Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/Archive1

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

-- Pat

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)

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

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

"* 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

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

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

...

(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):

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

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

When potential readers see it, they may feel obligated to visit and agree to the WikiProject in order to contribute.
Talk is a page for comments about how to improve the article. The article namespace is not a good place for this.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)[reply]

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)