This page is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
There is currently a discussion as to how to retitle the page October surprise conspiracy theory, which is part of this WikiProject. A prior RFC closed with a consensus to change the name of the page, but those supporting the change were roughly split between two options: 1980 October surprise theory and 1980 October surprise allegations. In a follow-up discussion, the vast majority of editors said that they would prefer either name, but a few expressed an opinion for just one or the other. As such, we are seeking wider community input. Thanks for reading!--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Undo hijacking of WikiProjects Louisiana and New Orleans
Long ago the WikiProject Louisiana talk page banner AND the WikiProject New Orleans talk page banner were both hijacked, so readers are directed to post here at WikiProject United States instead. This undermines development, discussion of Louisiana and NOLA community matters. Therefore I propose/request cessation of hijacking by eliminating the automatic conversion of talk page banners ((WikiProject Louisiana)) and ((WikiProject New Orleans)). Hopefully this would give readers and editors a fighting chance to have successful, intermittent discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Louisiana and wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Orleans. -- Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No part of this required pinging like 80 people, nor did it require the bizarre tone of this entire message from start to finish. My favorite part is the one user you pinged that has been indefinitely blocked since 2015. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My issue is that WikiProject United States (in fact without agreement, but it was long ago) obtained an override over the WikiProject Louisiana and WikiProject New Orleans talk page banners. All the existing banners were replaced, and any new ones placed today are automatically replaced, by ((WikiProject United States|LA=yes|LA-importance=)) or ((WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|LA=Yes|LA-importance=|NOLA=Yes|NOLA-importance=)). Which directs readers/editors at the 14,756 Louisiana articles, and at 2,724 New Orleans articles, to read at and post to this Talk page, instead using local Talk pages. People are less likely to brazenly post about local Louisiana things at a United States page (with my posting above at #Gene King country musician being an exception), and they are less likely to see and read any Louisiana postings anywhere. The experiment about moving Louisiana-topic discussions to here has failed.
There are still new editors occasionally arriving and signing up as members at both Louisiana wikiprojects, who are not welcomed and integrated, and are likely frustrated. I am frustrated that they don't find much activity and that they, too, go away.
I and others nonetheless occasionally do make postings at the local projects about local matters, and do want to have discussions or get comments, etc., but no discussion happens. Which is partly, perhaps largely, due to the misdirection of traffic by the WikiProject United States banners on all the projects' pages.
The 80 or so persons pinged have either posted about Louisiana matters or they signed up (mostly long ago but also some recently) as current members of the two WikiProjects. It is fine and good for me to call for some discussion and reach out to them all. This is in fact the Talk page for all Louisiana matters, big and small, according to WikiProject United States.
The same problem applies for many other states' WikiProjects, by the way, and it will be fine and good to ping many more hundreds of editors to come here on similar proposals. One or more times in the past I have tried to get these changes done by requests at the templates, but that didn't work, if I recall correctly, because I wasn't then able to convince an administrator-gatekeeper of the problem.
So, anyhow, here, is there any other support besides mine, and/or are there no objections, to removing WikiProject United States banner from 17,480 articles' Talk pages, replacing it by Louisiana and New Orleans banners instead, and to disabling the automatic processes that have enforced the current bannering? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please correct me if I am wrong, but looking (for example) at Template talk:WikiProject Louisiana, it says "This template is supported by WikiProject Louisiana." Clicking that links brings one to the appropriate Wikiproject. What is the issue exactly? I do not necessarily have any strong opinion on the matter, but I do object to the idea that you can revert a wrapper that has been (more or less) static since 2011 simply because no one replies in two days (over the weekend, to boot). (please do notping on reply) Primefac (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't have to be decided in 2 days. Thanks, that 2011 date helps me find my way to some of the archived discussions from back then. I strongly disliked the hijackings back then and have considered them to be a disaster all along.
I have noticed that there seem to be a large number of US related WikiProjects that are either Inactive, Defunct or have minimal activity. I would like to recommend redirecting the talk pages of these to the WikiProject United States talk page. This will allow a more timely response to questions and suggestions....
I consider these [example proposed new WPUS templates] mostly to be constructed backwards. I want it to say (big letters) the article Michigan is parrt of WikiProject Michigan (small letters) maybe consider looking at Project United States. Not: (big letters) this is WikiProject United States (small letters) oh maybe look at Michigan's wikisubproject too. I am not going to see Michigan-related (misposted?) discussion posted on the first prominent link in the template (United States) because I do not follow or want to follow that project. Rmhermen (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Im sorry I am not following what your trying to say. --Kumioko (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I follow his logic, and I tend to agree with it. What he's saying is that in all likelihood a consolidated banner would put WPUS front-and-center and relegate all of the subprojects to second-banana status on less visible lines below WPUS's main template message, since that's the way WPBannerMeta treats a project's task forces and subprojects. For that reason, I also ask that WP:NY be excluded from a potential consolidation.
Personally I don't see the point of this. All I can see this doing is choking out the small wikiprojects making them task forces of one huge project. (While they may have their own letters having a banner is a big way that wikiprojects advertise}--Guerillero | My Talk 21:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those objections were spot-on, IMHO. As I recall, what happened was: most or all of the relatively active state and city WikiProjects opted out. All the others, where there was not a reply within something like two days (over a weekend, to boot, probably), got folded in and, well, demolished.
IMO the natural level of discussion in Wikipedia for many things like individual biographies and historic places is at a U.S. state level. The discussion may be intermittent, but in my experience (in some state wikiprojects that weren't folded in, I guess) it can still be constructive, even if slowly, over one or two or even five or more years! Local editors appreciate responses and take encouragement when they're pinged after long delay. Folding all such discussions into one WikiProject US forum, which oversees more than 400,000 articles, simply does not, did not, work. That eliminated all the slow discussions. The experiment failed, and I personally want to revive many of the WikiProjects that were subsumed, starting with Louisiana and New Orleans in this proposal. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I am user Bookku usually work in information and knowledge gap areas. Just worked on sandbox draft 'My Body No Choice'. I am looking for some copy edit help, if the topic would interest you. Thanks.-- Bookku (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So that population is different from what the articles says according to the 2020 census. The demographics section of the article includes number of households, pop density, land area, education figures, home vacancy rate, and median income. I'm not totally sure if these are supposed to be from the 2020 census or some American Community Survey estimates. Kk.urban (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No article should contain unsourced demographic data. I'd revise it to whatever the 2020 census says, and remove entirely anything you have no source for, then add an citation to the census. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I have corrected the false numbers and removed all the unsourced data. Kk.urban (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]