Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Territories

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

United States Territories This page is within the scope of WikiProject United States Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Territories 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.United States TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject United States TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject United States TerritoriesUnited States Territories articles United States This page is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles

I have never seen a project proceed with such haste and not enough discussion about scope.

on articles related to the current sixteen Territories of the United States with an aim of of improving and expanding all aspects of the territories.

Some articles tagged so far are not current - but historical. There needs to be somehting that looks like discussion or consultation as to where things start ands where they end, as many readers will be totally disoriented to find former territories included with a project/template that makes them look current. JarrahTree 08:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think articles can be tagged as historical if they still remain as a territory, for example the Puerto Rican Campaign (late 1800s). Other examples from other projects include the Falklands War, Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong etc. But I'd like to know what other people think, the more input the better. JAGUAR  13:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with the current scope of this WikiProject since it includes topics that fall outside politics. I told you this and you ignored me, so I took it to Puerto Rico. There are enough political articles for you to include articles in categories where these territories are considered separate entities, as in anything related to sports as sanctioned by the IOC or any of its member federations. I also disagree with including former territories within the scope, since it creates the confusion that JarrahTree is referencing. 166.172.187.27 (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the project should restrict itself only to current territories Alex the Nerd (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Alex the Nerd[reply]

One other concern about scope that I have is, Should the Project limit itself from including every single page about anything to do with any of the current territories or should we pare it down to something a little more specific? Alex the Nerd (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Alex the Nerd[reply]

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob^Talk 01:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun to assess articles on quality and importance. If anyone has questions or concerns about this, please let me know or just go ahead and change it to what you think it should be. Alex the Nerd (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Alex the Nerd[reply]

I propose a revision of the quality chart to

Top All territories should be listed as top importance, as well as the United States Territories article itself.

High large settlements and places of interest in any territory, as well as notable battles and important pieces of history

Mid smaller settlements and areas including schools, military bases and dockyards and as well as less important history

Low everything else, generally only important only to a small number of people, including things that pertain to the territories but are not important.

I feel that a change in how history is valued is important as well as a clear place for random things pertaining to territories.

Alex the Nerd (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Alex the Nerd[reply]

That sounds great, Alex the Nerd! Feel free to change it. And thanks for making a start on assessing the project's articles. There around 2000 unassessed articles (last time I checked), so it may take a long time. Don't worry if you don't want to do it all, I know how daunting it is because I remember manually assessing articles for a project I started back in 2010. JAGUAR  18:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of Sub-pages and related pages I do not know if we should do anything with them, but at least they are all in one place now

• Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Territories/Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Territories/Article alerts/Archive
• Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Territories/Article alerts
• Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Territories/Importance Criteria
• Template:WikiProject United States Territories
• Category:United States Territories articles by importance
• Category:United States Territories articles by quality
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/United States Territories articles by quality log
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/United States Territories articles by quality statistics

Alex the Nerd (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Alex the Nerd[reply]

Another question on scope, should the project include articles on people born in U.S. Territories or descended from people born in the U.S. Territories but who had no/minimal connection to them otherwise?

Alex the Nerd (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Alex the Nerd[reply]

Yes, anybody born in or descended from US territories and people who were involved in the politics of US territories (ie. a governor) should be included in this project's scope. I should have made this clearer originally, but feel free to adjust the scope accordingly! JAGUAR  22:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add a Bottom Importance to the importance chart and make it so that articles can be tagged with bottom importance, I do not know enough about wikimarkup to do this, so if anyone sees this, could you do this for me? Alex the Nerd (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Alex the Nerd[reply]

@Alex the Nerd: I'm afraid this WikiProject doesn't support bottom importance fields, or at least this project can't support them as it just isn't extensive enough. WP:ASTROMONY, for example, has a bottom importance option for assessment as it's a much larger and more important project. According to the 1.0 editorial team bottom importance fields are optional, and 'low' is the standard. I've assessed tens of thousands of articles and have never come across a bottom importance article before. Sorry for not seeing this, I must have missed it on my watchlist. JAGUAR  23:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move at Talk:Republican Party of Puerto Rico (1903) that would benefit from your input. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  20:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am back and I will be being more active on this WP. Consider us REVIVED!!! Alex the Nerd (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buidhe has nominated E. T. Pollock for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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 "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the subcategories of Category:Insular areas of the United States with "insular areas" in the title now have this WikiProject added to the category talk pages. (I did not add it to specific subcats on Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. although they may already be there.) That ensures that notices will appear with any proposed changes from WP:CFD so you all can weigh in. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that won't work because there's no Article Alert set up on this WikiProject. Here you go: Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Territories#Article alerts. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USPLACE says city articles should be named "City, Territory". General practice seems to be to name neighborhoods "Neighborhood, City". For Category:Towns and villages in the Northern Mariana Islands, I have treated the four municipalities of the NMI as cities, and villages and towns and other settlements within those as neighborhoods. The US Census treats the four municipalities as county equivalents. If we follow that for naming purposes, we'd want to move a bunch of articles to the "City, Territory" pattern. I'm happy to do that if my arbitrary choice doesn't fit local usage. -- Beland (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]