Template talk:United States topic

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States This template 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles

I have a template that stacks {{United States topic}} under another template. I would like the ability to disable the navbar by adding:

|navbar= {{{navbar|Tnavbar}}}

This will keep the current default setting, but give the ability to pass the navbar parameter to {{navbox}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)  Done ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated {{United States topic/sandbox}} to replace {{·w}} with{{flatlist}}. Flatlist uses the standard * for list markup. Visually it is the same, but for the visually impaired using a screen reader, it reads it as a list and not a string of words. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We currently do not have (and most likely never will have) a sufficient amount of topical articles to warrant the inclusion of these links. The only ones I know of that are not redirects are two history stubs (both of which ought to be merged and redirected as well), but these don't use this particular navbox. Is there any reason for including them? Nightw 13:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're just not written yet. You're being disruptive, reverting. Alarbus (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're new here. You might want to check out our guidelines regarding notability and what Wikipedia is not. If you're unable to find reliable sources on the demographics of Kingman Reef or the culture of Bajo Nuevo Bank then it's not a topic that is notable enough to warrant an article. For reference, the subcategories in Category:United States Minor Outlying Islands would contain all the articles of relevance to this navbox if any existed. Nightw 13:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Night w asked me for my thoughts on this, having dealt with many similar templates before. I had an almost identical situation with these islands when working on Template:Oceania topic, when I added all the outlying islands to it and was reverted. The reason given by the editor who reverted was the same as Night w's above, the articles don't exist, and won't exist. I think that editor was right. We will never have a Politics of Howard Island or Economy of Jarvis Island, because those topics don't really exist. Even if there are redirect, such as Demographics of Baker Island having these appear in a template of the Demographics of United States Topic will be pointless. It won't take you to an article about demographics. On the whole, there's probably more articles that won't exist than those that will. If there is a situation where they perhaps may be useful, it is possible to create a complicated coding to have them shown only when a certain field is given, which is what we have at Template:Europe topic (for better or worse). It seems unlikely though that these territories will ever have much use for these templates. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget850 offered the following on ussages:

Using WP:AWB: {{United States topic}} is used directly or through another template in 1859 articles. 93 articles directly use {{United States topic}} with |exclude-isl=. 177 templates use {{United States topic}}, and 44 include |exclude-isl=. There are probably a lot of templates that should exclude these islands, such as {{CrimeUS}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about notability, it's about navigation. This group can be exclude from usage on specific pages. There are a fair number of uses of this to link to page sections via redirect, which is a reasonable means to navigate to whatever content is present in the project. Alarbus (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said "They're just not written yet" (referring to the articles)—article creation is about notability. I don't have a problem with Chipmunkdavis' suggestion. By default, they shouldn't appear when obviously unnecessary, and they should only appear when a link redirecting to a section is deemed an aid to navigation. Nightw 12:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how about you try less aggression? Alarbus (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

? the first is an accident (you can see I reverted right after) and the second is me adding a merge request to an article... Not sure how that counts as "aggression". Nightw 13:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda creepy to have you all over my editing.

You're miffed about the flatlist discussion. Here, your seeking to cut a template group, and are willing to try to delete articles that the group navigates to, merge others, all to support your agenda. It's disruptive to this project. Alarbus (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. Nightw 13:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, diffs say so. Alarbus (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing this section broke the navigation to the various islands, such as Kingman Reef. I've restored it. You may have deleted or redirected the subtopics, but the islands themselves remain and should be in the navbox. Alarbus (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the #ifexist item instead. Nightw 10:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified Template:Lighthouses in the United States to cease using this template because something like a dozen states don't have any lighthouses. I'm not up on template syntax but it might be useful for the lighthouses and other limited lists to have a way to exclude a set of states. Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, Washington, D.C. is the City of Washington, a (municipal) corporation, within the District of Columbia, a federal district governed by the US Congress. A city has no place being a top-level topic in this template; only the District has such a place. Only the District of Columbia is a state- and territory-level entity within the United States. Furthermore, it is questionable whether such a city actually exists (but I should say that even if such a city still legally exists, it by no means derogates my above argument). As such, I propose that the default be "District of Columbia" instead of the city within it. For the same reasons, the State of Washington does not need pre-disambiguation with a city in a template about state- and territory-level topics, so that suffix should be removed as well. Int21h (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an historian of DC, but was born here and was employed by the Government of the District of Columbia for 20 years. I only had to do a brief search to find this: District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, which appears to settle the matter. Washington disappeared legally, and became a place name.FriendlyFred (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a recent edit that broke Template:United States political divisions, among other pages. Please experiment in the sandbox and use "What links here" to see transclusions of this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The Marianas" is NOT an insular area, it is an island chain. Guam is an insular area, and the Northern Mariana Islands is insular area, just as American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the USVI. They are distinct political entities like the other three and should not be treated as a subset of The Marianas, which hold no political status in the US. No other template transcluding this one has links specific to this archipelago generally; this template does not have the formatting for it because it is unnecessary. I will remove it again in several days. Reywas92^Talk 01:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United States Minor Outlying Islands is an IOS statistical designation, not a type of U.S. political division; the term has no basis in U.S. federal law. As such, I propose that the 9 islands grouped under that heading be moved to the Insular areas group, and subgrouped as "uninhabited". Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A recent change by Fayenatic london has broken the links for Guam, for example see Template:United States political divisions, where Guam links to "Guamanian", which redirects to Chamorro people. I'm not sure of the issue, though it would be appreciated if this could be fixed, or the template be restored to a prior revision until this can be corrected. S.A. Julio (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the change to this template. It was misapplied in good faith. This template lists the name of each state or territory, followed by an optional suffix, so it was already working correctly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio and Jonesey95: As stated in my edit summary, the change was required following the category renamings to Guamanian, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_21#Guam_renames. Reverting has created red links on various pages, or unsatisfactory links to soft redirects such as Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Guam_media. I acknowledge that as I left it, the template pointed to Guamanian rather than Guam in the template that you mentioned. I suggest that we resolve this by:

• reinstating my edit to the template
• retargeting the redirect Guamanian to Guam (leaving the redirect Guamanians to point to Chamorro people)
• or (harder?) making a further edit on the template so that when there is neither a "prefix" nor a "suffix" then it links to Guam, not Guamanian. – Fayenatic London 06:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guam media was incorrectly moved to Category:Guamanian media. It should be moved back to be parallel with Category:Arizona media and the "Category: XX media" for all other states. I expect that there are other examples. The category moves resulting from this CFD were overzealously done (in good faith, but still, too many inappropriate categories were renamed). The CFD needed to be thought through more carefully, with each proposed category compared to parallel categories for states and territories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Timrollpickering: (as CFD closer): Jonesey95 seems to be correct on that one; California has an adjective but we still use Category:California media. Please would you revert that particular rename? – Fayenatic London 07:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the similar renamed categories (culture, cuisine, literature, law) are linked via this template, so apparently I changed it only for the media category. If that is renamed back, then there will be no need to revise this template. – Fayenatic London 08:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If only one category was moved incorrectly, that's pretty darn good. There were a lot of category names to sort through in that CFD; I'm sure that if I had been doing it, I would have gotten more than one wrong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add "Navbox United States" because I wanted to have an American counterpart to "Navbox Canada" RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There already is, Template:Navbox United States. Cabayi (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you're trying to do now...

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. You need to show this works before it'll be put live. Cabayi (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add a "By type" section for types of power stations. The first subsection would include "Non-renewable" U.S. power stations with "Coal", "Natural Gas", and "Nuclear". The second subsection would include "Renewable" U.S. power stations with "Geothermal", "Hydroelectric", "Solar", and "Wind (Onshore • Offshore)". This request mirrors what is seen in the "By type" section of the Wikipedia Template:Power stations template as well as the List of power stations in the United States article. Ponderosapine210 (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Ponderosapine210, this template is a general purpose template for splitting "XXXX in the United States" into "XXXX in ..." links for each of the states and territories. It contains nothing specific to power stations or any other topic. Cabayi (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponderosapine210: I have fixed {{Power stations in the United States}} so the V T E links go to the right page. That template could use Template:United States topic#Adding groups and lists. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this template at Template:Lists of colleges and universities in the United States. I'm not sure why we separate out the sections for federal districts, insular areas, and outlying islands. There's never going to be any federal district other than D.C., and the territories are mostly very small. Shouldn't there just be a single section that includes everything, and is labeled "states and territories"? It doesn't make sense to be placing all this visual weight on non-states. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please add List of states and territories of the United States in the "above" of this template? It should certainly have a place here. Aza24 (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking now that there is likely few, if any people watching this talk. I see @PrimeHunter: commented above, would you be able to make such an adjustment? Best - Aza24 (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: {{United States topic}} is used to build other templates, e.g. {{CrimeUS}} where it makes links like Crime in Alabama on "Alabama". Do you want the link in all articles and templates or only in some? I don't think it should be in all but it could be in {{United States political divisions}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter, thanks for the clarification. The reason I came here was actually to link it in the template you mention ({{United States political divisions}}) but I assumed now that it can be done directly in that template? Aza24 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, yep. I just tried an implementation there; feel free to tweak it if you have a different result in mind. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add |noredlinks = so that we can reduce red links Votaw1989 (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Red links can encourage the creation of articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to use the template on several articles now [1], [2] and it doesn't seem to be working. ★Trekker (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions seem to indicate that this template should be used to create a template page, not that it should be placed in an article. See {{Rivers in the United States}} for an example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see, thats very different from for example Template:North America topic then. Thank you.★Trekker (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the edit links connect to the topic template, rather than to this one? If we want to customize universities or abortion in the US or whatever, we shouldn't be directed here. Or is that already an option somewhere? I just made a bad edit to this template because I clicked 'E' and thought I was on the topic template. — kwami (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always link to an example when reporting a problem. When I go to List of rivers of the United States and click the edit link on the "Rivers of the United States" navbox, I am correctly taken to {{Rivers in the United States}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind! It was Abortion by US state. It was just missing the 'name' param. — kwami (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article insular area, Palau, the Marshalls, and the FSM are 'insular areas', so I added them to this template. If that's not correct, please correct that claim on the 'insular area' article. (Or choose a different header for that section, e.g. 'territories'.) Thanks. — kwami (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to those countries' articles, they are sovereign countries and members of the United Nations. I am unable to find a claim in insular area that says those nations are current insular areas. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right at the beginning: "In the law of the United States, an insular area is a U.S.-associated jurisdiction that is not part of a U.S. state or the District of Columbia. This includes ... three sovereign states each with a Compact of Free Association with the United States."

We list them specifically under the section heading 'Freely associated states'. — kwami (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the sources for that statement, one of them is out of date, and the other says that the three countries are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. I don't think they belong in any "United States topic" navboxes. It reeks of colonialism to list sovereign nations in a "United States" navbox. Changing the wording to "Territories", as you have done, looks right to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not colonialism to call things as they are. They're clearly a US topic. All 3 countries nenewed their CFA status just last year, and the US govt is partially responsible for them -- I don't know what counts as 'jurisdiction' in such cases. They are not part of the US, but are a lot like what the Cooks and Niue are to New Zealand -- those are not members of the UN only because NZ said they'd lose their right to migration, something the US doesn't seem to mind in the case of the CFA states. You could argue to remove American Samoa from the template as well, because it's not in the US and its people are not US citizens. On the other side, we don't list tribal jurisdictions even though they are in the US and their people are US citizens. It's a judgement call where to draw the line. — kwami (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, we definitely need better refs in that article. — kwami (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]