Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:04, 18 April 2013

Looking for Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States in the Spanish Misplaced Pages? See es:Wikiproyecto discusión:Estados Unidos. ¿Buscando la discusión del Wikiproyecto Estados Unidos en la Misplaced Pages en español? Véase es:Wikiproyecto discusión:Estados Unidos.

WikiProject United States was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 4 July 2011.

Homosexuality in the Batman franchise

Shouldn't Homosexuality in the Batman franchise be under this Wikiproject's scope? If WPUSA covers everything made in the USA, and Batman is a US comic book property (both creators are American and DC Comics is American), plus the criticism came from US sources, surely this would be under this project's guidelines.

Discussion originally at User talk:Euchrid#Scope of WikiProject USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call for organizers: WLM US 2013 needs you

Hi, I wanted to invite you to help organize the 2013 Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest in the United States. Last year, over 22,000 files were uploaded (90% by new Misplaced Pages users) to illustrate articles about historic places in the United States. We need all the help we can get, so if you're interested in organizing the contest, please add your username at this page. If you have any questions, please don't post them here - place a new message on User talk:Mono. Thanks, Mono 15:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please offer an opinion?

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

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

Skylab 2 crew walkout.png

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

HuntingtonBeach-1904.jpg

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

Scott Vincent.png

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

File:William R. Roesch.jpg

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

WikiProject United States House of Representatives elections

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

1st Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF) Navy Unit Commendation Citation 2004-2005 Iraq War.pdf

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

Engineer Branch (United States)

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

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

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

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

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

File:P. F. Changs.jpg

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

Tom thumb peter coopers iron horse 6092027.jpg

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

Guibourd2855.jpg

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

Apache Wars

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

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

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

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

If the content is not cited, remove per WP:BURDEN. The editor adding content should provide reliable sources to verify newly added content. I hope this helps.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

CV-22 listed at Redirects for discussion

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

US largest city templates up for deletion

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

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

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

File:PAR.png

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

File:Sake barrels.jpg

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

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

Filipinos, Malay or Austronesians?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American#Malay or Austronesians?. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

Frederick md seal.png

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

Houston MetroRAIL maps up for deletion

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

Mendocino War, Indian Wars

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

I just took a look and made some changes.

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

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

USDB2002.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. Lindsay Embrey

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

Sexuality Demographics of Asian Americans

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Demographics of Asian Americans#Sexuality. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

New portal:Film in the United States

I made a new portal: Portal:Film in the United States WhisperToMe (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge/move proposal

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

County government

Category:County government in the United States

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

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

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

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