Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/Archive1

Archives

Metric units are not useful for US states

It seems a waste to me to spend so much time inputting data into the state pages if that data is in metric units. The general population of English speakers in the western hemisphere have no understanding of metric units and therefore such figures are as good as Greek to most people who will use these pages. It is highly unlikely that the US will ever adopt Metric units for the general population and so Standard units should be the rule with metrics in parentheses.--Britcom 10:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that both should always be used, probably with english first in U.S. articles, and vice-versa internationally. As an American, I find it very helpful when english units are used in international articles, and foreigners (yes, I am sure that some visit U.S. state articles from time to time) probably have no idea what many of the english units mean. AlexiusHoratius 23:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly concur with AlexiusHoratius. "Prettiness" of the templates (an excuse given for metric-only in a previous, now-archived version of this discussion) should never be an excuse for less usability. That's just madness! Anyway, we are pretty strongly directed by WP:MOSNUM to use both. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AlexiusHoratius and SMcCandlish. Someone learning English in another part of the world probably doesn't have the same understanding of Imperial/U.S. Customary measurements as would a native English speaker. In the same right, we the native speakers of English may not think in metric units. For this reason all articles in the English Wiki should have both metric and Imperial/U.S. Customary measurements. However, you can take comfort in the fact the the WP:MOSNUM does recommend that for U.S. articles, U.S. measurements be listed first. —MJCdetroit 01:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious demographics for states

A side conversation in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._states#Pennsylvania_demographics_table is about religious demographics. I notice that the presentation of religious demographics via a semi-prose form takes a lot of white space for the amount of information provided. Can I interest folks on this project in some creative thinking about a compact and probably table-oriented format for the data? -- Yellowdesk 17:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to decide what to do about this as well. Some articles, like Minnesota, write out the religious stats in prose, but this seems more difficult to read at a glance than the list. On the other hand, prose and tables should be used instead of lists, plus you are right about the large amount of white space. Perhaps a chart could be created with only the response given (i.e. Catholic, Jewish, Baptist, non-denom.) instead of trying to group them under sub-orders like Christian, Protestant etc., (as the sub-grouping makes a chart more complicated). AlexiusHoratius 23:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State-level categories

There has been an ongoing effort by Hmains to standardize all the state's categories. While standardization is a laudable goal, I am concerned about the unitary decision-making going on with that. I think that this project is best suited for hammering out what the structure should be. I'll join this project if others are interested in working on this. Thanks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New template for all US projects

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

Possibly, 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. Then again, implementing it would probably cause massive code bloat, since it would need to be done for every link in the template. It's probably better to just live with the "you are here" bold entry in the template, for the current page.
Deployment on all relevant pages after the above issues are solved. I am definitely not volunteering to do that part. I'll put it on WP:WPNM and maybe a few others, but that's it. Not enough time!

Its documentation explains how to add custom sections (e.g. a section for WikiProjects relating to stuff in that state, and so forth. See bottom of WP:WPNM for "Historical" section example, and example that will of course be relevant to a great number of states, perhaps even most of them, for links to WikiProjects on England, France, Mexico, Spain, etc., since these areas were once under other countries' control and this is important for historical articles.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official and Common State Names

The "State of" or "Commonwealth of" in the title of a U.S. state is not a descriptor but an integral part of the title, and that is why they are capitalized. Thus, the State of New Jersey is a state, but the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is also a state. These are not redundencies but the proper state titles as used in U.S. law. The State of Massachusetts changed its name to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1780, but remained a state. If the State of California decided to change its name to the Magic Kingdom of California, it would still be a state. "The U.S. states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania" is a proper use of the common names and "states" is written in lower case. It is preferred to use the official state name on first use and the common state name on subsequent uses. Thus, it is correct to write either "U.S. State of Delaware" or "U.S. state of Delaware", but the former is preferred on first use. We currently have half the U.S. state articles giving the official state name on first use and the other half omitting the official state name. I believe we should conform to standard practice. --Buaidh 21:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yer darn' tootin'. (I.e., I agree, vehemently.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't resist this comment. I just wanted to voice my agreement with the proposed formal name change to the Magic Kingdom of California.... - NDCompuGeek 04:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Projects and Portals

Is there any standardization for organizing portals for each state? I'm working with the Michigan and North Dakota portal (and the Air Force portal, and the North Dakota project, and the Michigan project... my god, what am I doing?!?), and have noticed that there are still quite a few states without portals. - NDCompuGeek 04:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source for latitude and longitude?

Does anyone know what reference is being used for the latitude and longitude (boundaries) of each state? The state pages don't give a reference, and this page doesn't suggest one. 66.30.237.125 05:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The boundary coordinates probably come from United States Geological Survey data, as that is the usual source for such coordinates. I wasn't involved in the Wikipedia state boundary coordinates, but that's the most popular source. (SEWilco 06:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

USGS "Boundaries of the United States and the Several States" describes the history of state boundaries. For example, Louisiana was created by act of Congress in 1804 (2 Stat. 283) the territory of Orleans boundary is defined. In 1812 Congress admitted it as Louisiana state and defined the location along the middle of several rivers, lakes, and the 33rd degree of north latitude. Several changes are documented. The north boundary was surveyed in 1806 (147 miles 49 chains), with most marks being blazed trees. Parts of the line were resurveyed several times. The Geological Survey located several points along that line. Boundaries between states may be changed by act of Congress. However, the job of the surveyor is to find the boundary line despite wording on documents. There are various markers, but various long-accepted lines determine boundaries. So if the USGS is the source of the state boundary lines used on maps, then Wikipedia is accepting the USGS data as being published expert intepretation of the boundaries. The original sources are deeds of individual properties, state founding documents, and various acts of Congress, but the surveyor finds where the lines lay on the land. In the USA, the free boundary data from the USGS is the probable source. For individual map images you should click on the image and look at the description on the image page. (SEWilco 03:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

List of city nicknames in the United States

The List of city nicknames in the United States is a large article, currently at about 173,000 bytes. It has been larger, as it used to be full of epithets made up by shock-jocks or school-mates. Several of us have managed to pare out the worst stuff, and sources have been provided for most of the surviving nicknames. The list is far from complete, however, and so is likely to grow larger. The only way I see to reduce the list size is to break out lists for individual states, which should then come under the scope of the appropriate state projects. Before I spam the state projects with this proposal, I thought I would ask here for comments. -- Donald Albury 12:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State governments

After finding the articles entitled Local governments in the United States and Federal government of the United States, and the Category:State governments of the United States, I excitedly created State governments of the United States without scanning the U.S. states article first. I think there is a different role for each article, but I wanted to mention that before forking quite a bit of info from the original article. Thoughts or responses would be appreciated. • Freechild'sup? 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only postal abbreviations and ISO codes displayed in "Abbreviations"

On the Abbreviations line, the template should have and display a value for traditional state abbreviations (in addition to the PostalAbbreviation and ISOCode). It's misleading to list postal abbreviations and ISO codes as the only abbreviations for US states. Thanks, Twalls (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senate classes and timezone format in infobox

Please see a thread on this at Template talk:Infobox U.S. state#Senate classes and timezone format. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State of emergency

There is a worldwide article on State of emergency which includes the US as a aubsection. I have suggested in their discussion that the US be forked and blended into a series of state articles on individual states responses to crisis. The higher level article needs to include (and maybe does already) what is generalized about each response. However each state is different. And Lord knows each state has a usually enormous history of disaster responses some of which would merit a one-liner in history in these articles. Student7 (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notice

Government of Maryland 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. Cirt (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fun interview and a fun image

Greetings! I whipped up this image for you guys. Perhaps you may find it useful. I recently interviewed Ruslik0 of WikiProject Solar System for the Signpost, and I would like to do the same thing here. Is anyone interested in being interviewed? Your project page doesn't list any coordinators or anything like that, so I'll leave it to you guys to decide who and how many people participate. My only suggestions are that there be less than 4 people and that those involved should have brought at least one US-related article through GA/FA. Once we decide how to do this, I'll start posting a series of questions at my workspace. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Current U.S. Lieutenant Governors

There is currently a discussion going on at Template talk:Current U.S. Lieutenant Governors over whether that template should continue to serve as the template for both Lieutenant Governors and First-in-lines of succession or whether it should be split into two templates. Your input is appreciated. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates format

Hello, I have traveled from WikiProject Geographical coordinates, where we seek wider opinions on whether {{coord}} should offer a N/S/E/W labeled format for decimal coordinates (example: 43°07′N 79°20′W / 43.12°N 79.34°W / 43.12; -79.34) either as an option or by default, or if the existing unlabeled format (example: 43°07′N 79°20′W / 43.12°N 79.34°W / 43.12; -79.34) is sufficient. Please comment there if you have an opinion on this. Thanks! --GregU (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

I was doing some work at Ohio, and I was wondering whether or not, under the population InfoBox, every Census's population needs its own reference. Thanks, Jd027 (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population should be determined by the census bureau. It is wise, IMO, to place a footnote so that editors can verify that the population is accurate. Often, misguided editors update from unauthorized sources such as local guesstimates by politicians which are often self-serving for the locality (looking for money from the legislature, for example). Good question and a good idea IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jd027 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut portal

Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Connecticut. Thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing natural history, geology

Funny looking back on these earlier "outlines." How far Wikipedia has come. Anyway, Geography is missing two key subsections, "Geology", and Natural History. Probably will result in summaries and forked articles for many states. Student7 (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"State of Oregon" redirect

There is currently a discussion over whether "State of Oregon" should redirect to Government of Oregon or Oregon at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#State_of_Oregon. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island portal at Featured Portal Candidates

Please see Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Rhode Island. Cirt (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of State Governments

I've worked on this page in my userspace for about 4 months now, and I've recently moved it into the mainspace. It's nearly complete, except for a few entries at the end of the legislative section and a few gaps (that are marked with question marks) where I didn't find quick answers. I'd like to invite others to help me complete it, and I intend to do the same.

There are also some ideas I've had for expansion and improvements on the talk page.

I'm wondering if this is the right place to solicit some help towards expanding the article, and linking it in appropriately. If not, please redirect me as appropriate; and if it is, thanks for helping out. Shadowjams (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion

I'm having trouble justifying an arm of the state government in my home state. It is a routine state-owned agency. It has never been in trouble, worse luck. The deleter says it is therefore not notable. I had just assumed that all state agencies were documentable. If my assumption is true, can you provide a reference? Thanks.Student7 (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Dakota legislature

There is a move discussion potentially relevant to participants at this project: South Dakota State Legislature → South Dakota Legislature. -Rrius (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially relevant move request

A move request has been made at Talk:State Attorney General#Requested move that may be of interest to participants here. -Rrius (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books

WikiProject Canada started to create books on its Prime Ministers, Premiers, and Provinces/Territories. See this discussion. I thought you guys could also be interested in creating books on your President, State Governors, and States. So here's a worklist. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also feel free to post a notice on relevant noticeboards if they exist (or individual states' Wikiproject's talk page or something). I'm not too familiar with the US-related WikiProjects. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books on US State Governors

As of creation, only Book:Governors of Indiana exists, but it's a good example. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books on US States

As of creation, only Book:Indiana exists, but it's a good example. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]