Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States History: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 331: Line 331:


I have nominated the article [[1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)]] for FA. The review can be found [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)/archive1|here]]. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the [[WP:FACR|criteria for featured articles]]; all editors are invited to participate. Any assistance with this nomination would be greatly appretiated. --[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 00:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated the article [[1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)]] for FA. The review can be found [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)/archive1|here]]. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the [[WP:FACR|criteria for featured articles]]; all editors are invited to participate. Any assistance with this nomination would be greatly appretiated. --[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 00:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

== Input requested in article move discussion ==

Hi. Readers at this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion at [[Talk:Jeffersonian democracy#Requested move]]. Thanks in advance for any input. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 16:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:40, 9 September 2011

WikiProject iconUnited States History Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject United States History To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

America

"America" is an ambiguous term. I recommend the use of United States instead. BradMajors (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunmore's Proclamation

In the main article pertaining to Dunmore's Proclamation, no mention is made of the effect that the proclamation had on southern colonists and the resulting incorporation of such colonists (who were formerly loyalists) into support for revolution. The primary cause for this movement was the potential loss of slaves for slave-dependent sugar and tobacco growers. I feel that this is an integral element of this chapter of history and ought to be explored in this article. I lack the historical expertise to adequately or properly incorporate this information; otherwise I would write it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.8.228.28 (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Can a userbox be created which does not add the page the userbox is on to a category? BradMajors (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ornithological?

Why does your banner {{USHistoryTalk}} claim your projects purpose is to create a "standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource"? It would make more sense to focus on US history than on the study of birds. Anomie 00:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for United States History

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Constitution FAR heads up

As a related Wikiproject, I'm informing you that United States Constitution 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. Cheers! Zidel333 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Middle Colonies article is in an appalling state. In recent months, the article has been almost entirely a massive copyvio cut-and-pasted from http://school.discoveryeducation.com/teachersguides/pdf/ushistory/ul/mt13c_the_middle_colonies_tg.pdf

For some reason, the article also appears to be a vandalism magnet. Is it perhaps this years' school assignment somewhere?

I've now removed the whole thing by reverting all the way back to an older version of the article. (Note that although the current version of this article, as of the time of this comment, appears to bear a strong resemblance to the text in http://en.allexperts.com/q/General-History-674/Middle-Colonies-1.htm (dated 10/25/2007), the Wikipedia text has been taken from an earlier Wikipedia revision dated 7 June 2007, which pre-dates the publication date of the allexperts.com article.)

Even without this issue, the older version is still completely unsourced, and still reads like a school essay, paraphrase, or cut-and-paste job, although I can't currently find a source candidate. Would someone like to rewrite it from scratch? -- The Anome (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now trimmed this article down to a stub, for the reasons given above. Even the contents of the stub remain unverified. -- The Anome (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Territory

I've talked with a couple other users about forming a task force for the Northwest Territory, to improve articles about the U.S. Midwest regional history before state boundaries were drawn. Would anyone oppose a task force forming as a subgroup of WikiProject United States History? Mingusboodle (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am an editor who would support this and join such a task force. I already have worked extensively on several midwestern history related articles that would fall within this scope. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also join this.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 18:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no objections. I propose we create a taskforce page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_History/Northwest Territory Task Force Charles Edward (Talk) 20:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a good essay on the background and history of the concept of Manifest Destiny. It is often vandalized (especially during the school year), and on occasion attracts folks who wish to assert a point of view, rather than just letting the facts speak for themselves. (An example of the latter might be the recent addition in the introduction of the assertion that Manifest Destiny was used "to justify the genocide of the Native American populations"; the word "genocide" does not otherwise appear in the article.)

I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning the religious influences on the concept. A critical eye on the article itself would also be appreciated. Kablammo (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch that page for PoV pushers, and do my best to reverse edits that push PoV. Thanks for the heads up. Dunnsworth (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:48, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Question about copyright status: historical marker text

There's a question about the copyright status of text on US State historical markers. Please weigh in if you have interest at that thread. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The historical markers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are copyrighted and trademarked by the state. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Reassessment of Union_Stock_Yards

Union_Stock_Yards has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war timeline

Is there a Timeline of all the events in the civil war?198.236.11.107 (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment of Mormon Trail

I have done the GA Reassessment of the Mormon Trail article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article does not meet current GA Criteria and as such I have placed the article on hold pending work. I am notifying all interested editors that this article may be delisted if it is not improved. My review can be found here. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Framers of the US Constitution

Framers of the US Constitution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a new article that may be redundant with Founding Fathers of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Someone please sort it out, but try not to bite the newbie! Cheers, Melchoir (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IS THERE ANYONE STILL ACTIVE ON THIS PROJECT?

I am only asking this question since there have been no posts since June and have recently decided to begin peer reviewing and expaning upon articles in the feild of United States History. If possible I would like to revive the effort of expaning upon the selection of U.S. History articles by not simply focusing on the most well known and debated aspects of American History but instead focusing on stubs and untouched aspects of history that will provide a more thorough and complete explanation of the United States.

I have begun this task by reviewing and expanding upon George Washington's Farewell Address. Although I am happy with the content I am positive that it is need of wordsmithing, proofreading, and peer review. My hope is that one of the members of this project will join me in this project since I have failed to find a taker in the United States project.

I look forward to your contributions and criticisms. --Epignosis (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somersett's Case the catalyst for the US Declaration of Independence???

The article says,

"Somersett's Case ... It is one of the most significant milestones in the campaign to abolish slavery throughout the world and is largely acknowledged to have been the catalyst for the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence."

To an American, this is an astonishing statement, since Americans think of the Intolerable acts and other actions of King George III and Parliament, and not of this case. I have added a fact template for this statement.

I have added {{USHistoryTalk|class=start|importance=High|attention=yes}} to call attention to the Somersett's Case article and its astonishing statement about the US Declaration of Independence. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Jacob Riis

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the artcile which you can see at Talk:Jacob Riis/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When does the generated worklist get updated?

When does the automatically generated worklist get updated? I have added both class= and importance= parameters with values to several articles listed, and added the template to other articles. So, when does the list get updated? --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an underattended (me and the article's creator) discussion at Talk:Articles of Confederation#Merge discussion to consider merging Perpetual Union to Articles of Confederation. Might some interested editors be persuaded to attend? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We received a query on the Help Desk about the above articles.

An editor asked if these were the same Act, and I suggested that perhaps they could be merged.

However, another editor mentioned that 64th United States Congress#Major legislation lists:

  • August 9, 1916 - Uniform Bill of Lading Act of 1916
  • August 29, 1916 - 2nd Uniform Bill of Lading Act of 1916

Could someone more knowledgeable possibly look at the two articles and see if they refer to the same Bill, or whether they cover the two different bills - in which case the articles will need to be amended/moved accordingly.

Thanks -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Redheylin (talk · contribs) has proposed a possible merge of articles North Carolina v. Alford (1970 Supreme Court of the United States case), with the form of guilty plea it spawned, Alford plea. Discussion is at Talk:North_Carolina_v._Alford#Contradiction_tag. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Tags_at_Alford_articles. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article needing review/cleanup: African American Women, 1960's

I noticed a new article that needs work and wanted to draw this project's attention to it: African American Women, 1960's. The article needs review; since it appears to be based largely on an ethnography published as All Our Kin, should it be refactored and moved to an article on that study? Or perhaps it could be the starting point for a broader article? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC) (Cross-posted to African diapsora project Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_African_diaspora#Article_needing_review.2Fcleanup:_African_American_Women.2C_1960.27s) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pulaski

There is a move discussion potentially relevant to participants at this project: Kazimierz PułaskiCasimir Pulaski at Talk:Kazimierz Pułaski#Requested move (2). -Rrius (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expert Help - American gangsters during the 1920s

The article American gangsters during the 1920s is in serious need of an expert on the subject. The article has very few references, and does not have a lead section. Thanks, Justin W Smith talk/stalk 03:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

I have nominated Marshall Plan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new related WikiProject: United States Public Policy

Hi everyone! I want to invite anyone who's active here and has an interest in public policy and its history to join WikiProject United States Public Policy, which is just starting up. We've got some cool things planned, including working with students and their professors for several public policy courses.--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant AFD discussion page - The Most Hated Family in America

There is an AFD for The Most Hated Family in America, which is a television documentary film that was written and presented by the BBC's Louis Theroux about the family at the core of the Westboro Baptist Church (info from lede of article).

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States History articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the United States History articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Sherwood, Witch of Pungo FAC

This article is here as a FA candidate. Would appreciate commentary to help improve the article. Thank you.RlevseTalk 13:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States related Tag and Assess proposal

There is a proposal on WikiProject United States to task Xenobot with tagging and assessment of articles that fall into the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. Please take a few moments to provide your comments about this proposal.

If you are interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject United States please add your name under the applicable section here. --Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth

FYI, the usage of Plymouth is up for discussion, see Talk:Plymouth. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to help with WikiProject United States

Hello, WikiProject United States History! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject United States, an outreach effort which aims to support development of United States related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Proposed Move Discussion

I have proposed to rename three articles to more accurately affect their scope and content:

  • African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) → American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968)
  • African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954) → American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954)
  • African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–1895) → American Civil Rights Movement (1865–1895)

As a historic fact, a diverse group (and not just African-Americans) were involved in this movement. In addition, the movement fought for the rights of all Americans, not just African-Americans. Its leaders esposed a "big tent" strategy to involve a broad based support. Most Civil Rights legislation addresses discrimination based on race, religion or national origin, and a title that focuses upon racial discrimination distorts the topic. Hence, I am proposing to restore the pre-2006 article names. Your comments are welcomed at: Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–1968)#Proposed_Move. Racepacket (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates

I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{WikiProject United States}}. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Scale Examples on Assessment page

Several of the Quality Scale Examples are out of date (e.g. Eric Bana is now a FA quality not a GA quality article). I replaced the one for the Start Class (the old example was upgraded to B class), but others need to be gone through. Also the India link for the FA example goes to an old version of Australia. AJseagull1 (talk) 07:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US Collaboration reactivated & Portal:United States starting next

Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.

The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration for the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Greetings, the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been chosen as the U.S. Wikipedians Collaboration of the Month for February 2011. As a project who has identified this article to be in your scope we encourage you to edit this article and help to build it up to better explain the subject and to get it promoted. --Kumioko (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featured portal candidate: United States

Portal:United States is a current featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. -- RichardF (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "Popular pages" to U.S.-related projects

A very interesting tool of the Wikimedia Toolserver is called WikiProject Popular pages lists. These lists are similar to project-related article lists like U. S. article lists used for generating assessment statistics. The Popular pages lists include the rank, total views, average daily views, quality and importance ratings for the listed articles. Here is the full list of projects using popular pages lists. An FAQ also is available at User:Mr.Z-man/Popular pages FAQ.

I recently added links to lists of popular pages as shown below to the U.S. Portal - WikiProjects box and the nominations sections for each of the selected articles boxes.


Portal:United States/Projects/Popular pages


Because this project was not included, I am bringing up the popular pages tool here. This tool makes it very easy to track three of four balancing dimensions when selecting articles for showcasing at a portal - quality, importance and popularity. When tracking the fourth dimension, topic, the related article lists tool (such as for U.S. article lists tool) also might be useful by filtering on categories of interest.

If you do decide to use this tool, feel free to update Portal:United States/Projects/Popular pages as well.

Regards, RichardF (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of History of Maryland Route 200 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of Maryland Route 200 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. Racepacket (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

All opinions welcome. Thanks. walk victor falk talk 03:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All opinions welcome. Thanks. walk victor falk talk 03:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Hi folks, I just created the Honor Flight Network article. Any work is much appreciated. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Governors

Hello people of WikiProject United States History!

I've worked a lot on wikipedia articles related with the history of the Americas, since that this is a topic that I´m interested. the case is I realized that, since a long time, all governors of states like Texas, New Mexico and Florida have articles on wikipedia since those states joined the United States, while only a few colonial governors of those states had them. In addition, articles by some of the colonial governors of Florida have little information and seek more of it. I thought it would be nice to all colonial governors of those states also have articles on wikipedia, because they are a bit forgotten in this encyclopedia. I've already looked for information and I've edited articles the some of these governors and I ask that, if interested, you also collaborate on editing articles from other governors of those states. The names of the governors of Texas, New Mexico and Florida are on the lists Royal Governor of La Florida, Spanish governors of New Mexico, List of Texas Governors and Presidents.

I hopefully are at least some editors interested. I would appreciate any cooperation. --Isinbill (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is presently a debate over whether the list article Declaration of independence ought to include a hatnote pointing specifically to the United States Declaration of Independence. Those in favor argue that historical, demographic, and practical factors justify this treatment, while those in opposition argue that no country's document should receive special treatment under any circumstances. I am bringing the discussion to your attention because United States Declaration of Independence is included in this wikiproject. Please see here if you are interested in weighing in on the matter. Thank you. —Bill Price (nyb) 17:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration with WP:USRD

Hello. At WP:USRD, I have started a task force with the goal of improving U.S. Route 66 and any articles related to it. US 66 is by far the most viewed road article, so we at the project want to get the article in good shape and to do it we'd like as many hands as possible. I am still in the midst of organizing things, but I'd like to extend an invitation to help out. We're looking for a few editors who are interested in the history, landmarks, pop culture, and Americana along the Mother Road.

If you know of any other WikiProjects that might be able to help, please let me know. If you're interested or know someone who might be, please sign up or have them sign up at WP:USRD/US66. Thanks! –Fredddie 05:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This summer I am serving as the first Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives (see Signpost article); in order to serve as a hub for activity related to the National Archives' collaboration with Wikipedia, I have recently created a project page at WP:NARA. Since it seems relevant to this Wikiproject, I wanted to point members to our first editing project, which was recently announced and can be found here. The National Archives is an incredible resource for images and other documents related to American history. I would be grateful for any input as we work out the details, and, of course, your participation once it launches. Dominic·t 14:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status of this project

Greetings, I was looking at the list of WikiProjects at the WikiProject Council and it states that WikiProject United States History is inactive. I am not sure thats true and this propject is active I recommend changing the listing at the Council page. --Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to pull this project under WikiProject United States

It was recently suggested that this project might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I also noticed by looking at the list of projects at the WikiProject Council that the project is listed as inactive. Additionally, it doesn't appear by the talk page or project page that the project is very active. This discussion is intended to start the process of determining if the project is active or if members are interested in it being added to the projects supported by WikiProject United States. I will contact each of the active members of the project for their input and ask them to comment here. --Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC) All Active members have been notified. --Kumioko (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a strong editor community working on articles within the scope of this project, however this forum is not frequently used. I think making this a task-force under the umbrella of WP:US would go along way to helping both projects. WP:US could easily become a super-project like WP:MilHist, which could provide a better forum for collaboration. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it! Honestly, I had forgotten that I was a part of this project and that it even existed. Technically, the projects have a lot of overlap so I see no issue in merging them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the WikiProject United States History, as a project over this country, it could add the WikiProject United States. Moreover, as Charles Edward, I think the access to this project would be greater under this area and possibly more people would join the project.--Isinbill (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. I do believe that the collaborative efforts of both groups may improve the quality of the articles. I'm not exactly sure what we would be 'giving up' so readily... I'm also not clear on where the charge of being 'interested in current events, not history' is really coming from, or if that is necessarily a bad thing given the nature of History as a discipline. Drawing connections to and from current events is part of the Historical process, and may serve to strengthen the overall quality of all articles involved. --FESmitty77 (talk) 19 June 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"What are you guys talking about? We need to remain independent. If we join with the WikiProject United States, we won't get a handful of editors to help us. All those editors are interested in is current events, not history. If you all are willing to give in that easily, I'd be more than happy to take over as Project Leader to help us get more active.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify this isn't intended as a hostile takeover of the project. It would still remain mostly autonomous (except the banner) and would still be best served with a project leader to focus on items and articles related specifically to this project so if you are willing I would encourage you to do that either way.
The only significant thing that would change would be the WikiProject template (We would replace the banner with WPUS with WPUSHistory under it like you can see on Talk:Internal Revenue Service with United States government and the project would be added to the list of projects supported by WPUS. Thats pretty much it. Additionally, the bots which currently support WPUS would be adjusted to include US History, a topic for US Hisory would be added under Category:United States articles by topic, the members would be added to the US Newsletter (which they can get without being members of the project if they want it), the project would get an expanded user visibility (though the newsletter and WPUS project page), etc. This project would still be able to independantly do as much or as little as it wants as far as content drives, working on articles, discussions on the talk page, etc. --Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kumioko, listen to yourself. You seem to have lost your leadership touch. We're only a little inactive cause there hasn't been any motivating factors for the project recently. If we merge with US, how'll that change our situation? Answer, it won't. This project will just lie in the shadow of the other, more popular project, and we'll still have the same inactivity. Only difference will be that it won't be acknowledged due to the fact that it is now a part of US project and that project isn't inactive. Like I said, if no one is up to the challenge, I'll be glad to lead this. Just give me a couple of weeks and this project won't be inactive anymore.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really agree that this project would be forgotten anymore than the Military history task forces are forgotten under the Military history project. Its no problem though, take all the time you need. Like I mentioned above if the project doesn't want to its fine with me I was just following up on a suggestion by someone else. Most of the articles in the project are already dually maintained by both anyway. I just thought it might be helpful to get this project going again. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. --Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Making the group a joint subproject of the History and US History projects seems to me to be a good idea. It could use the US banner, and I could set it up to assess for both.John Carter (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the proposal, but see the points User:Valkyrie Red is making. I pledge to step up my involvement in this content area. BusterD (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I continue to insist (as I did from the discussion here at the discussion Kumioko mentions that the US Wikiproject be redefined with a start date (1783 or 1776). I have no stake nor opinion about if this project should be a part of Wikiproject US or not, just that there should be logically defined areas of expertise. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I can see some reason to the above statement. There are however some questions as to what project, if any, content related to pre-independence material would fall within the scope of. More or less, all existing geographical locations of the country fall within the scope of the related state projects, which are a form of subproject of the US project. If there were a specific subproject or related project for pre-US and/or Canadian independence related topics, and that might be the North America project or some other related project, that might work, or, alternately, it might make sense to perhaps create such a group if there is sufficient interest. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we add under WikiProject United States, the project gets little activity, and the project won't be active any more. Sorry Kumioko, I strongly oppose it. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats alright, this one doesn't look like it has the support anyway. I don't really agree that the activity will decrease unless all the members decide to stop editing but hopefully this project will pick back up again and won't need the help. --Kumioko (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't take no offense, since I am only member of WP:CAL, WikiProject California covers about the former country, before becoming a statehood in 1850, not the state by itself. Look, I do not want to add WikiProject California under WikiProject United States any time soon, since WP:CAL has many members and five task forces including Los Angeles and Southern California task force under WP:CAL. Since WP:TEXAS covers only about the former country, not the state by itself. Also, I do not add WikiProject Texas under WikiProject United States anytime soon too, because there is penalty of activty. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 01:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for those 2 examples both of those projects have a lot of members and activity so it really wouldn't be much of a benefit to add them to WPUS. I also don't know how to go about adding a project with multiple subprojects or task forces. Thats something that hasn't come up yet. There are a few states that would probably benefit but right now I am more focusing on National level. In the next couple months though there will probably be a couple states added. I have also been talking to some of the states to pull in the cities and other inactive projects that relate to that state. Seattle and Eastern Washington in to Washington for example. What I am going to add the WPUS banner to the remaining 450 articles that are in WPUS History and not in WPUS so that way the articles are dually maintained by both projects. That way WPUS History can still do what they need and want to do and WPUS can as well. --Kumioko (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been over a month since the last comments were left and it appears that a couple of the members of the project oppose being added to WikiProject United States. If I am incorrect in that assessment though please let me know but for now it appears that the members of the project have spoken and do not wish to be supported by WikiProject United States. I do hope that the projects can collaborate in the future since they both have many of the same articles in common. --Kumioko (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting your feedback at Template talk:PulitzerPrize History#Reformat.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Color

I have a second issue in need of feedback at Template talk:PulitzerPrize History#Color.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography of the United States has been nominated as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for next August 2011

Historiography of the United States, an article within the scope of this project, has been nominated to be the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for next August 2011. You can vote for this or other articles to be next months Collaboration of the Month here. Project Messenger Bot 19:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States Declaration of Independence article needs to be adopted

I have performed a review at Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/GA1. However, the nominator has exercised his WP:RTV. The article needs someone to adopt it and address my concerns in order to regain its GA status. I will allow seven days for someone to step forward.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would like uninvolved assistance with Redeemers

The Redemption (United States history) article has been begging to be merged with Redeemers for a very long time. Many discussions to merge the pages have gone stale, the latest set of tags was applied sometime last year. So today I boldly merged the two, and would like someone to check my work and see if they agree with my choice. If the page needs to be moved to the other namespace, that's fine with me. But I'm just not seeing why two separate articles on the same political phenomenon need exist. Better to get disagreement now so I could easily revert. Other feedback or direct editing would be welcome. BusterD (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment from supporting WikiProjects

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)#Before FAR. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

FAC for 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)

I have nominated the article 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States) for FA. The review can be found here. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate. Any assistance with this nomination would be greatly appretiated. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested in article move discussion

Hi. Readers at this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:Jeffersonian democracy#Requested move. Thanks in advance for any input. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]