguel Elizalde

Would a Spanish Filipino who immigrate to the United States be considered Spanish Americans or Filipino Americans or both? I ask due to this edit done by AuH2ORepublican (talk · contribs). I believe the editor means well, but would like to know whether the edit has consensus of interested Wikiprojects. I am just unsure myself, but unsure enough to ask whether Joaquín Miguel Elizalde would be categorized under what ethnicity.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

For all practical matters, a Spanish Filipino (of 100% Spanish stock) who emigrated to the United States would be classified however he wished to be classified. If he said that because he was Filipino he wanted to be deemed an Asian, then he likely would be deemed to be an Asian. And given that Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race, and that Hispanics may be of any race (because of widespread African slavery in much of Latin America, many Hispanics are black, although the Congressional Black Caucus refuses to accept it for political reasons), it certainly would not be an impediment for such person to be deemed both Asian and Hispanic (as are, for example, Japanese Peruvians who emigrate to the U.S.). The only example of which I can think of the U.S. government of this day and age not accepting a person’s self-classification in a racial group would be if a white South African (or other African of pure European stock) claimed to be an African American, since such term has a very different connotation in America.
That being said, in the context of a list of Asian and Pacific Islands Americans in Congress, such person’s racial background, not his place of birth, should be paramount, because “Asian” and “Pacific Islander” are racial classifications. Descendants of natives of the Hawaiian Islands are Pacific Islanders, but descendants of Europeans or of European-Americans aren’t, even if both their parents were born and raised in Hawaii. Similarly, someone with four Spanish grandparents is not Asian even if he (and one of his parents) was born and raised in the Philippines. That’s the reason why I followed the Hawaiian precedent and removed Joaquín Manuel Elizalde from the list of Asian and Pacific Islands Americans in Congress. Now, if the editing community reaches a consensus that he should be included because “all Filipinos are, ipso facto, Asian,” then they can add him back in, but I warn them that they would have a hard time distinguishing Elizalde’s case from that of every single congressman who was born and raised in Hawaii (including not only a dozen or so white guys, but also former Illinois Senator Barack Obama). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Information for Wikiproyecto Estados Unidos

Near the top of this Talk page, there is an information box that reads as follows:

"Looking for Wikipedia talk: WikiProject United States in the Spanish Wikipedia? See... ¿Buscando por el discusión del Wikiproyecto Estados Unidos en la Wikipedia en español? Véase... es:Wikiproyecto Discusión:Estados Unidos."

The Spanish-language translation of the initial sentence is incorrect, and appears to have been done using a direct translation of each word instead of a translation of the sentence as a whole. "Looking for" should be translated as "buscando," not as "buscando por," and "discusión" is a feminine noun. The correct translation is "¿Buscando la discusión del Wikiproyecto Estados Unidos en la Wikipedia en español?" Does someone know how to fix that? I would fix it myself, but those information boxes cannot be edited from the Talk page. Cheers, AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 22:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Muchas gracias. : ) AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The state of health care in the United States: please help to write Draft:ZOOM+Care

Hi all. :-)

I am looking at drafts in a somewhat random fashion, not having established my strong topic areas at Wikipedia yet. In one draft, Draft:ZOOM+Care, the author appears respond to comments well, but for me the article context is rather unclear and confusing. I.e. while reading the draft I am very surprised to find that patients visit of a physical assistant required some legislation changes which the 'Zoom+Care' company allegedly did (first paragraph of 'Legal Initiatives'). In some places in Australia this is a very basic process, if people come to a doctor but doctors are too busy then the patient may be offered to see a nurse. How does the US really do this? I would find this on the Internet, but I think that it is outside of my strong knowledge area, meaning I would have difficulty using the correct keywords to obtain this information. Your assistance with clarifying the context for this draft would be appreciated.

--Gryllida (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Fictional American people of Irish descent has been nominated for discussion

Category:Fictional American people of Irish descent, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, along with 7 similar categories. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Roseanne Barr GAR

I've started WP:Good article reassessment/Roseanne Barr/1 and welcome input from others. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

420 Collaboration

The 420 Collaboration to create and improve cannabis-related content runs through the month of April. WikiProject members are invited to participate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

New tool for creating color-coded SVG maps of the United States

Example of the kind of map you can make with this tool

I created a new tool for generating color-coded SVG maps of the United States: Hope you like it! Kaldari (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The states in blue need their lists categorized by entrant's discipline
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastiantemple (talkcontribs) 11:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Lists of People by state from the United States

The lists of people by state from the united states are currently badly created.

Many of them (These ones to be precise: Alabama, Alaska, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virgina, Washington (state), West Virgina) make no distinction between persons by field and just put the athletes, scientist, polititians, artists, etc into one long alphabetized list which makes finding people based on their source of note-worthiness difficult for these states.

The problem compounds further when the states which do have their people sorted by category each do so using different terms for different categories or including different categories, or putting the categories in a nonsensical order, or omitting major categories entirely, which again all compounds to make finding information more difficult.

(Individual list entries also provide different amounts of information based on state: Kansas, for example, includes Home/Birthplace at the end of their descriptions which most other states do not provide).

So, it's proposed to create a template for all of the people from X state lists to follow which will have major categories and states lists can have subcategories and minor categories added based on need, as well as standardize the type and amount of information allotted to each list entry.

As a jumping off point, I suggest ten major categories with standard subcategories up to three layers thick:

§ Creatives

§§ Award Winning Creatives
 §§§ <Award as needed>
§§ Artists
 §§§ <Medium As Needed>
§§ Writers
 §§§ Authors
 §§§ Poets
 §§§ Journalists
§§ Musicans
 §§§ <Genre as Need>
§§ Film, TV, Animation, etc
 §§§ Actors
 §§§ Directors
 §§§ Personalities
 §§§ <Other Production Parts As Needed>
§§ Performance
 §§§ <Dance, Magic, Circus, Etc As Needed>

§ Athletics

§§ Olympians
§§ <Sports as Needed>
 §§§ <Athletes>
 §§§ <Coaches>

§ Sciences and Academia

§§ Noble Prize (and other Prizes) Winners
§§ Notable Professors
§§ Astronauts
§§ <Disciplines as Needed>

§ Inventors and Innovators

§ Public Figures

§§ Politicians
§§ Notable figures in Law
§§ Activists

§ Military

§ Religous Figures

§ Business

§ Other Notable Figures

§§ Notable victims of Crime
§§ Criminals
§§ People who caused significant events in the state's history but weren't from the state
§§ Actually miscellaneous Figures

§Fictional Characters

Sebastiantemple (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

For entry format I propose:

Single Person, Contemporary

  • [Name that links to person's wiki page] (born [YYYY]), [reasons for noteworthiness separated by commas]; [Hometown] (born in [birthplace if different])

Single Person, Historical

  • [Name that links to person's wiki page] ([YYYB]-[YYYD]), [reasons for noteworthiness seporated by commas]; [Hometown] (born in [birthplace if different])

Two Persons, one Contemporary one historical

  • [Name of Person A with Link] and [Name of Person B with Link] (born [YYAB] and [YYBB]-[YYBD]) [reasons for noteworthiness and a brief reason they are listed as one entry separated by commas]; [Hometown A] and [Hometown B if different] (A was born in [Birthplace A if different] and B was born in [Birthplace B if different])

Sebastiantemple (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-states part of the States seem to be missing lists as well: if these lists exist elsewhere, they should be folded into the list of lists of people by their state because while DC and other territories while not technically states their exclusion means the list of people from the US doesn't match the list of people from the states in the US, which is a problem. If needed, changing the title of the list from "list of people by state" to "list of people by jurisdiction" would allow for DC and Territories to be on the list of lists.

If these lists do not exist, they need to be compiled and folded in.

Sebastiantemple (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I despise lists by category, as they are maintenance headaches, especially when trying to find a specific person for disambiguating. Also, categories can be somewhat arbitrary, and what do you do with persons in more than one category, such as an athlete who becomes a politician? List them twice? I prefer listing alphabetically, and separating long lists by letter when necessary. It's far simpler and easier to update. - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

section 2.2 is OUTDATED, and no longer correct

(1) Section 2.2 History of interim U.S. Attorney appointments quotes Senator Feinstein's 2007 statement. HOWEVER, US Senate did something that year. See

An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006. Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility, US Department of Justice, September 2008, at page 8 ("At the request of the Department [of Justice], Congress enacted amendments to the USA Patriot Act in March 2006 which eliminated the district court from the process, removed the 120-day time limit, and permitted the Interim U.S. Attorney appointed by the Attorney General to serve until a Presidentially appointed U.S. Attorney was confirmed. See 28 U.S.C. § 546; Pub.L. 109-177, § 502. As discussed in Chapter Three, in response to the events described in this report [firing of 9 US attorneys], in June 2007 Congress repealed this amendment. Therefore, according to 28 U.S.C. § 546, an Interim U.S. Attorney appointed by the Attorney General may serve up to 120 days or until the confirmation of a Presidentially appointed U.S. Attorney. If an Interim U.S. Attorney appointment expires before a Presidentially appointed U.S. Attorney is confirmed, the federal district court for that district appoints an Interim U.S. Attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.")

(2) Appointment of a acting or interim US attorney is under (a) Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 Codified as 5 United States Code sections 3345 to 3349a, 3349b, 3349C and 3349d. (b) 28 USC section 546.

My email is [email protected], and I do not intend to write/rewrite/delete section 2.2 myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friedrich Lu (talkcontribs) 19:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals

Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals. Bermicourt (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:American Guard

Please comment on content that has been called into question.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Different infoboxes for state political parties

Hello I have noticed that there are two separate infoboxes for state political parties. Some link to the template for "The American State Political Party" [1] and others link to Infobox political party Oklahoma Democratic Party, Oklahoma Republican Party are two examples. Shouldn't there be one consistent infobox?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. Infoboxes, in general, have gone through changes over the years. I think where you might get some insight from editors who have knowledge of this is at WT:POLITICS. — Maile (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but other than some gun nuts that page seems dead.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Consensus-seeking discussion notice

Notifying project members of a consensus discussion taking place at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Discussion is currently found in sub-section titled Seeking consensus to restore content challenged by _____. -- ψλ 00:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA