Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

2002–2004

Natural resources sections

I suggest adding a "Natural Resources" section to each state's entry.

-- Pat

Intro header unneeded

The "introduction" header is unnecessary; we expect an introduction to the topic at the top of its article. Also, "Demography" is incorrect usage. See talk:WikiProject Countries. --KQ 13:55 Aug 20, 2002 (PDT)

Summary table

Couldn't a table be included, summarizing the key facts about the state + flag + motto, as it is done in WikiProject Countries and in WikiProject French departements? - Olivier

Yeah, that would probably be a good idea. Since all or most of the states also have a flag and a seal, it could look very much like the tables in WikiProject Countries. But we already have so much work with the remaining countries ;-) Jeronimo

Aye, and most of those countries have subdivisions that will need to be covered sooner or later! Agggh! :) --Brion

Maybe we will end up listing all the streets in each city of the world!!! -Olivier

I hate to think what disambiguation problems that would generate... But yes, we should actually have similar projects for at least all administrative subdivisions. Jeronimo

County maps

I've added little maps to all the California counties with an overview of the state, with that county highlighted; this gives a nice sense of general placement. I notice there's a similar map in Frederick County, Maryland (but not for the other Maryland counties). I'm considering doing similar sets for the US as a whole showing the states, and for the counties/parishes of other states. (It will take a while to get them all!) Comments/ideas/feedback? --Brion 07:40 Sep 9, 2002 (UTC)

Good idea, continue! Maybe a map of the state with all counties shown would be nice (like the California map, but with the names in it as well). Jeronimo

Nevada counties are done. Well, except the articles for most them. :) But the maps are ready, including a larger version with names in the list page. I'll make one of those for CA as well. --Brion 04:56 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)

Before changing the WikiProject U.S. States, I added a (partially incomplete) table summarizing some key elements for a state, like in WikiProject Countries, and put it on display at Pennsylvania. This has been asked for (above), so what does everyone think about it? What things should be added/changed/etc.? -- Ram-Man

Very nice, thanks for your work! Some thoughts... For ex-Confederate states, do you think secession and re-admission dates should be noted as well? Also, for non-states (District of Columbia perhaps; Puerto Rico and Guam, certainly), obviously there's no date of admission to the union; annexation date might be appropriate. --Brion

Those dates were mentioned in the WikiProject itself I think. But it would be good to think about those again. For the non-states, there will of course have to be flexibility. I'll see about making it clearer. -- Ram-Man

I just wanted to say that the table looks good to me. However, it is probably a bit much to have such an extensive breakdown of area. I helped develop the original WikiProject Countries table and we felt that simply have the ranking, total and percent water was the best way to do it (the breakdown can be done easily enough with that info). Otherwise all the numbers begin to run together and the usefulness of the table is diminished (since it then becomes visually confusing - esp for those with a math and reading dyslexia like myself). --mav

Shouldn't there be a WikiProject U.S. Counties and a WikiProject U.S. Cities? This WikiProject seems to me to be too cluttered with all three in one project. -- Ram-Man

There are, now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Law/government of state

"* Law/Government of state [Note that all the U.S. states have similar legal and political systems, so maybe we only need to mention anything that makes the state distinct]" I thought Lousiana law was based on the Code Napolean not English law? --rmhermen

Such a thing should be mentioned of course. Pennsylvania is similar in that it originated with a unique form of government. Granted that may be considered history, but there are a number of things that make a government unique. Whatever they are, they go in the article. Some duplication can't be all that bad anyway. State government *is* different from national government. In that sense, the state government can be discribed if it is not already. -- Ram-Man

Kilometers

The reason for the use of kilometers only in the table is twofold. The first reason is to mirror the WikiProject Countries. The second is because adding miles clutters the table. It is perfectly fine to use kilometers and miles in the articles themselves. Just leave them out of the table. In addition, the english equivalents are given at List of U.S. states by area. -- Ram-Man

Not fine. Necessary. If not we make the articles on the USA incomprehensible to most people in the USA. Please see also the debates at metrification and Wikipedia Manual of Style. A cluttered table is less problem the a useless one. --rmhermen

I looked at the debates, and it is far from decided what the appropriate action should be. On the other hand, since WikiProject U.S. States is intended to be as close to WikiProject Countries, we use what they use. When that was first setup, I understand they used both, but it caused problems. This was mentioned in the discussion and I took the liberty to copy it here:

"I simply use SI or metric and link to the appropriate unit article -- many of which already have conversion factors and links to a great online converter. See square kilometre. This is one of the way we were able to reduce the hideously wide countries tables to their current much leaner state. If and only if there is room, it seems appropriate in context and if it doesn't confuse things, should we use the American system (So long as links to the right unit article are included of course). See the boiling/melting point part of the barium table for an example of this. --mav." As you can see, having both created problems with the tables. Having the link provides a conversion tool. This has already been decided and we should stick with it. As this is peer reviewed, anyone can put whatever data they want however. I suggest bringing the topic up in the parent WikiProject if you want to change anything. Again the article itself will contain the english measurement, so it should not be unreadable. -- Ram-Man

County consistency

In some states, there is a separate page with the list of counties. In others, it's in the state listing itself. Shouldn't we follow the same plan for all? And if we put a separate list of counties, might we not list those lists under County as

• List of Alabama counties
• List of Arizona counties

...

(or perhaps show it as Alabama) to facilitate linking to them? :---BRG

The current WikiProject U.S. States specifies that the counties be put in a list. The states that do not have them in a separate list are not yet updated. As for adding to County, it is probably a good idea. The list should probably look like the list of states does in United States. -- Ram-Man

Guess I haven't looked at the WikiProject U.S. States article in a while. In any case, the rest of my comment is still valid; should we produce a list of links to these lists in the County article? -- BRG

Add a table like follows (a template like that used at United States):

List of Alabama Counties List of Alaska Counties ...

List of Montana Counties List of Nebraska Counties ...

Putting in in a column format will keep it from being overwhelming on the page. If someone doesn't like it, they can change it. It should be fine. Actually it may make sense to have an article entitled U.S. Counties (similar to U.S. States) which we can link to from the County article. I'm working on an idea for this. -- Ram-Man

WikiProject tags do NOT go in articles themselves

Why having the WikiProject tags in articles is bad and why they should be at the top of talk pages (if at all);

1. When potential readers see it, they may feel obligated to visit and agree to the WikiProject in order to contribute.
2. Talk is a page for comments about how to improve the article. The article namespace is not a good place for this.
3. Whenever we make articles we should try to make it as useful to readers as possible. Ugly tags detract from the article and are not intended for mere readers anyway; WikiProject tags are for contributors who want to majorly add to a set of articles. These people will visit talk anyway.
4. These tags are self-conscience and considerations on how Wikipedia articles will look in print form are important (these tags will have to be removed before a print version is made, so it is best to limit their use).
5. WikiProjects are for a set of users to agree on a set of guidelines. Nobody else is bound by those guidelines. However the tag implies that those guidelines should be followed in order to contribute. This is very unwiki.
6. The major WikiProjects (Countries, Elements and Sports) do not have these type of tags in articles (the talk pages od converted element articles mention who did the conversion and that the conversion was based on WikiProject Elements).
7. Probably more reasons.

PS I simply watch each of the articles I convert. I then reformat contributions made to the converted articles in order to make sure they don't stray too far from the WikiProject guidelines. That way I don't intimidate potential contributors, and can keep some consistency. --mav

Locator map

I have uploaded the map that I have used to create a locator map for each of the states. I highlighted the states in blue and then scaled it down to 30% to create the maps. (Unfortuanately blue and green are a bad color combination, I should have used a more constrasting color like orange or bright red for the state.) Anyway, here is the link to the full size US map that I used to create them:

File:US map.jpg

sfmontyo

Template cleanup

I will be going through all of the states and modifying them to match this template. I've three questions:

1)Can we get rid of the two links to counties? The template section outline shows a list of counties as a link under geography and also having their own section. I'd like to place the link under just one place, say geography and removing the "Counties" section with just the link.

2) Any objections to formatting the counties and colleges (perhaps also cities) like those in Missouri, that is using small font and lists in two columns.

3) How about using the heading "Cities and Important Towns" rather than "Major Cities". Some of the states had used the heading Cities and Important Towns which is a better description of these *cities* especially when its not uncommon to have *cities* that are about 10,000 people.

Please let me know what you think before I do this as I plan on starting Feb 19, 2003. sfmontyo

I agree with all three suggestions, except in cases where a limited number of counties wouldn't warrant two columns. Danny 12:45 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

I personally find the lists of counties quite useful, but maybe I'm the only one. Who knows. How about "Important Cities and Towns"? -- Ram-Man

Flag error

Resolved

Not very sure this is a right place to tell. On Kansas, the link to the full size flag wrongly points to Missouri's. Didup 19:02 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Governor

Resolved

In the right hand sidebar, shouldn't we add the current Governor (or in the case of DC, the current Mayor) between Captial and Area?

-- hoshie

I agree. If no one opposes, I'll add it to the template. --Jiang

More maps

In tandem with the images I've helped to create for the U.S. Counties project, I've been working on a bunch of maps for the U.S. state articles. The first is the more brightly-colored (and easily readable) map of the U.S. on the U.S. state article; I've proceeded to use this map, in simpler outline form, to create highlighted maps for each state. I'm also in the process of making closer views of the individual states. Mock-ups of how this might look in the actual state articles will be posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. States/mockups. -- Wapcaplet 12:40 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Commemorative quarters

I'm thinking of adding a row at the bottom of the table to accommodate an image of each state's commemorative quarter; does anyone have any thoughts on this? - Hephaestos 16:53, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ick. Just for the record. I can't think of anything more trivial. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

County outlines map of the US

I've made a map of the USA showing county outlines, in case it may be useful. -- Wapcaplet 22:15, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Question of Parks

Most states have a fairly extensive state park system. Some individual parks already have Wikipedia articles. The only mention so far of parks is in the Geography section of the template. I just saw an article (it has been here for a while) on Ohio public lands. There don't seem to be any others like it. My thought is that we might rename it List of Ohio State Parks and make that title a suggested entry in the template. I realize that refernced article lists national parks, as well as state level entries, but that wouldn't seem a problem. What do you think? Lou I 17:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If it is just a list, then it should be named as such. --mav 05:19, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is also a list at List of Arizona state parks. And a related question, which I hope to discuss on the Counties Project talk page, regarding a list like List of Ohio townships. Lou I 00:21, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Casing issue

Some users have told me they have disagreeded with some of my recent edits to US states articles. The casing of some of these headers appears to be incorrect according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), which says Capitalize the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case. In order to comply with the MoS, they have been changed accordingly. Thanks Dysprosia 09:05, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Congressional Representation?

I think along with the Governor, it would be a good idea to add the # of Reps in the House plus the two senators each state has. Each of the provinces and territories of Canada has this as well. - iHoshie 00:03, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Politics section?

I notice that the Oklahoma article has a section (at heading level 2) that reports on Politics. This seems to me to be a good idea, even if the OK article's section right now is a mess. This would also seem to be the right place to summarize the congressional and state legislature composition by party. In a print Encyclopedia this wouldn't make sense, since two years at most would make it obsolete. In Wikipedia, we could keep this updated.

The Politics section, if we add one, should be a level three heading (below Law and Government). This is just my thought, what about others? Lou I 23:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about a "US state political" template containing the basic, common political data for a state?

• Number of US representatives
• Number of state representatives
• Number of state senators
• Governor
• Number of counties
• Capitol
• Official language
• US region

A couple of these could either be duplicated or removed from the Template:US state leaving it as more of a geographical/people template. Or some of this items added to Template:US state. Just throwing out some ideas here. Cburnett 02:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's a (could-be-)related project, Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress. --Markles 15:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Per-state articles and categories

There seems to be a relatively standard (but not uniformly named) set of articles and categories for each state. Anyone have any interest in expanding this project to include such things? -- Rick Block 01:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

State symbols template

I created Template:US state symbols to consolidate them into a template. I came up with the list of symbols by looking at California, Oklahoma, and Iowa. See the linked states for how I used the symbol template. Cburnett 02:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This seems like good data, although perhaps it should be included in the table created by the template:US state template and not repeat the flag, symbol, nickname, and capital. One way to do this, and allow for a variable list of state symbols (which I think would be better than listing all conceivable state symbols with N/A for many of them), is to use a WP:TOL taxobox-style set of templates. If Template:US state didn't close the table, Template:US state symbol could be used to add a single symbol and then something like Template:US state end would be used to close the table. The prototypical state article (is there one?) could have all conceivable symbols listed in html comments. This has potential to run into the "5 expansions per article" template limit (which I don't think has been fixed yet), so would require a set of templates for the symbols (sigh). I understand there's some notion that it's bad form for a single table to be generated by multiple templates, but lacking any kind of conditional ability I think the only other way to produce a variable list of table entries is to have a single parameter's value be the list of table entries (which is fairly ugly). -- Rick Block 15:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, considering that state governments are free to designate just about anything that catches their fancy as a state symbol (or not), I don't see too much hope for using a single catch-all template unless there is some easy way to use optional paramaters. I think I'd rather see a table with a standard format and placement that can be expanded/contracted as appropriate from state to state. older≠wiser 15:59, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I've created a few templates (enough to show the general idea) for an alternative to the single template with all state symbols. I've changed Colorado to use them. Templates involved are template:US state insignia, template:US state animal, template:US state dinosaur. If we go this route we'll need to create a template for each type of state symbol (annoying, but really not too much work). Since each template creates an independent row in the table we can add and subtract for each state as appropriate. Given the current inability to use variable numbers of parameters AND the inability to use templates as parameters, I think this is about the best we can do. Comments? -- Rick Block 00:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what the advantage of doing it this way would be versus just adding rows in a table. Seems like its making things unnecessarily more complex. Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem to make much sense to use separate templates for single-line entries simply because it is possible to do so. older≠wiser 01:16, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

The point would be to standardize the text and link associated with the table label, and to simplify the text that actually appears in each state article. I think nearly anyone could add a new entry of the form

{{US state <something>|value}}

without screwing it up (even without understanding what it might actually mean). Compared to

<tr><td valign=top>'''[[List of U.S. state <something>|<something>]]'''</td><td>value</td></tr>

I don't think there's much contest. -- Rick Block 01:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's assuming people are familiar with using templates, which even many regular wiki-editors are not, and that they know the name of the correct template to use. HTML table syntax, on the other hand is pretty standard (if not particularly well-liked) for anyone who's done much work with web pages and they don't have to guess what the template name is (and there wouldn't have to be separate templates for one-of state symbols). I don't really see the advantage. older≠wiser 12:40, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

I assume this would be done mostly "by example". I suspect most wiki editors actually don't know HTML (given the prevalance of Dreamweaver, FrontPage, etc. I think there's an argument many web page editors don't know HTML), and that this is the rationale behind wiki-table syntax. Regardless, I think the simpler the example the better the chance someone copying it can copy it correctly. If we left a comment in each article with a pointer to the complete list of insignia templates (kept someplace like on the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states page) I think knowing the name of the correct template shouldn't be an issue. Note that even if these were "optional" arguments to template:US state (or any other template) you need to know the exact name, so it sounds like you're effectively arguing the only reasonable method is direct table entry. I strongly suspect if we do these via direct table entry the tables will not end up looking very similar. -- Rick Block 15:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whatever. I continue to think it is not a good idea to have a dozen or more templates existing for sole purpose of adding single lines to a table. But so far it is only us talking here. If you can get a bandwagon together, I really don't care all that much one way or the other. I'll still think it's a bad idea, but in the grand scheme of things at Wikipedia it would be a pretty minor bad idea and not something I'd get worked up over. older≠wiser 16:50, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with just puting "N/A" (don't know) or "None" (negative) in the likes of the template I have now? I think there's some value in a negative answer ("No, state X does not have symbol Y") which isn't necessarily true if an entry is excluded. There seems to be only a few states with unusual symbols (only 11 have fossils; 10 with butterflies; 4 with dinosaurs) so don't just on the "states are gonna make all kinds of crazy symbols" bandwagon just yet. As far as I am aware of, these things are pretty static. Cburnett 18:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The issue is how many "N/A" entries there might be. If each state's listing has only (say) half of the total number of these symbols, then the table will be roughly twice as large as it needs to be. I haven't really done the analysis, but I suspect there's an intersection of 10-15 used by all states with an additional 2-3 per state. If we make each state's entry show the union, all states must show the entire union (since currently there's no good way to create an expandable template). Weirdo examples: Alaska's state sport (dog mushing), Colorado's state grass (blue gramma), Wisconsin's state grain (corn). I suspect if we're intending to be complete, the union will grow to 50-100 items that some legislature has designated as a state symbol. The other approach is to forgo completeness and show only the "standard" set, but given current limitations this would effectively preclude adding any additional state-specific symbols to the table. Perhaps Template:US state symbols should not generate the entire table but simply the rows for the common ones, allowing folks to manually create additional rows (perhaps using a template like template:weirdo US state symbol if they so choose :) )? -- Rick Block 19:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, how about moving the very common ones (tree, flower, rock/mineral, bird) into the US state template and just making a table for the remainder? Since there's only 50 states and symbols don't change often then the table can easily be created once by someone who can do it and call it good. No need to create a plethora of templates for essentially static data for just layout's sake. Cburnett 19:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've redone Colorado with a template that creates rows for the common ones and explicit table entries for the rest. The advantages/disadvantages I see of this approach are: all the symbols are in one table (advantage), there's no control of the ordering between the entries created by the template and the additional ones (so the list can't be globally alphabetized, for example), the ones not added by the template may show up in other states with different labels and/or different links. -- Rick Block 06:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

template:US state

I've noticed alignment issues (using Netscape 7.1 on a W98 machine with "classic" skin) in the Area, Population, and Population density entries in the table generated by the template. Looking at the template, these are multiline entries that seem to be assumed to line up. Is there some particular reason each line isn't its own row in the table (which I suspect would align properly in any browser/skin)? I'm tempted to just fix this, but thought I'd ask first. -- Rick Block 05:20, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I had been wondering the same coding choice myself. I say go for it. Could even change those rows from "  - " to "-" to reduce unnecessary spacing. Cburnett 06:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suspect this comes from the older table that used a border (so the "cell" containing area/population/etc information wasn't chopped up). In any event, I'll go ahead and change it. -- Rick Block 15:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

conversions to template:US state

I modified the template to compress the table a bit and I've converted most of the remaining states to use the modified (compressed) template. A couple of things that were awkward:

• States with split timezones (e.g. Alaska, Nebraska, etc.). I was able to construct something that looks reasonable when viewed. However, the table entry uses raw html which is fairly obscure. We could create alternate versions of the template for split timezone states, to effectively hide the ugliness (I'm thinking the split timezone template would use the regular template). Anyone think this would be worthwhile?

With the current shorter labels and wider data fields in the template, I've changed all of the multi-timezone states to use simple <br/> breaks for the timezone entries. -- Rick Block 21:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• A couple of states had "extra" information not included in the current template. Notably, Alaska and Arizona list the FIPS state code, and a few (e.g. Wisconsin) list the state motto in addition to the nickname. I used the timezone html trick to add the motto after Wisconsin's nickname and included Alaska's FIPS code in the ISO 3166-2 entry. Every state has a FIPS code and I think most have a motto - should we change the template to add these?
• Kansas (which somebody else converted) and Missouri (not converted yet) list all the measurements in miles and km. Is this something we want to tolerate?

The html trick could be used to add a variable number of state insignia, but since templates can't be included as arguments to templates the entries would have to consist of raw html (if templates could include templates, we could define a template for each insignia type and include the relevant ones at the end of the table - I tried this and it indeed does not work). Perhaps including insignia in the table simply needs to wait for a later version of the software.

-- Rick Block 20:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Missouri

Anyone care to convert the infobox to the template? Cburnett 20:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it. Like Kansas, Missouri lists both English and metric for area, etc. The existing table also lists the largest metro area in addition to largest city (I suspect since they're different) and has that weirdness with the motto (motto rather than nickname, and with a footnote!). I don't think these are insurmountable difficulties, but I think including precisely the same information using the template will be somewhat tricky. -- Rick Block 21:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Topographic map

Is there any consideration to including a topographic map of each of the states such as the one produced by the National Geophysical Data Center (Government agency)? There is an example map for Virginia at the bottom of the page

Electoral Votes in template

I think we should add "Electoral Votes" to the template. Anyone agree? Sasha Slutsker 02:35, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)