Jump to content

Template talk:WikiProject United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Comments

Why doesn't the Importance parameter display? 69.140.164.142 17:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Category talk pages erroneously put in the category

Prior to this edit, any category talk page using this template was put into the category. This line of the template 

   Please participate by editing [[{{ARTICLESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|the article]], and help

was intending to be a piped link to the article corresponding to the talk page, but for category talk pages results in a piped categorization. I've made including the "by editing ..." part of this conditional on ARTICLESPACE not being Category. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is the banner killing the Table of Contents? See this edit to see that its removal reinstates the TOC.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change this banner and short all the WikiProjects alphabetically, and also add WikiProject U.S. Presidents and WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures which Kumioko (talk · contribs) made changes from the sandbox. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

YesY Done Good idea, uncontroversial. Royalbroil 01:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Much better, thank you. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 01:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Second edit request

Please change the banner and add WikiProject Asian Americans, WikiProject FBI, WikiProject Franco-Americans, WikiProject South Carolina and WikiProject West Virginia which Kumioko (talk · contribs) and me made changes from the sandbox. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 03:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Third edit request

Please change the banner and add WikiProject American music which I created and made changes myself from the sandbox and to fix some of the issues which I made myself because the banner was buggy. Thank for your time, regards. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 07:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, can you copy from the sandbox a little bit please? This banner is a little bit buggy when I type {{WikiProject United States|WV=yes}} and it doesn't show up on the banner. Could someone fix it from the sandbox? Thanks. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. This should work correctly now. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Asian American portal

Please add the Asian American Portal to the Template. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we also increase the size of the icon for the FBI to be a bit larger. I changed it in the sandbox to 35 and it looks good. --Kumioko (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Done Dabomb87 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Help with parameter standardization

I am attempting to standardize the parameters for the projects supported by WPUS so that they all recognize the parameters for:

Needs infobox
Needs attention
Needs references
Needs image
Image details
Needs map
Map details
with comments
Automatically assessed

Currently some support it and some do not and I am not sure exactly how to do that. I am in the process of creating all the needed categories but as I am not that great with WikiProject Template code I am not sure what the best way to do this is. Plus the template is protected so that makes validating the logic more difficult because I can't preview it to see if its working. Just to clarify this only applies to those projects listed at the top of WikiProject United States as being directly supported by the project and that use the WikiProject United States banner template. --Kumioko (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

And also, please change the banner and add WikiProject Arizona, WikiProject Colorado, WikiProject Idaho, WikiProject Nebraska, WikiProject New Mexico, WikiProject United States presidential elections and WikiProject Wyoming which I've added and made changes myself from the sandbox. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Jj98, I have applied your change. Kumioko, I am not going to figure out for you exactly how all that needs to be done. This template has a sandbox for testing. Ucucha 23:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright Ill figure it out I guess. I think I know what needs to be done anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The banner is little bit buggy once I add {{WikiProject United States|ID=yes}} to the talk page and Idaho and is not part of WikiProject Nebraska when I test it at the testcases. When I add {{WikiProject United States|ID=yes}} when the banner shell collapsed, I think WikiProject Nebraska shows up. This is what it looks like:

I think the banner needs to be fixed. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 22:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please fix the banner that I've made from the sandbox. The banner is little bit buggy once I add {{WikiProject United States|ID=yes}} to talk page and Idaho is not part of WikiProject Nebraska after I replaced the {{WikiProject Idaho}} banner and tested it at the testcases.

It is requested to fix from this: 

 |tf 10={{{Idaho|{{{ID|}}}}}}
  |TF_10_LINK          = Wikipedia:WikiProject Nebraska
  |TF_10_NESTED        = Nebraska

to this: 

 |tf 10={{{Nebraska|{{{NE|}}}}}}
  |TF_10_LINK          = Wikipedia:WikiProject Nebraska
  |TF_10_NESTED        = Nebraska

To fix the issue. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)

Done. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Help with parameter standardization

I have done the following modifications to the template and am requesting that someone with admin access implement the changes.

  1. Made sure all supported projects have parameters for:
Needs infobox
Needs attention
Needs references
Needs image
Needs map
Automatically assessed
  1. Added importance ratings for US counties
  2. Added WikiProject American Old West
  3. Reorganized the projects so further additions will be easier

Please let me know if there are any questions. --Kumioko (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction to recent edit needed

A recent edit added Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in United States which appears to be duplicating in some articles and should be Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it in the sandbox. It just needs to be implemented with the changes I made and am waiting on implementation for above. --Kumioko (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
It was me, I forget to fix it myself. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I also just updated the image for the Asian American project to match the portal. --Kumioko (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

photo request naming convetion

Would it be possible to change some of the new categories created by this template to match the existing naming convention. Currently this is Wikipedia requested photographs of ???? or Wikipedia requested photographs in ????. Now I would agree that in some cases the Wikipedia requested photographs relating to is better grammatically or reads better but this group of categories is for administration only and is generated by a relatively complex template that has taken some time and many peoples work to get in order. There are also a number of bot that run of the naming convention.

So some suggestion

Note have created page for one of the new categories. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of United States governors

--Traveler100 (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely I have no preference so if there is a convention then by all means we should stick with that. I can change the coding in the sandbox to reflect it but I cannot move a category to the new name. If an admin wants to do that then they should feel free to do that. --Kumioko (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
As the categories have not yet been created that is not issue. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I recommend making the conventions match so we should also rename the others that have already been created such as Asian Americans and American Old West. --Kumioko (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I think they fit the naming convention fine.--Traveler100 (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, working on updating them in the sandbox now. How about the ones that say in vice of like in Arizona? Are they ok? --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok its done. I changed a couple more to say topics at the end just to clarify that its not speicifically (the Library of Congress for example) we want pictures of. --Kumioko (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Summery of Changes

  • Fix naming convention for Images and maps categories. --Kumioko
  • Fix a typo. --JJ98
  • Move WikiProject Library of Congress into alphabetical order
  • Added WikiProject Mexican Americans per silent consensus here. --Kumioko
  • Replaced the image for WP Asian Americans --Kumioko
  • Added a parameter for |needs-geocoord= --Kumioko

All changes have been made in the sandbox here and can be implemented by a willing admin by simply cutting and pasting the code. --Kumioko (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Revert image change for WikiProject Asian Americans

Please revert the image change used for WPAA. The current image was meant for use for the Portal Box image only. The current image isn't as inclusive to all the Asian American ethnicities that fall within the grouping that are within the scope of the WikiProject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done in the sandbox. Its just needs to be implemented. --Kumioko (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Add a project and some functionality

Summery of Changes

  • Add WikiProject Myrtle Beach -- Kumioko
  • Add functionality to detect comments subpages --JJ98/Kumioko
  • Fix some formatting. --JJ98
  • Added WikiProject KYOVO Region. --JJ98
  • Added a parameter to allow for inherited importance --Kumioko
  • Updated a couple icons. --Kumioko

All changes have been made in the sandbox here and can be implemented by a willing admin by simply cutting and pasting the code. --Kumioko (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Also note, I've borrowed some of comments code from the {{WikiProject Oklahoma}} banner myself. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 04:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

and the rest of the story

A few more for the next round:

  • Added |autoi= parameter --Kumioko
  • Removed duplicate idaho group. --Kumioko
  • Replaced an icon with a better one and fixed some of my(Kumioko) bad coding. --JJ98
  • Added WikiProject Washington --Kumioko
  • Added WikiProject Seattle --Kumioko
  • Added WikiProject Washington/Eastern Washington task force --Kumioko
  • Added WikiProject Mississippi. --Kumioko
  • Fixed some naming to better assocate to another project. --Kumioko (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • resized the Icons to be more prominent. --Kumioko
  • Added coding to see todo lists. --JJ98
  • Add some coding to to see articles missing list as in a category. --JJ98

--Kumioko (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

All deployed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor fixes

There is a little bug issues for the banner, it is little bit buggy once the Eastern Washington task force enabled on the banner.

It is requested to fix from this:

Code removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk)

To fix the issue that I've made myself from the sandbox. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 16:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Please test code fully before requesting! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Next round of tasks

Start of the list for the next group of tasks. all categories have been created, todo lists were created for all the projects.

  • Update code for comments --MSGJ/Kumioko
  • Add code for to do for WPUS --Kumioko
  • Add code for article/todo lists. --Kumioko/JJ98
  • Update Washington State image --Kumioko
  • Add Indiana --Kumioko
  • Add Indianapolis --Kumioko
  • Add Omaha --Kumioko
  • Add Ohio --Kumioko
  • Add Ohio - Townships task force --Kumioko
  • Add Ohio - Youngstown --Kumioko
  • Add West Virginia University --JJ98
  • Add Yellowstone task force --JJ98
  • Fix nested logic for a couple projects. --WOSlinker
  • Add logic for WikiProject to do lists. --WOSlinker
  • Reword the banner message slightly. --Kumioko
  • Add New Hampshire. --Kumioko
  • Add New Hampshire Mountains. --Kumioko
  • Add Kentucky. --Kumioko
  • Add Cincinnati. --Kumioko
  • Add Eastern Ky Coal fields. --Kumioko
  • Add Lousiville. --Kumioko
  • Add Delaware. --Kumioko
  • Add North Carolina. --Kumioko

--Kumioko --Kumioko (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I apologize. The changes listed above have already been made to the sandbox version of the template here. All you need to do is copy the code from the sandbox and replace the code in the existing template. Unfortunately those of us making the updates to the template are not admins. :-( Thanks for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, Please drop the protection to Semi from Full protection - I am tired of waiting a week to get a change implemented because it needs an admin. --Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can't edit this highly visible template. You have to be an administrator to do that. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 04:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thats my problem, non adminstrators are already doing all the work all the admins are doing is cutting and pasting the changes. If they want to restrict access to the template then they should be more responsive when we request an update. --Kumioko (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Deployed your changes. Sorry for the delay, but there seem to be very few other admins who patrol CAT:EP. With more than 100000 transclusions I don't think we should be lowering the protection ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok well thanks for deploying the changes. --Kumioko (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
That's alright. I've could have been an admin myself to edit this template. It's a pain in the ass here on Wikipedia. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 12:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I tried for admin a couple years ago and was told I didn't have the right stuff and almost left so I have vowed to not go through that process again. If the tools show up one day then fine but I'm not going through the hassle of running for public office again. If they want me to do the extra work they'll just have to trust that someone with almost 300, 000 edits ain't gonna do anything to intentially screw something up. --Kumioko (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


Another few things

Here is the next group. Please implement the code from the sandbox into production.

  • Add Utah - Kumioko
  • Add Iowa - Kumioko
  • Add North Dakota - Kumioko
  • Fix some coding - Kumioko
  • Replace duplicate Indianapolis group - Kumioko
  • Fix some project to do lists that weren't linked correctly. --Kumioko
  • Add a link to the collaboration. --Kumioko
  • Reworded text message slightly to be less redundant with content title. --JJ98
  • Resize a couple icons --Kumioko
  • Replace image for Delware to be more visible. --Kumioko
  • Add Florida --Kumioko
  • Add Florida - Jacksonville --Kumioko
  • Add Florida - Miami --Kumioko
  • Add Florida - Tampa Bay --Kumioko
  • Add September 11, 2001 --Kumioko
  • Add Vermont --Kumioko
  • Fix importance coding for Seattle and a couple others --Kumioko
  • Fix coding for North Dakota --Kumioko

--Kumioko (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please remove all Florida projects. The code is in the Sandbox and just needs to be copied over. --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Template sentence setup

The template currently says, "[Name of Article] is within the scope of WikiProject United States." I think that the article name should just be replaced with, "This article." The article name instance can become redundant in some respects; I think that the template here is one small example of it. | helpdןǝɥ | 15:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Ill make the change in the next 5 minutes in the sandbox. --Kumioko (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh I remember why I did that. Not all the content is an article such as templates and categories so when I say just this article its confusing when your referring to other content types. I will see if I can clarify this though. Do you have an example of where its redundant?--Kumioko (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Above *ahem*. | helpdןǝɥ | 17:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hehe, oh yeah right. Still trying to come up with some better wording. I am leaning towards something like "this content". --Kumioko (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Isn't there a function to list off your current namespace? Anyway, if not, I guess that works. | helpdןǝɥ | 18:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Its done and in teh sandbox. When its updated again it will reflect in the template. --Kumioko (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Repeated word in displayed text

Now there is "a collaborative effort to improve the coverage coverage of subjects and topics relating to the United States of America" where coverage is repeated.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I made the wording changes in the sandbox as well as some other minor wording tweaks. Please copy the contents of the sandbox to the live template. --Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Restored word 'of' accidentally deleted. --Davemck (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow good catch thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bypass redirect category

Can someone fix the template so it doesn't populate Category:WikiProject Iowa articles (which is a redirect) but instead sends them to Category:WikiProject Iowa? Timrollpickering (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. I fixed the category so that it functioned in the same way as all the other projects. --Kumioko (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Next group of tasks

Not ready for deployment yet. Just making notes.

  1. Fixed a problem with the coding for Youngstown. --Kumioko
  2. Added Rhode Island --Kumioko
  3. Added Louisiana--Kumioko
  4. Added Louisiana Tech--Kumioko
  5. Added Shreveport--Kumioko
  6. Added New Orleans--Kumioko
  7. Add Iowa Government workgroup --Kumioko
  8. Add Iowa Communities workgroup --Kumioko
  9. Add Charlotte NC. --JJ98/Kumioko --JJ98/Kumioko
  10. Add Durham NC --JJ98/Kumioko

--Kumioko (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request, more additional projects

Please add the American animation work group of WikiProject Animation, American cinema task force of WikiProject Film, communities and government workgroup of WP:IA, along with WikiProject Rhode Island, WikiProject Louisiana, Louisiana Tech, New Orleans, Shreveport, Charlotte, Durham, United States comics work group of WikiProject Comics, United States military history task force of WikiProject United States and WikiProject United States History which Kumioko and me added at the sandbox. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 10:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Also note, Superfund and Library of Congress portals have deleted. Please remove it. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 10:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 Done, I pasted in the most recent revision of the sandbox, as requested. Message me if there are any issues. Blurpeace 23:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
No problem, although its a little buggy, usually Kumioko fixes it. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 07:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

More changes

Below are the next few things that are needed for this template. All of these changes have been implemented and tested in the templates sandbox here. --Kumioko (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Removed Iowa projects -Kumioko
  • Added ACW Task force -Kumioko
  • Added ARW task force -Kumioko
  • Added some portals -JJ98
  • fixed some coding -Kumioko/JJ98
  • added some parameter variations for needs infobox, image, map and geocoord. --Kumioko
  • fixed a few minor things. --JJ98/Kumioko
  • fixed display for New Orleans. --Kumioko
  • Fixed qualimpersect logic. --JJ98

--Kumioko (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

More changes

Here's the next round of changes. Just a couple minor tweaks to fix a couple flaws in the logic. The work has already been done in the sandbox so all that needs to be done is copy it over.

  • Fix category for Louisiana. --Kumioko
  • Fix a couple casing issues with parameters. --Kumioko
  • Fix a couple minor things. --Kumioko
  • Update a link for Shreveport. --Kumioko
  • I just noticed I also updated the Parameter for Louisiana Tech. --Kumioko (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

More to come. --Kumioko (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing Maintenance

Some more maintenance fixes. All changes have been done in the sandbox and just need to be implemented.

  1. add a few parameter alias's (Durham, Cinncinati, Shreveport, Indianapolis. Louisville and Charlotte). --Kumioko
  2. fix a couple of category issues. --Kumioko
  3. Fix the todo list logic for Cincinnati--Kumioko
  4. Add a parameter alias for Younstown--Kumioko

--Kumioko (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done; ping me if there are any problems. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Durham NC

It says "TF_3_MAIN_CAT = WikiProject Durham articles" where it should be "WikiProject Durham NC articles". Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much I'll fix that right now. --Kumioko (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Its fixed in the sand box. Now someone just needs to implement it. --Kumioko (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The above change was made in the sandbox. Please copy the code from the sandbox to the live template so the change can be implemented. --Kumioko (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

incorrect category name

For task force Louisville CAT_4 should be Wikipedia requested photographs in Louisville, Kentucky. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I updated the code in the sandbox here. Someone just needs to implement the change. --Kumioko (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. Killiondude (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

incorrect category name 2

For task force Indianapolis CAT_4 should be Wikipedia requested photographs in Indianapolis, Indiana‏‎ --Traveler100 (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

  1. Fixed needs photograph categories in the templates sandbox for the following locations:
    1. Indianapolis, Indiana
    2. New Orleans, Louisiana
    3. Shreveport, Louisiana
    4. Omaha, Nebraska
    5. Charlotte, North Carolina
    6. Durham, North Carolina
    7. Youngstown, Ohio
    8. Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
    9. Seattle, Washington
  2. Changed Shreveport articles to Shreveport task force articles
  3. Added some coding to identify articles with invalid paramaters.
  4. Update the image for Franco Americans

--Kumioko (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the #2 item above, the action has taken articles out of the existing Category:Unknown-importance Shreveport articles into the red-linked Category:Unknown-importance Shreveport task force articles. Similarly to the "Low" and "NA" importance categories. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks Ill get that fixed. --Kumioko (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Franco-Americans

A vectorized version of the flag File:Drapeau Franco-Américain.JPG is available and is already used for the Franco-Americans and Portal:Franco-Americans pages, so it would be logical to use it here too. Thanks. Ec.Domnowall (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Its in teh sandbox so when the admins get around to it the change will be there. --Kumioko (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Portal Icon Too Small

The portal icon for all of the subprojects that you hijacked needs to be the same size as the United States portal icon. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

First I didn't hijack anything. Second, after looking at the template I agree that some of the project icons need to be a bit bigger but I'm not sure if I can change the portal icon. I will look into it. I don't think I can make it the same size as the US one though due to the irregular shape of some of the project images and how they display. I will try and make them bigger though. --Kumioko (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
After doing some research here is what I found. There is no style parameter to esaily change the size of the portal icon within the banner, however I can do some custom coding that will resize the portals. Its not a trivial thing but its not terribly difficult either. IF I do it the way it was done with WikiProject Trains we can get all the portals to display together in a portal box like they are for Talk:Tooting Bec tube station, all the same size and together. This also fixes the problem with all the portals being right aligned (I have long wanted them to be in alignment instead of all staggered out). Would that be acceptable or do you have other suggestions? --Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

More stuff

Another few tasks have been done to the template in the templates sandbox. Please implement.

  • Fix to do list name for WikiProject FBI - Kumioko
  • Resize some icons - Kumioko
  • Fix a couple categories for District of Columbia - Kumioko
  • Fixes for Louisville. Whispertome/Kumioko
  • Fixes for categorization of maps and images needed. - Traveler100
  • Fix a couple task force issues. JJ98
  • Add Massachusetts - Kumioko
  • Add Texas - Kumioko
  • Add San Antonio task force. - Kumioko
  • Add UNC. - Kumioko
  • Add Texas A&M. --Kumioko
  • Add University of North Texas. --Kumioko
  • Add East Carolina University. --JJ98
  • Add NCSU. --JJ98
  • Fix a couple minor things with the addition of some projects. --Kumioko
  • Add Notre Dame. --Kumioko
  • Add Texas Tech --Kumioko
  • Add Austin --Kumioko
  • Add University of Texas at Austin --Kumioko
  • Reorder Texas projects to alphabetical order --Kumioko

--Kumioko (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Kumioko (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

listas categories

Is there any point to tracking the use of the listas parameters at Category:United States articles with listas parameter & Category:United States articles without listas parameter? This isn't the biography project so there's no need to add listas params to all the banners, so is there a need to track the usage? -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think they are needed for now but we might be able to delete them later. Particularly the one for articles that Use it. I think the point of the listas is to better sort articles, whether they are biographies or not so I although I agree that it may not be needed on many articles I don't think it matters if its a biography or not. For example do we really want to sort every list as List of subject or by the actual subject, List of? --Kumioko (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Next group of tasks

  • Fix display of project titles while nested. --Kumioko
  • Add some more invalid parameter checks. --Kumioko
  • fix todo lists for Indianapolis and Notre Dame --Kumioko
  • fix todo list for NCSU --Kumioko
  • Add University of Massachusetts --Kumioko
  • Add Dartmouth college --Kumioko
  • Add Smithsonian Institution --Kumioko
  • Add National Archives --Kumioko
  • Add Archives of American Art --Kumioko
  • Add Lowell, Massachusetts --Kumioko
  • Add Cape Cod and the Islands --Kumioko
  • Add Boston --Kumioko
  • Add Arkansas --Kumioko
  • Add American Samoa --Kumioko
  • Update image for Texas Tech --Kumioko
  • Update parameter names for Texas Tech. --Kumioko

Start on the next list of tasks. --Kumioko (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:Texas Tech University

Thanks in advance. NThomas (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for letting us know. I will make those changes in a few minutes and add them to the growing list above. In the mean time I am going to remove the edit protected banner since there is already one open. As soon as I get done making the changes I'll let you know. I'll also get the bot to replace the applicable TXTech parameters with the preferrred ones as soon as the changes are made to the template. --Kumioko (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, if its alright I would prefer to move the to do list to the to do subpage name rather than use the existing To Do List subpage name. That will allow it to use the same nameing convention used on all the other US related projects. That will make doing maintenance easier in the future (I am working on a bot task that would auto update to do lists) if changes are needed.--Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The image and parameter names are updated per request in the sandbox. I'm gonna see if someone can update the template today. --Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Next round

Add a few more things.

  • Add University of Arkansas. --Kumioko
  • Add Salem Witch trials task force. --Kumioko
  • Update GLAM links to remove Wikiproject reference. --Kumioko/SarekofVulcan

Will add a few more. --Kumioko (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

image-needed

When image-need=yes is added to this template and there is also a sub-project tag set it places the article's talk page in the correct category, such as Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of the United States Government, but also duplicates this request in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States. Would it be possible that when a specific category is set that the parent category is no longer also set? --Traveler100 (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point but Im not sure how to fix that if its something that can be changed at all. Let me ask around about that. --Kumioko (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Would it work if you change the line that adds the category Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States when image-need is set to yes so that it sets CAT_4 then it would be overwritten if there is a more relevant category? Currently if a state sub-project is set the request is duplicated in the main category and in the sub-category (which is against Category best practices). Now that many states and city projects have been moved to this project and a bot is now starting to replace templates on article talk pages we are going to have a little problem. Taking this to its logical conclusion we could have over 41000 requests in the top category. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I see your point and agree that if we add them to the lower level project we could remove them from the Parent (United States) category. This is also true of a couple of other things as well (needs map, needs infobox, etc). --Kumioko (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Is line 48 needed? Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States is set after here and a few lines later under NOTE_1_CAT.--Traveler100 (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
To solve the problem would the occurance of NOTE_1_CAT= be replaces with CAT_4= or could all occurrences of CAT_4= be replaced with NOTE_1_CAT= ? --Traveler100 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
This should do it (repeat the crazy brackets stuff for each task force):.

|NOTE_1_CAT = {{#if:{{yesno|{{{US-animation|}}}}}{{yesno|{{{Indianapolis|}}}}}||Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States}}

--Traveler100 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

OK I think I have all the main ones covered now. Would be good to have this done quickly as the top category is filling up.--Traveler100 (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A game of catch-up. Newly added projects now accounted for.--Traveler100 (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what exactly needs changing - do you want the template synced with Template:WikiProject United States/sandbox or is it more of that 'crazy brackets stuff' that needs adding? If the latter, it would be really helpful if could you add the exact code required into the sandbox. Thanks, Tra (Talk) 09:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not make myself clear. I have updates the sandbox, need it synced with the template.--Traveler100 (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done Tra (Talk) 11:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Need help fixing problems with Kentucky templates

The template isn't treating the WikiProject Kentucky's Eastern Mountain Coal Fields task force correctly. First, according to Kumioko the parameter Eastern Mountain Coal Fields needs to be added as an alias for |Coal-fields=. (Some pages have "Eastern Mountain Coal Fields=yes" on the page instead of "Coal-fields=yes".) Also, for some reason, some talk pages that have the parameter Coal-fields=yes are displaying as being in WikiProject Kentucky/Louisville, which is wrong. (For example, see Talk:Cumberland Gap National Historical Park.) --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 28Feb12

There is an extra "AAA" parameter floating around in the template that doesn't belong there. There is a fix in the sandbox. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The "AAA" parameter seems to be used to support Wikipedia:GLAM/AAA. It looks like applying your requested edit would cause {{WikiProject United States|AAA=yes|needs-image=yes}} to categorize in both Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Archives of American Art task force and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States, which is contrary to how "needs-image" categorization seems to work for all other subprojects. Anomie⚔ 03:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see it now. The "AAA" is in there twice for some reason. Done Anomie⚔ 03:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Yep, it was a duplicate. Thanks for fixing it! --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

merge of request photo categories

Merged some categories of not very active projects. Please transfer edits made in sandbox to active template. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Tra (Talk) 07:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2012

I would like to change the West Virginia University WikiProject logo to . The "Flying WV" logo is the University's official logo and would provide a more accurate and direct correlation to the WVU WikiProject rather than the current ordinary picture of dormitories. Swcrowemsg 14:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Texas A&M

I am thrilled that my project, WP:TAMU has been added to this project. I have found one mistake in this template. When linking to our wikiproject, it links to WikiProject A&M, WikiProject Texas A&M. I don't have any problem making WikiProject A&M a redirect, however there are several other A&M schools in the US. I am not exactly sure how to fix it, but any help would be appreciated. Oldag07 (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, on the wikiproject page, it is ok, but on on our regular pages, the template is not working. See Talk:Texas A&M University Oldag07 (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I've updated the nested link to use WikiProject Texas A&M rather than WikiProject A&M -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 March 2012

Would someone please correct a grammatical error in the template? "Unreferenced BLP's" should not have the apostrophe. Apostrophes indicate the possessive case, not the plural, when followed by a "s". Thanks.

Imzadi 1979 → 17:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Tra (Talk) 17:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request to fix some to do lists

As an IP I cannot create pages but there are several to do lists that need to be created so they'll stop showing in red. In the case of WikiProject FBI I updated the content in one of the 2 existing to do lists so it just needs to be moved to the location the template is pointing at (I think this will be easier to do than to modify the template). here is a link to the one I updated. I recommend deleting the competing Wikipedia:WikiProject FBI/To Do page once this is implemented. I realize this change isn't exactly for this template but it does affect it and I am willing to bet more people are watching this template than the Wikipedia:WikiProject FBI/to do page. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just changed one of the pages into a redirect to the other. Hope that is ok. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry no that didn't work. If you take a look at the template here you'll see that the red link still exists. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Should be sorted now. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks its working great now. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fix a few things and add a project

I made a couple of changes to the template in the sandbox here and would like to ask for them to be implemented by an administrator.

  1. Added WikiProject Ohio Wesleyan University under the Ohio Projects group
  2. Fixed a couple of minor problems with things not nesting correctly on a couple problems.
  3. Add a couple of spelling variations of counties to the invalid parameters tracking group.
  4. Updated an image
  5. Fix some logic for Eastern Kentucky Coal Fields task force
  6. Add some logic for Photo-needed/needs-photo

All changes have been made in the Sandbox so all you need to do is copy it over. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Agathoclea (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
This seems to have introduced an error regarding the Ohio Wesleyan University WP [1] Agathoclea (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Fix a few things

  1. Fix categorization for Lowell, Massachusetts --Kumioko
  2. Fix nested display for Ohio Wesleyan University--Kumioko

Kumioko (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

yep that fixed the redlinks. Agathoclea (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Fix a few things...again

The below edits have been made in the templats Template:WikiProject United States/sandbox and just need to be copied over and implemented by someone with admin rights.

  1. Fix to do list logic for West Virginia University --Kumioko
  2. Fix the main cat for Salem Witch trials TF. --Kumioko

--Kumioko (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. In my opinion it would be better to put the to-do lists on the TF_HOOKs rather than cludging them at the end like that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing those things on the template for me. Your idea sounds ok to me. Frankly I'm sure there are better ways to do lots of the things in that template. Not exactly sure what your talking about though I have to admit. Could you do one as an example or maybe provide an example template that does it the way you suggest I can use as an example? Kumioko (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I've tried it with the animation workgroup on the sandbox. The difference is that the todo list will display underneath the relevant task force. You could argue that this is more logical, and it makes the code a lot easier (avoids double-checking the parameters). Also the {{yesno}} logic is a bit more complicated that just checking the parameter to see if it is non-blank. For example, if you were to type |US-animation=no the taskforce would not display, but the todo list will display currently, which is inconsistent. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much I will look into making those changes. I also agree it looks better. Kumioko (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately it doesn't look like its going to be possible. If I do it this way it exceeds the template inlcude size which might be why we did it that way before, I'm not quite sure. Kumioko (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing a deprecated category that's not even working properly

There's an old bit of code that's populating Category:US_State_Legislators_articles_with_comments. However that category is unused and I suspect that's because it's populated by random articles that have nothing to do with legislators. I recommend deleting the following two lines from the template and deleting the resulting empty category. Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

|cat 8={{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments|yes}}

|CAT_8 = US State Legislators articles with comments

This is due to the error identified in the previous discussion. Somehow code for US state legislatures was added to Utah so Utah people are being added to the group you mention. Once that is fixed the problem will be fixed. I would have already fixed the problem but the template is edit protected so that only an admin can fix it. Good catch though please let us know if you find anything else. Kumioko (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Fix a small problem with Utah logic

The below edits have been made in Template:WikiProject United States/sandbox and just need to be copied over and implemented by someone with admin rights.

  1. Fix a small problem with Utah causing Utah people to show up in a US State legislatures category. --Kumioko (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 Done --slakr\ talk / 02:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Fix a problem with University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill not showing to do list

The change below has been completed in the sandbox and just needs to be copied over by someone with admin rights.

 Done. That's a big update; do shout if there are any problems. Happy‑melon 15:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you will do. Kumioko (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Fix a few things

The following changes are awaiting action in this templates sandbox.

  1. Fix assessment categorization for Columbia University. Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  2. removed photo request category of Counties being place in US category as will be duplicated in the state category. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  3. Fix image categorization for Washington DC Kumioko (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  4. Add WikiProject Washington Metro Kumioko (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  5. Add Seton Hall University Kumioko (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  6. Add Rutgers Kumioko (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  7. Add WikiProject Washington University in St. Louis Kumioko (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  8. Fix category for WikiProject NIH. Kumioko (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  9. Cleaned up the coding a bit and removed some unneeded crap. Kumioko (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  10. Add WikiProject Pennsylvania State University Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  11. Fix title for NIH. Kumioko (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Agathoclea (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Fix and add a few more things

The following changes are awaiting action in this templates sandbox.

  1. Fix some icon sizing issues from the last update Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Agathoclea (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again that was my fault. Kumioko (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

More things

Here is another group of items that need to be updated in the main template from the Sandbox.

Edit request on 10 June 2012

It appears that a glitch in formatting is causing WP NJ-Rutgers and WP NJ-Seton Hall appear whenever someone places the WP New Mexico template up. Can this be fixed? Examples: Talk:Ancient_Pueblo_Peoples, Talk:New_Mexico. Thanks Montanabw(talk) 20:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Montanabw(talk) 20:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I'll get that fixed right now. Kumioko (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Done Anomie⚔ 20:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This is why its a pain not have admin rights to fix this template. I just made the changes in the sand box as well as a few others so if someone could implement the changes from the most recent sandbox version it will fix this problem as well as a couple of others as well. Kumioko (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again. Kumioko (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

photo request categories

Please update template to sandbox changes

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
need to correct typo.--Traveler100 (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A few refinements

I have made a few refinements to the template located in the sandbox here. The changes are outlined below:

  1. Add a couple invalid parameter checks --Kumioko
  2. Rename a category for Eastern Kentucky Coal fields task force --Kumioko
  3. Refinements to Needs image categorization on a few projects --Kumioko
  4. Add a couple aliases to American film --Kumioko
  5. Add U.S. Public Policy as a Joint Project --Kumioko
  6. Fix a few more things with the Needs image logic --Kumioko
  7. Remove invalid reference to /Sandbox --JJ98
  8. Remove invalid reference to Collaboration --JJ98

Kumioko (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Error in template

A recent edit in the template is causing Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States to fill up with requests that are in sub-categories.--Traveler100 (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll wait a little longer to see if Kumioko replies. If not, I'll revert that part of the banner change. -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I've made a small change, so it's how long it takes for the category to empty now. -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

United States articles without listas parameter‎

I am requesting that someone update the template to change the logic regarding the use of the listas parameter. Please remove the logic for Category:United States articles without listas parameter‎. We already have Category:United States articles with listas parameter‎ and with the number of articles affected we don't really need both.

Also, It is not necessary for every article in the project to have the listas parameter so its more appropriate to list it by those with the parameter than without. Kumioko (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 Question: Would you also like to remove the logic for Mississippi articles without listas parameter and Mississippi articles with listas parameter? I see that both of these categories are red links. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Personally I don't think that any of these four are strictly necessary. A |listas= is useful only when the desired sort order is not the default sort order; thus, you would want Talk:George Washington to sort under the W's, not the G's; and you would want Talk:The Washington Post to sort under the W's, not the T's. But Talk:United States Declaration of Independence will sort under the U's anyway, which is where we want it - there is no need to alter the default sort order in this case.
In the first two cases a |listas= is useful to have on one of the WikiProject banners; but it need not be on all banners that are present. This is because the code in Template:WPBannerMeta/core uses the listas value as the argument of a {{DEFAULTSORT:}}; it therefore sets the sort key for all categories on the page, regardless of the project banner which generates the category. It's conventional for any {{WikiProject Biography}} which may be present to have a |listas=, so since there is a {{WikiProject Biography}} with a |listas= on Talk:George Washington, there's no need for the {{WikiProject United States}} to also have a |listas=. But in the case of Talk:The Washington Post there is no {{WikiProject Biography}} (and I can't see why one might be necessary), so the |listas= could go on any of the three project banners that are present. It doesn't actually matter which one; and since it's on the {{WikiProject Media}} there is no need for one on the {{WikiProject United States}} in addition. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I recommend keeping Mississippi articles with listas parameter, but I don't feel very strongly about it. In fact a lot of the projects under the WPUS template have the listas categories and I would prefer to keep the With listas for them as well and remove he without listas categories.Kumioko (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Not commenting on the categories, but the source of the "listas" is normally the bio-template so we don't need to set it ourselves. At least that is how I understood it. Agathoclea (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought that's what I put: only one banner needs a |listas=, because the |listas= is used to set a {{DEFAULTSORT:}}, and a {{DEFAULTSORT:}} acts upon all categories on the page. Conventionally, that one banner is {{WikiProject Biography}}, but there are some articles which do not warrant a {{WikiProject Biography}}, but for which it is desirable to have a sortkey differing from the page title. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a question. I have been told in the past that in order for the listas to inherit to the other projects it must be the top project on the page. So if WPUS was First and bio was below that with the listas, the listas logic wouldn't roll over to the other templates. Is that true? Kumioko (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be the top project - any one will do, because behind the scenes it invokes {{DEFAULTSORT:}}, see WP:NAMESORT item 1; also Help:Category#Default sort key. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Kumioko (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Not done. I've marked the edit request as answered for now. It looks like this could do with some discussion on the project talk page to find what the most appropriate behaviour is. Also, as this is a complex template, a working version should be created in the sandbox before we update the main template. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
That's fine but its a waste of time in this case. I can tell you that we aren't going to get much if any response from the project on this one because I am the only one that would work on a task like this of adding or removing the listas parameter so I am the only one that would even look at the category in the first place. I'll go ahead and start one though and we'll see what happens. Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Indiana image

Image on "|TF_3_IMAGE = Indiana with Torch Star Logo.png" line could be changed to corresponding SVG File:Indiana with Torch Star Logo.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Template updates

We are requesting a few updates to the template. Some have been made in the Sandbox as noted below.

  1. Add logic for Past, Current, Former collaboration articles. (see Sandbox) ~~  Done
  2. Please remove the logic for the United States articles without listas. Per this discussion there are no opposes. ~~Kumioko
  3. Please remove the logic for importance ratings for the following supported projects. ACW, ARW and USMIL. These are Joint supported projects with WikiProject Military history. The Milhist folks have asked a couple times to stop using importances for these projects and in the interest of continued good relations with that project we would like to remove that logic. Once done will delete the necessary parameters from the affected articles. ~~Kumioko
  4. Fixed some invalid parameters. ~~JJ98  Done

Please comment if you have any questions. Kumioko (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've copied it over form the sandbox. There doesn't appear to be any listas or importance changes though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The listas and importance changes haven't been done. During my RFA it was noted that the community doesn't trust me to do Admin related tasks so I am attempting to avoid doing them. Kumioko (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I am capable and willing to make the changes but the clear and obvious consensus at my RFA was that I can't be trusted to do admin tasks. No big deal, I'm ok with that. But with that determination I also don't feel as though I should be made to do the work. If I can't be trusted, then someone else should do the work that I am not trusted to do and I will do something else. Please don't let these words convey a sense of bad attitude. I'm not upset nor trying to make a point. I am just not willing to spend time in a task, that I am not allowed or trusted to implement. I think its unfortunate, but that makes more work for someone else who does have the trust. Kumioko (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
At present, I see no difference between sandbox and live; therefore, Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. The thing to do is to make your desired changes in the template sandbox - you don't need admin privileges for that. Then set up some testcases to ensure that your changes work as desired (see WP:TESTCASES. When it's OK, change |ans=yes back to |ans=no; an admin will then review your proposed change, and implement it if valid. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The reason there is no difference in the sandbox is because I didn't make any changes, nor should I. The changes need to be done, someone needs to do them. IF I had admin rights I would, but I don't so I can't. Your right about the sandbox and testcases, the complication of this template and the number of articles affected requires that, but again, although I am willing to leave a message requesting an admin take action, I see no valid reason why I should do all the work and then the admin copy and paste the change and then get "credit" for lack of a better term, for doing an admin action when they really didn't do anything. I'm sorry if this seems like a bad attitude but the bottom line is, the work needs to be done by someone with the permissions. Not someone who the community has stated they do not trusts work being copy pasted by someone they do. If I am not trusted then I shouldn't be doing the work for those that are. There are results from telling an editor they can't be trusted and the current result is, although I am still editing, I am unwilling to do an admin related task beyond leaving a message and asking that it can be done. If someone else wants to do it, some aspiring admin, then thats fine. Otherwise I guess the changes will just not get done. Kumioko (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
listas changes are now in the sandbox to review. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you were waiting on my input or not but I checked it over and it looks good. I added a test case under Template:WikiProject United States/testcases and they seem to work fine. I think its ok to implement. Just a note, another user appears to be testing some things also so you may want to be careful which version you copy. Kumioko (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I was just waiting on anyone to review. I've copied it over now. Perhaps you could get jj98 to look at item 3 on the list. -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Kumioko (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Notes of Stuff To do

I do not have access to the template to do these changes so it is requested that someone with admin rights will please take for action.

  1. Please remove the logic for importance ratings for the following supported projects. ACW, ARW and USMIL. These are Joint supported projects with WikiProject Military history. The Milhist folks have asked a couple times to stop using importances for these projects and in the interest of continued good relations with that project we would like to remove that logic. Once done will delete the necessary parameters from the affected articles.
  2. Add invalid parameter checks for NASA, CA, FL, NY, VA, MD, CT, PA, ACW-importance, USMIL-importance and ARW-importance. Kumioko (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Not done: As suggested above, please make required changes to sandbox and reactivate request — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not trusted to make the changes so I can't. There is no reason for me to do all the work if I am not allowed/trusted to implement the change. As I mentioned before, its fine that I can't do it, but that also means that I shouldn't be required to do all the work. Kumioko (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that you have let your RfA get to you. You are most certainly trusted to make changes to the template's /sandbox and /testcases pages - see Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases - if you do make mistakes in either or both of those, no harm will be done. If any changes to the sandbox are bad, and get copied to the main template, it will not be your fault but that of the admin who copies from the sandbox. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Before I start I want you to know that I have a lot of respect for you and you are one of the few on here I would believe without question if you said something. The fact that you imply that you feel I am capable of making the changes means a lot. With that said you are correct, my RFA was disappointing but not unexpected and it really doesn't bother me. The result was resoundingly negative and as I have mentioned before that result, also had consequences. I can live with the fact the community doesn't trust me with the tools but I no longer feel that its my place to do the heavy lifting for these changes so that an admin can just do a safety check and implement them. If I am not trusted, then I shouldn't be doing them, period. If that means that you and others declines these changes and the consequence is that they don't get done as needed, then that's unfortunate, but I can live with it. I will just continue stacking them up and eventually maybe someone at some point will make the change. Kumioko (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. As suggested above, the best place for this would be in sandbox. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned above I don't have access to modify the template and I am not going to do all the work just so someone with admin rights can implement. The changes needs to get done by someone with the proper access and user trust which isn't me. Kumioko (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I need one of 2 things to happen. Either an admin with access rights to this template needs to do the requested changes or the protection level of this template needs to be reduced to Semi protected so I can do it. Kumioko (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotection of a template with more than a third of a million transclusions is a very bad idea unless the unprotecting admin immediately reprotect it; you're basically requesting indefinite semiprotection for the short period of time until you're done, and that's not a good idea because it can't be re-protected immediately if necessary. You must specify exactly what changes you're requesting, because as the template says, it must be fulfillable by someone who's unfamiliar with how to do it, and that includes {{user template-0}} people like me. Nyttend (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
There was no reason to protect it in the first place. It was done by some overzealous admins running around protecting everything. Now we have all these templates that only an admin can edit. These 2 tasks are really easy and are spelled out above but here they are again:
  1. Please remove the logic for importance ratings for the following supported projects. ACW, ARW and USMIL. These are Joint supported projects with WikiProject Military history. The Milhist folks have asked a couple times to stop using importances for these projects and in the interest of continued good relations with that project we would like to remove that logic. Once done will delete the necessary parameters from the affected articles.
  2. Add invalid parameter checks for NASA, CA, FL, NY, VA, MD, CT, PA, ACW-importance, USMIL-importance and ARW-importance.Kumioko (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:HRT. Templates with lots of transclusions are routinely given indefinite full protection so that a single act of vandalism doesn't immediately damage 350,000 talk pages. Again, I don't know how to remove the logic for these importance ratings or how to add invalid parameter checks: you need to explain how to do it. Nyttend (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
If you do not know how to do the changes then I wouldn't want you to implement them anyway. Kumioko (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Nobody will know how to do the changes as you want them, so apparently this change isn't going to happen. You're not required to supply a fix, of course, but please remember that making further requests without explaining how to do them will be considered disruptive and frivolous. Nyttend (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
As I said above, if you don't know how to do the changes, then you wouldn't know how to verify they the changes I made were correct so I wouldn't want you to implement them anyway. Disruptive and frivolous is requiring me to do edits that I am not trusted to do and then having those changes implemented by someone who has the trust but doesn't understand the changes being made. Kumioko (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Maybe instead of just using the editprotected template (which will draw in any old admin who happens to be trying to clear backlogs) you should try directly contacting an admin with template coding experience. They are out there, but it seems they are not patrolling requested edits just now. Template coding generally has little to nothing to do with admin work so that is not terribly surprising.The fact is most users would not be able to make heads or tails of these requests, be they admins or not. If you refuse to do the groundwork and make it clear exactly what it is you are requesting then most rank-and-file admins are not going to be willing or able to do it for you, but if you can find one that at least understands the question you may have better luck. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
To add to Beeb's excellent advice, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Templates#Participants has active admins listed. Try someone from there. --Jayron32 02:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
And, for the last time, people trust you to make edits to templates. RFA is a diarrhea milkshake, so don't believe what happens there reflects your worth as an editor. Just accept that the world has haters, and stop playing the victim. If you're genuinely interested in fixing this template, just follow the procedure being asked: we all trust you to do so, that's why we're telling you to do so. You can stop with the "I failed an RFA so that means no one trusts me" bullshit. We trust you fine. Just do what you have been asked to do, and you'll get what you need done. --Jayron32 03:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to make your first request in the Sandbox, but for thesecond one I don't know what it is exactly that you want, so I haven't made an attempt. If the changes I made for the first request are to your liking, I can transfer them to the live template. Your other request will need examples or more explanation. The easiest solution would be for you to make the changes in the sandbow instead of us guessing what it is you exactly want of course. Fram (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The changes are in the sandbox. Fram you were close but you needed to sync the main page first. Someone had done some other changes in the sandbox that could have caused some problems. Thanks for trying though. It still pisses me off and I still find it stupid that I have to do all the work so someone else can implement it but its obvious at this point that no one was going to do the changes otherwise. I don't intend to make a habit of this though. Next time I will likely just leave it. If I can't be trusted to implement the change myself then I shouldn't be doing it at all and I also find it bothersome that those implementing the change wouldn't even know if I got the coding right anyway. That to me is a major problem.
@Jayron32 and Beeblebrox, if your statement is true then that justifies the position that the ability to edit through protection should be a standalone right like Rollback and Filemover and that it need not be tied to admin rights. If being an admin does not require the technical understanding to make changes to protected templates then there is no reason to tie the 2 together at all. I also don't agree I am trusted, at least not by the majority who voted on my RFA. The RFA clearly showed that. Kumioko (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Changes implemented. The creation of an edit-protected right for trusted non-admins may be a good solution for this, but obviously won't be decided on this talkpage. Fram (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Or maybe some users need to grow up and stop acting like a crying baby that can't reach it's bottle. After this temper tantrum I feel like retracting what I said earlier about being sorry the RFA failed. This type of primadonna bitch fit is not what we need or expect from admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Lol, very mature BB. But it seems your trolling comments are what we can expect! Kumioko (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Other stuff to do

  1. Finish updating documentation --Kumioko (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Fix some things

Here is a list of a few more things to do.

  1. Replaced TeSan Antonio task force articles missing geocoordinate data with San Antonio task force articles missing geocoordinate data
  2. Replaced Wikipedia requested maps of Vermont topics with Wikipedia requested maps in Vermont
  3. Replaced Wikipedia requested maps of Utah topics with Wikipedia requested maps in Utah

I did the changes in the sandbox. They just need to be implemented. Kumioko (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Agathoclea (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

More refinements to Categorization

Here are a few more changes I have made in the sandbox. Please implement.

  1. Change Wikipedia requested maps in San Antonio, Texas to Wikipedia requested maps in Texas --Kumioko
  2. Change WikiProject American Samoa to American Samoa to fix incorrect categorization. --Kumioko
  3. Update American samoa map needed cat to say in American Samoa vice of --Kumioko
  4. Update American samoa photograph needed cat to say in American Samoa vice of --Kumioko
  5. Update map needed cat for New Orleans --Kumioko
  6. Update map needed cat for Shreveport --Kumioko
  7. Update map needed cat for Lousiville --Kumioko
  8. Update map needed cat for Charlotte --Kumioko
  9. Update map needed cat for Durham --Kumioko
  10. Update map needed cat for Ohio townships to Ohio --Kumioko
  11. Update photo needed cat for Ohio townships to Ohio --Kumioko
  12. Update photo needed cat for Youngstown, Ohio --Kumioko
  13. Update needs map category for Cornell University --Kumioko
  14. Update needs map category for Columbia University --Kumioko
  15. Update needs map category for SUNY --Kumioko
  16. Update needs map category for Louisiana Tech --Kumioko
  17. Update needs photo category for Ohio Weslayan University. --Kumioko (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Fix some categorization

I have made a few more changes to the template in the sandbox. Please implement.

  1. Replace Wikipedia requested maps in September 11, 2001 with Wikipedia requested maps of September 11, 2001
  2. Replace American animation articles needing referances with Unreferenced American animation articles
  3. Fix cat for photos needed in the Kyova region.
  4. Fix cats for maps needed in the Kyova region.
  5. Update naming for Salem Witch trials task force categories Kumioko (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
1–4 fixed, wiki hopefully not blown up. Sorry, but could you be a little more specific about #5? Is it just the map & photo categories that need fixing? Choess (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
If you go to the sandbox page (there's a link in the {{Edit protected}} box, and Kumioko provided another in the first sentence above), you'll find a notice like this. Click the diff link, and you'll see exactly what is required. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done Mea culpa. Thanks for the tip, Redrose64, and thanks, Kumioko, for making it easy to implement. Choess (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

remove duplication of requests

Please update to copy in sandbox. This removes duplication of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Seattle, Washington articles in parent Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Washington. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to change the maximum number of projects allowed

So presently, only three projects show up under this template. Is there any way to get it bumped up to ten, since there are likely some pages that encompass more than five projects. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I'm not quite sure what you mean here. If you mean the task forces, then I don't think there is a limit to how many you can activate at one time, and I can't think of what else your post might be referring to. Maybe someone else who watches this talk page can help you, but until then I'm deactivating the request. Once you have the actual code that needs to be changed, and if your edit has consensus, feel free to reactivate the {{edit protected}} template. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the issue that I was referring to. Right now, three projects are showing, but there are seven tagged, so it is hiding most of the projects. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The parameters |NY=yes |NYC=yes |NJ=yes |VA=yes are obsolete (they put the page into Category:United States articles with invalid parameters); and the parameters |NY-importance=low |NYC-importance=low |NJ-importance=low |VA-importance=low are not recognised at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually its not that those parameters are obsolete, they are not supported by this template or the project. They need to add the appropriate WikiProject banners for those projects.NY, NJ, VA and NYC all have their own banners and projects that support them. They did not want to be supported by WPUS nor have their banners included as part of this template. Kumioko (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, that makes some more sense. I was just confused because it was the first three that were there, and I figured that something was amiss. Thanks for the clarification, everyone! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Moved: was at Template talk:WikiProject United States/doc, which now redirects to Template talk:WikiProject United States.
Some templates redirect their documentation talk to the main template talk. Others including this one reserve the main template talk for talk about the template itself.

A. Template talk:WikiProject United States (with 1 archive through end 2012) for technical discussion of the template;

B. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States (with 9 archives from 2006, as of end 2012) for some discussion of its usage.

That is the main project talk where "recent" discussion of project scope begins at Archive 5, item 96 (that is, item 5.96) by User:Kumioko 22:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC). The following selection of archived discussion narrowly concerns either WP US project scope *or* WP US template usage.

That is the primary and lengthy discussion of WP US revival as an umbrella project supporting many others and indirectly covering 100,000s of articles.
That is the primary and lengthy debate formulating essentially the current statement on the main project page.
eg, "Bios which properly belong under this project include: 45 Presidents ..."
  • 7.97 #Tagging articles with the WikiProject United States banner [notice of discussion at Administrators' noticeboard]
  • 7.125 #Bot run to tag additional articles
  • 7.192 #Scope
eg, "Tag articles that fall into the scope of "National interest"."
--the only instance in the current Archive 9 (from 2012-09-04) as of 2013-01-25

--P64 (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


material above this line is under construction 2013-01-25 -P64

Is there a question in here somewhere. What are you asking? Kumioko (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
At 1:00 my internet connection expired, so to speak.
I looked for discussion of the documentation and found this page empty but "bannered"; evidently for the purpose of documentation talk.
I believe the documentation should include some concrete guidance regarding how widely the template should be used. The discussion linked above (so far) focuses on articles that are claimed by some state, city, or other subsidiary wikiproject. I am looking for discussion of other dimensions. For instance: American Library Association, articles on ALA awards, articles on individual books published in the U.S. (thus probably eligible for some ALA award), biographies of American people. --P64 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok. So the banner just means that there is a WikiProject that is affiliated in some way with that topic. There are some projects that come close to what you are looking for like the projects for the Library of Congress, National archives and Novels. Nothing as specific as what you are looking for though. I think what you need to look for is Categories to get the level of granularity you are looking for. For exampleCategory:American Library Association. I hope this helps but please drop a line on my take page if you need some more help. As far as how widely it should be used is somewhat a contentious topic unfortunately. In some folks opinions, mine included, it is for any US topic. Some think otherwise. Since the banner also supports a number of other US related projects, if the article falls into their scope then tag it (Texas, Kansas, or any of the other supported projects). With that said, I stopped supporting and maintaining the projects because I got tired of the drama and fighting. Since the project was such a hot potato most editors won't touch it and so it will probably just die out along with many of the supported projects, many of which were already dead anyway. Kumioko (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The article assessment departments of WikiProject Cornell University, WikiProject Columbia University, and WikiProject SUNY were moved to WikiProject New York and {{WikiProject New York}} as the result of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York#WikiProject SUNY. All of those project's articles have the new banner, and as such any code in this template that relates to Cornell, Columbia, and SUNY can be removed. – TMF (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Also Kansas

Also remove Kansas per the discussion here. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You can't really remove Kansas from this template until all the use have been replaced with {{WikiProject Kansas}} (which also needs updating anyway) -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Images redlinked?

Hello, I noticed a redlink in the image on {{US-gov-stub}} (as it appears on a transcluded page; not as it appears on the template's page itself); I went to its talk page and found a redlinked image on this template. I don't know if this problem is peculiar to my browser/server/computer etc. See for yourself... • Serviceable†Villain 10:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Redirect-Class United States articles of NA-importance

Category:Redirect-Class United States articles of NA-importance has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page., The category is populated by this template. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

US State Legislators ?

Two comments, having just come across the rather lonely-looking Category:US State Legislators articles with comments. There seems some confusion in this template and its documentation whether USSL refers to Legislators or Legislatures - the project is in no doubt, it's WP:WikiProject US State Legislatures and eg its main category is at Category:WikiProject US State Legislatures articles. Also, for some reason some towns in Vermont are ending up in Category:US State Legislators articles with comments - I'm not sure why, maybe something to do with auto=inherit or the way Vermont is programmed in? Could someone who knows their way round this template better than me take a look? TIA. Le Deluge (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Re the second problem: it's not just some Vermont towns but some people with a Vermont connection too. This was the problem. I guess that somebody copied the code for |USSL= and didn't amend all the categories. The affected articles should now be correctly showing in Category:Vermont articles with comments. Note that Talk:Calvin Coolidge who was previously only in the US State Legislators one is now showing in both. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Rr. Now could someone fix the Legislators/Legislatures ? Le Deluge (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

More updates

Please implement the following list of changes. The changes are in the sandbox

  1. Add some checks for invalid parameters -Kumioko
  2. Remove leftover code from Cornell, Columbia and SUNY -Kumioko
  3. Fix category for US State Legislatures articles with comments -Kumioko (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
. Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I reverted it. The change meant that the banner was broken in every page that it was used. You can see the breakage in Template:WikiProject United States/sandbox, between the box "This WikiProject banner uses {{WPBannerMeta}}" and the documentation: there's a pipe, four closing braces, and some stuff about WikiProject New York - SUNY To-do. The next box, "This is the template sandbox page for Template:WikiProject United States", has lost its border. This sort of thing happens when there's an imbalance between opening and closing braces. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was too lax with my checks before I implemented this. I assumed Kumioko would have checked the code properly, but that was obviously a bad move on my part. Kumioko, can you fix the problems in the sandbox and reactivate the request? This time I shall be checking the code more thoroughly. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it might be better for someone else to do it. My 3rd RFA is going down in flames as expected and although my impulses tell me to dig deep into admin related issues and bury myself in all things admin to prove the need its clear folks don't want me doing admin stuff. Kumioko (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that guys I thought I checked that first. It should be working now. Kumioko (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
There was still an imbalance of braces, but it was so small and obscure that I fixed it myself instead of insisting that you check through it again. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Changes

The following changes still need to be done. I'm not going to bother requesting an edit but if someone is watching this page feel free to implement. They are done in the Sandbox.

  1. Add some checks for invalid parameters -Kumioko
  2. Remove leftover code from Cornell, Columbia and SUNY -Kumioko
  3. Fix category for US State Legislatures articles with Kumioko (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  4. Add more invalid parameter checks. Kumioko (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  5. Removed Kansas. Kumioko (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  6. Cleaned up the code and consolidated some of the extra groupings. Kumioko (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  7. Fix to do link for Archives of American Art Kumioko (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  8. Fix to do link for NARA Kumioko (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  9. Fix to do link for SI Kumioko (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  10. Fix to do link for SIA Kumioko (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  11. Remove importance logic for USMIL. Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  12. Remove importance logic for ACW. Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  13. Remove importance logic for ARW. Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  14. Remove Auto importance categorization logic for USMIL. Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  15. Remove Auto importance categorization logic for ACW. Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  16. Remove Auto importance categorization logic for ARW. Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  17. Remove importance logic for NIH. Kumioko (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  18. Remove Auto importance categorization logic for NIH.Kumioko (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  19. Replaced the image for Shreveport, Louisiana since someone decided to delete the old one. Kumioko (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  20. Removed listas parameter. Not used or updated and generally only applies to biographies which are already generated for articles with teh WPBio banner. Kumioko (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  21. Added listas to invalid parameter check. Kumioko (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  22. Fixed titles of a couple of the GLAM projects in the todo list logic. Kumioko (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  23. Removed logic for Collaboration candidate and Current collab. US collab is defunct so no need for anything except the ones who were previous candidates. Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  24. Fixed a bad category in Note 2, category said 9. Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  25. Clarify some more of the GLAM title occurances. Kumioko (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  26. Remove link to recent changes. No longer applicable. Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  27. Remove needs image logic for ACW. Kumioko (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  28. Remove needs image logic for ARW. Kumioko (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  29. Remove needs image logic for USMIL. Kumioko (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  30. Remove needs map logic for ACW. Kumioko (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  31. Remove needs map logic for ARW. Kumioko (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  32. Remove needs map logic for USMIL. Kumioko (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  33. Add a few more state parameter checks. Still finding a lot of mistagged articles. Kumioko (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  34. Removed the auto inheritance logic. No bots are currently doing these types of assessments and haven't in some time. Additionally its just not that big of a deal. If someone feels its wrong all they have to do is change it. Kumioko (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  35. Removed map needed logic for American animationKumioko (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  36. Removed map needed logic for American cinema Kumioko (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  37. Removed map needed logic for American music Kumioko (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  38. Removed map needed logic for American television Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  39. Removed map needed logic for FBI Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  40. Removed map needed logic for several more projcts (LOC, ASianAmer, MexAm, NARA, SIA, SI, AAA and a couple others). Kumioko (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  41. Add Indiana Historical Society (GLAM Project) to supported (Joint) projects. Kumioko (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  42. Add Balboa park. Kumioko (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  43. Add Chemical Heritage Foundation. Kumioko (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of |listas=. It's one of the standard parameters that all WikiProject banners should provide; and although it's not necessary on biographies having {{WPBiography}}, it is useful for correct sorting of articles about fictional people, also articles whose titles begin with "the" or "a", etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem, thanks. We can leave that in. Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Just a suggestion for those who are watching this page and have admin rights. If I may suggest implementing these changes soon, I have quite a few more to make and its going to make things harder to verify the more changes are made at once. Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I replaced the template with the current version of Template:WikiProject United States/sandbox. I hope that was the right thing to do -- and that it didn't break anything.
I must tell you that I didn't even want to think about how to deal with your seemingly daunting list of requests. You likely would have gotten faster response if you had posted a notice saying "Please replace the template with the contents of Template:WikiProject United States/sandbox. It implements the following 43 changes." --- instead of posting lists of 43 specific changes needed in the template. --Orlady (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
As I posted on the AN page this is how it was requested I do it before by other admins so they could verify the changes I made (which frankly rarely occurs anyway because the template logic is so complicated there are only a few of us that understand it). Also as I said there I shouldn't have to ask anyway, I should be able to implement the changes myself. But its harder for the admins to justify their existence if us lowly editors can implement our own work. Every time I start ramping back up into a contributory state I get something like this that makes me wonder why I even care. I should just stop editing and say the hell with it.Kumioko (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This template is not full-protected to protect it from you. It's full-protected to prevent changes by well-intentioned users who don't know what they are doing. Template-coding skill is not a requirement for admin status, which means that there are many administrators (like me) who don't have necessary knowledge to edit a complex template like this one (that is, we don't know what we are doing). You, on the other hand, have demonstrated that you know how to code complex templates. Ideally, it would be possible to give you a special permission to allow you to edit this template, but that isn't possible.
If you had posted a polite request that concisely stated that you have edited the sandbox to implement the long list of changes given -- and that you have verified the code in the sandbox to the extent possible and you think it's ready to be pasted into the template page by an administrator, then any number of administrators would be happy to oblige. Maybe it wasn't intentional, but by writing a request that implied that an administrator needed to (1) determine what was meant by every one of the 43 change requests and (2) code those changes (or at least verify that you had coded them correctly), you were discouraging many administrators from helping out. --Orlady (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually my request was polite, it was just technical and it doesn't really matter why its protected, just that it is and I can't change it eventhought I clearly know how to. But that's one of the fundamental problems with this site and why people leave. Because we make it extremely hard to do things that need to be done. Not because its not pretty or facebook like. Because its too bureaucratic and requires too much red tape. Its not my fault if the admins who have access to do the change don't understand the changes being requested. But I'm not going to do anymore. If I can't be trusted to implement the change and someone who doesn't even understand the changes being made can, then its not important enough for me to do it. I'm just going to add the request and let someone else do the work. Kumioko (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Logically, it would be easier if you leave a simple edit protected template, asking for the template to be updated with a defined version of the sandbox, with a brief explaination of the sort of changes and more importantly confirmation of proper testing etc and also link to somewhere where you document the changes in case someone has questions about them. And from my POV well meaning editors who do good work but have a chip on their shoulder due to whatever evil they perceive has been committed against them, as you appear to be, are far more likely to frighten away other editors. Why would I want to work on a colloborative work when I know I'm going to have to put up with such stuff? The wider problem of course is that while you may be trusted to do good technical work with templates, it seems clear from your messages you can't be trusted to be an admin so we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Note that I am not an admin, and have no great desire to be one. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no problems working on a collaborative project with anyone but excuse me that I have grown impatient that I have to wait weeks to get changes done to a template. Where my problems come in is when I am told I cannot be trusted after years of working on the project, expected to do all the work when an admin that doesn't understand the changes takes credit for the change because I am not allowed to implement my own work and then editors who don't understand the history of the problem try and minimize that poor site policy by telling me I must have a chip on my shoulder. So I guess if that qualifies as a chip and not as bonafide irritation that a site boasting to be the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" is really the "Encyclopedia with a few pages everyone can edit and massive amounts of protected content that only a handful of trusted users can edit" (trademark pending). But anyway, after this last bout of waiting for a month, I'm not going to make the changes anymore because its clear that I'm not trusted to do them. I'll do the same thing as I do with CSD's and other admin related things. I'll put a request for an edit here and let them do it. I'm basically an admin without the tools anyway. Cheers and Happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove GLAM projects from WPUS template

Note: this section was originally a part of the above section "Additional changes to the template", but has been moved to its own section by Kumioko. Fram (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said above. Given our history I never, at any time in this discussion, thought that there was anything I could say that you would consider as a compelling reason. Your right that the solution isn't perfect but its better to have the article in multiple WikiProjects with limited activity than 1 with limited activity. If you think its necessary to remove them from the template then bring it up to the GLAM and WPUS project talk pages. Since collaboration is becoming less and less encouraged on Wikipedia these days you may have a good chance at getting the logic removed. Kumioko (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
"its better to have the article in multiple WikiProjects with limited activity than 1 with limited activity." is something I never opposed. I have at no time said that these articles, if relevant, shouldn't be tagged for the US project. Please try to address the issues I raised instead of using strawmen. Fram (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Fram, just because you don't agree doesn't make it a strawman. I have explained the reasoning and you keep spouting you don't agree and don't understand. Ok fine, you don't agree and don't understand. But drowning this discussion with opposes because you don't agree and think they should all be removed from the template isn't productive. If you think they need to be removed then bring them up in the proper venues, the GLAM and WPUS project talk pages, not here. Further commenting on your comments above, I have asked for the SIA importance logic to be removed from this template because they don't even use it. So your trying to justify your arguments with stuff that doesn't even apply and your just being disruptive at this point. Kumioko (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
"Drowning this discussion with opposes"? I have made "one" oppose statement. All the rest have been relevant, direct questions. You want people to make a number of changes to a template, but you can't (or can't be bothered to) present one actual benefit these changes would have; worse, the example you gave of a similar change that was already present created no benefits and some problems. Please explain what about this doesn't apply. Also please explain how your argument about adding pages to multiple wikiprojects is not a strawman; since this is perfectly possible with the unchanged US template as well, and hasn't been questioned. Fram (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Really? So you didn't, just a few words up say "*Oppose requested changes, Support removal of all GLAM projects from this template" That wasn't you? That was some other Fram? Yes you started with a couple questions I condered at the time to be reasonable and I have addressed them. Its clear that you are dead set against these changes which is fine. That is your right to do. But arguing the point here isn't the answer. You need to take your objections/suggestions to the projects pages. Not here. The bottom line is I am attempting to increase collaboration between the projects and get more eyes and edits on the articles that relate to them. If you don't want to and don't support that endeavor, that's unfortunate but also well within your right. But please don't distract this discussion because you personally agree with it. Its not appropriate and frankly bringing it here isn't going to change anything. It has to go to the projects. Since both the GLAM projects and the WPUS project seem to be minimally active at this point I'm not sure if it would matter one way or the other. As I said above. It seems like too many people just want to tear down collaborations these days and do their own thing rather than work together so wether these projects are or are not in the WPUS banner, frankly, probably isn't going to make a big difference. If you have a better idea bring it forward and maybe we can try that for a while and see if it works. At least I am trying. Kumioko (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Template talk:WikiProject United States. Fram (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
You need to put it on the GLAM projects too Fram. Kumioko (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't. The GLAM projects don't get to say whether some logic and code should be in the US template or not. You are free to drop them a courtesy note, but there is no requirement to do so. If this discussion was about removing a project that was completely included in the US template and no longer used their own templates, then of course that project needed to be consulted. But not in this case. Fram (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I notice that you did drop a note, starting with "A user that is not affiliated to GLAM or WikiProject United States"; WP:OWN problems? Fram (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
You don't get to make the decision about what goes in the template either Fram, your not a member of any of the GLAM projects or the WPUS project as far as I can tell and in fact as I recall you don't even like the WPUS project. So I don't see how you should get to control what goes in the template or why you would even care. But since you failed to post a notice on the GLAM projects I did it for you. You can't just put a note where you feel it will have the best result for your POV. As an admin you should know that, but it doesn't surprise me that you are choosing to ignore that fact. Also, my comments were a lot more unbiased than the one you left at WPUS, so you hardly have room to talk.
As I said above though, I really don't feel that strongly about having them in the template as joint projects or not. I really don't think its going to have a huge impact on the GLAM projects or the WPUS project either way since none of the projects are particularly active. I'm just trying to improve collaboration between the projects and improve visibility of the articles. Its a shame a bit stupid that 2 admins seems to find that troubling and want to reduce how a project that neither one of them is active in, collaborates with others. If either of you were active in the project I would say you have all the right to say. But the only edits to the project from either of you is to tear it down so I don't see how I should value your opinions in the matter. If you want a say in how the project runs, start participating in it! Kumioko (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Where am I controlling what goes in the template or not? You suggested changes, I opposed those based on a number of arguments, others get to decide whether the changes will happen or not. What have I done here that goes against or outside our normal processes? Please do explain though why I would think that a note at the US project would have more chance of getting people to share my position instead of yours? Is the US project some haven for pro-Fram and anti-Kumioko editors? Your second paragraph clearly shows your problematic views on ownership and collaboration, thanks for making my point for me there. When a 200K template is added to more than 300,000 pages, it will get noted by many people outside the project. When you start complaining at the admin noticeboard that your requested edits don't get done quickly, you shouldn't be surprised if people take a look at the template and what you are actually requesting. And when it then turns out that your requests have no clear benefits (you still haven't shown any, your suggested changes don't improve collaboration or visibility one bit) and clear disadvantages, you shouldn't be surprised that people raise objections. That you don't take my objections seriously is no surprise, but if even Orlady, who has made other requested edits here, refuses to make those because " I see no evidence that adding those projects to this template benefits the projects in any way.", then perhaps the problem really is with the requests or your explanation of them, and not so much with me after all. Fram (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I have my problems Fram but article ownership issues are not among them. I have never told another project that can't put a WikiProject tag on an article, I have never told another WikiProject that cannot claim an article in their scope. But you and several others have this crusade to stop the evil Kumioko and WPUS is starting to get on my nerves. I left notes on project pages asking if they wanted to collaborate. Some did, some didn't thats fine but some got all up in arms, started sputing it was a takeover, stop the evil project, etc. Its ridiculous. I have never made a project do anything they didn't want to do. In fact I have helped several projects if they asked without even being associated (Oklahoma for one). Some projects wanted to break away like Kansas and I helped them do that too. So I am not the one with article ownership issues and your status as an admin doesn't give you the right or the latitude to make up things that aren't true just because you are looking for a reason to justify your POV issues with the project.
No the WPUS project isn't ProFram or AntiKumioko but these GLAM projects you are referring to pertain to GLAM so its only right to notify them of the discussion. I'm surprised that doesn't make sense to you, but I guess that's how etiquette in the site has devolved over the years. There was a time that not notifying the parties involved would have been frowned upon (just like leaving unbiased notes about a discussion) but those days are gone I guess (especially with the new notification tool).
I have shown benefits but you are still refusing to see them. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Just that you don't want them too. I'm glad Orlady implemented those changes and I appreciate that she did but she shouldn't have had to and neither should anyone else. I did the work, I should be able to implement it. What would hve happened if I did something wrong. She has already admitted she wouldn't know how to fix it other than revert it. I don't usually make a lot of mistakes with this template and I always check my work but it does happen sometimes and I should be able to fix it immediately. Not do the fix in the sandbox and wait a week for an admin to fix it. There is absolutely no way that anyone reasonable can argue that is in the best interest of the site.
What I also find really interesting is that the only 2 admins that are in this discussion are 2 that have on multiple occassions attempted to break up WPUS or change its scope and aren't even members of the project. I have to be honest IMO its discussions like these where people outside the project are trying to force projects to change that are the biggest driver in why WikiProjects all over the project are failing. Why join a project if anyone can just come along and force you to change it, its not worth the time. Why even bother collaborating when any admin or editor can come along and remove the tag from an article that's clearly in your projects scope, tell you that you have ownership issues and then try and change the projects scope so their pet article doesn't fall in its scope anymore. So if you want to change a projects scope, direction or makeup, try participating in it for a while and do some of the work of maintaining it. Then you would be justified in having a voice on how it functions. And implementing changes to a protected template because your an admin and the one requesting the change isn't, doesn't count. Until then, its just an editor who doesn't like the project trying to change it because they don't have enough to do or because they are protecting their POV. Frankly, I think this passive aggressive discussion that you are building is pathetic, annoying and irritating and shows the kind of admin that you are. You are obviously just trolling the discussion at this point and no matter what I say, how I say it or wether its justified is going to make you say that I am right. You are just using this discussion as a means to insult and degrade me, to use your status as an administrator as a leverage and to show how much power you have. This discussion is over. If you want to remove the GLAM projects, add more, or walk away I frankly don't give a shit. All these WikiProjects are dying because of discussions like this by editors like you who are forcing your POV and it pisses me off that your being allowed to do it. Kumioko (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Where have I ever tried to break up WPUS or anything similar? As far as I can see, I have only been on this talk page previously to help you, and I haven't discussed or opposed the WPUS project in any way or form. I don't think I have ever removed the US tag from any pages either (or if I did, it must have been on pages where it was clearly a mistake, but I can't even recall any of those). I may have forgotten some discussion, but a search through the project page and the administrator noticeboards didn't produce anything to support your accusations. Please either find something to support your accusations or retract your incorrect statements. In general, avoid discussing people's motives and stick to what they are actually saying, it is usually a lot more productive and convincing. Fram (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove GLAM projects from this template. I see no evidence that adding those projects to this template benefits the projects in any way. Their inclusion has, however, contributed to: (1) the impression that WikiProject United States is all about Building an Empire, (2) making the WP:US template even more unwieldy, and (3) making pages like Talk:Smithsonian Institution look ridiculous. --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The GLAM projects are not directly related to the USA, so it is limiting to where the banner can be used since a number of the topics do not need an assessment for WikiProject USA. Just wondering if it would be better to setup {{WikiProject GLAM}} and add add the GLAM projects as taskforces within that template instead. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree but that discussion would need to be vetted through them. I don't think this is the right place to have that discussion. Your also right that not every article in those projects would be added to WPUS. Fram made that point earlier, I agreed and updated the WPUS supported projects page accordingly.
I'm not going to fight the issue anymore. I have explained why I thought it was a good idea but I can't implement the changes and as I mentioned above I don't think its going to have much affect on any of the projects anyway. I was just trying to do something in an attempt to benefit the articles and the projects by getting more eyes and activity on them. Its clear at this point that's not wanted and even though the 2 main pushers aren't members of any of the projects being discussed the members of those projects aren't stating their views either so I am going to go with those who are voicing opinions. I don't feel these discussions benefit building a collaborative environment between the projects so I will remove the glam projects from the supported projects page and we can all put this chapter behind us. Someone will need to remove the GLAM projects from the template that are already there and I will use AWB over the next couple of weeks to remove the hundreds of articles already tagged.
If you want to start a discussion on the GLAM project about combining those into a GLAM template feel free to do so. Kumioko (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

More changes

I am absolutely disgusted that I have to do the work so someone else can take credit for the edit but since its not going to get done any other way and because I care about what happens to the project, lets start with these changes. All are done in the Templates sandbox.

  1. Change the todo list logic to reflect /to do vice /todo. Kumioko (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  2. Remove importance logic from SIA. Main project doesn't support it so we shouldn't force it to. Kumioko (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  3. Update the code in the template that tracks what WPUS articles are used in portals to use the portal image instead of the puzzle piece. Kumioko (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 Done Please note: if you think administrators do this sort of thing for "credit", you don't have a clue what the administrator role is all about. --Orlady (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the changes. Unfortunately I do have a clue what the role is about. I just think more is made of it than what it really is. Kumioko (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove all the GLAM projects

All of the GLAM projects have been removed from the template. Please implement the code from the sandbox. Kumioko (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I realize that this is what Fram and I asked for above, but since no one other than the three of us commented on the proposal, I'm curious to know (1) whether users involved with any of these projects (e.g., NARA) at one time supported their being included in this template and (2) whether they are aware they are about to be removed, and if so, what they think. --Orlady (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
On point one, these GLAM projects are just as dead as most of the other projects these days. No sense in being members of a project when anyone outside the project can come along and force them to change. Yes some did, others were utterly silent. The Library of Congress projects were created by me when I still had some faith in the project and participated in real life at events. On point 2, messages were left on the projects by me because Fram didn't think it was important enough to tell them. So yes they were notified and as expected there was nothing but silence from them. So I gave you and Fram what you asked for. Just one more way to reduce the potential for collaboration on the site. Glad to help. Kumioko (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It does appear that no one had much of anything to say when these projects were added to WP:US, and no one has had much of anything to say about their removal. I went ahead and made the change. --Orlady (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Roger that. For what its worth I had something to say but my opinions are irrelevant. I'm not an admin. Kumioko (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Feature brainstorm for Module:WikiProjectBanner

I'm in the early stages of developing a Lua-based replacement for {{WPBannerMeta}}, and I would appreciate peoples ideas for features. If there is anything that you have wanted to do with your WikiProject template, but haven't been able to due to limitations in the meta-template, I would be very interested to hear it. The discussion is over at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional changes to the template

Please add the following projects to this template. Adding as Joint Projects between WPUS and GLAM to maximize coverage of the topic. I do not have access to the code so I can't do it. These need to be implemented by an Admin. Some of the GLAM projects are already joint;y supported so this is just adding the rest of the US based GLAM projects per a discussion started here.

  1. Wikipedia:GLAM/The Children's Museum of Indianapolis --Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  2. Wikipedia:GLAM/Delaware Art Museum --Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  3. Wikipedia:GLAM/Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum--Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  4. Wikipedia:GLAM/New York Public Library--Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  5. Wikipedia:GLAM/Museum of Modern Art--Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  6. Wikipedia:GLAM/Philadelphia Museum of Art--Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  7. Wikipedia:GLAM/George Washington University--Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  8. Change the todo list logic to reflect /to do vice /todo. Kumioko (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  9. Remove importance logic from SIA. Main project doesn't support it so we shouldn't force it to. Kumioko (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  10. Update the code in the template that tracks what WPUS articles are used in portals to use the portal image instead of the puzzle piece. Kumioko (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  11. It appears that the logic that tracks which articles have comments isn't working. That may need to be fixed. Kumioko (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  12. Remove WikiProject Chemical Heritage Foundation from this template. Per a discussion with the one that mainly edits that project most of the content of that project is international so after further review of the content that applies to the project its not really a good fit with WPUS. Done by Orlady Kumioko (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)\
  13. Add Wikipedia:GLAM/Metropolitan New York Library Council---OR drohowa (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I removed Chemical Heritage Foundation from the template because the reason for removal made sense and because I could remove it by simply inserting the version of the sandbox that existed before you added CHF to the template. --Orlady (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I lined that out and annotated it above. Kumioko (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
This would mean that Electrochemistry, Mummy, Terracotta Army, Glassblowing, Rail adhesion, Dracorex, Steam locomotive, Bank engine, Alebrije, Ga-Adangbe people, Japanese friendship dolls, Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, Edward Burne-Jones, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Geodesic dome, AIBO, Volkswagen Beetle, Creative director, International Style (architecture), Victorinox, Bic Cristal, Cisitalia, Documentary photography, Jaguar E-Type, Ferrari 641, ... would be added to the Wikiproject United States. Seems like a bad idea, certainly considering that very few actual US related articles would be added with them. Had you checked which articles would be added to the US project before suggesting this? Fram (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
No, it doesn't mean that every article in those projects needs to be tagged for both projects. It just allows an overlap in visibility. Many of the GLAM projuects have no or very few people participating in them (much the same as WPUS these days). That does present a valid point though that if we add these we need to clarify that only those articles associated to the US should be added to the WPUS project. For example the article for The Children's Museum of Indianapolis could be added but Terracotta Army, or Glassblowing should not. Kumioko (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I added a comment here to WPUS clarifying that only articles that pertain to the US should be tagged and will do that to the Documentation of this template as well. Kumioko (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

So you ask us to make some additions to this already very long and complicated template, to have the possibility to tag some articles with a combined US / Glam tag insteead of the two tags that are there now? Because e.g. Talk:The Children's Museum of Indianapolis already has both the US tag and the Glam tag. Your reaon for these changes is "to maximize coverage of the topic", but it is not clear at all how having one tag instead of two would in any way increase coverage of the topics. Further, things like Wikipedia:GLAM/New York Public Library, which you want to add as well, currently don't seem to have any article tagged (despite being over two uears old, so it's not a new project), so adding this code would just be extra work (and making the template even heavier) for no benefit at all. This is already a 200K template (compared to Template:WikiProject Russia, 12K; Template:WikiProject France, 3K; Template:WikiProject United Kingdom, 1.8K...). I'll let other admins decide if they see any value to this request and whether they believe the cost-benefit ratio is acceptable, but to me this seems like a totally useless exercise. Fram (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You made quite a few comments so let me answer each one individually.
  1. Let me start with the last comment first. Since we have history and both neither of us think highly of the other, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you would find this a useless exercise. Nonetheless it offers benefits.
  2. The template size isn't a huge problem but there is a lot of functionality that isn't being used and isn't needed so I had been working to reduce the complication of the template by removing the unused and unneeded logic. Some of the logic isn't working either so I am trying to fix that as well. There is still a fair bit to do to sort it out. But since it took several weeks to get the last group of changes applied the admins clearly don't trust my judgment at making these changes and/or do not think they are important. Both reasons are sufficient for me not to do them anymore and let the admins who have access to the template do it.
  3. I no longer feel its appropriate for me to do it since I cannot implement the change. People keep saying template coding isn't an admin task but they are the only ones with the ability to update some of these templates so that argument is completely false. The same argument could be applied to fighting vandalism or deleting CSD's and it wouldn't be true there either. Something like, blocking vandals isn't an admin task, we just apply the block, you tell us what to do by submitting the request.
  4. Actually both tags would still be on the article. Its just that the WPUS template would have the GLAM project in it as a supported project like we do with ACW, Smithsonian institution or several others. The WPUS template has additional parameters for tracking problems related to the article the other templates for the GLAM projects don't have.
  5. Your right some have been around for a while and aren't being tagged. A prime example of why the projects need some additional help.
  6. I agree that some of the projects would be better to add it to the main WikiProject like Wikipedia:GLAM/New York Public Library to Wikipedia:WikiProject New York but their not beating the door down to do it so were adding it here, at least for the moment. Maybe we'll move it tot he other project at some point in the future after some work has been done to clean them up like what happened with SUNY, Columbia and Cornell.
  7. Aside from the above issues there are still other issues with the template like the one I mentioned above in #8.
I hope this clarifies but let me know if you have any more questions. Kumioko (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
A long reply, thanks, but in all that, I still don't see any benefit these changes would create. Any functionality that is in the US template is already present on these articles, or can be added by simply adding the current US template (if there are any that belong with the US project but aren't already tagged as such; you reply as if I claimed there are some such, but I did not make any such claim). So this doesn't add any tracking possibilities that aren't already there.
Please, just give one or two examples of where this would actually make a difference. Not just the addition of a line "this article is supported by GLAM whatever"; the project is already listed on the talk page, so this is not an improvement. Take e.g. Talk:The Children's Museum of Indianapolis; what would change here (or elsewhere) if this functionality was added? What benefits do you see, possibilities that aren't yet there? Fram (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I really didn't expect to convince you but maybe someone else will be more receptive. If you think the functionality in the GLAM projects templates exists though you don't really understand. For example, the WPUS project template can identify if the article needs images, maps, references, Geo location tags, etc, if marked. Most the other templates don't have that logic. The WPUS project also has some bots that automate certain things to one degree or another and has functionality to see the to do list for the project on any article, which then also shows any GAC's, FAC's or FLC's once I get the page created and setup.
Additionally, the US template is present on some articles, but not on many it could/should be. Its hard for me to do a good comparison of what articles one project has and the other doesn't because again, only admins have the tools to do this. So my ability to be productive and efficient is severely limited. Some of these projects only have 20 or 30 articles total tagged for them currently so there may only be a handful that apply to both projects anyway. One example of one that's not tagged yet is Adriana Miller or William Staughton. There are a lot more as well. Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
You still haven't answered the question. To get the combined, requested tag to work, you would need to add the US template anyway, right? So what would the US template with the added GLAM functionality do that the current US template wouldn't do? I am not claiming that the US template has no functionalty that the GLAM project is lacking, so trying to convince me that it does is useless; I am asking what the US template with your changes would achieve that the US template without these changes wouldn't. Fram (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I have already explained it. Given our history I really don't feel like any amount of explanation is going to convince you and all this discussion is doing is making this discussion unnecessarily long. If you don't agree or don't want to make the changes that's fine. I can't do it so they just won't get done. As an attempt at good faith though here is a link to an example: Talk:Smithsonian Institution. Look at the differences between the WPUS template and the other GLAM projects. This shows some but not nearly all the differences. Kumioko (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Looking at your example, I don't see what the purpose is of the changes you propose. I note that the page now has three Smithsonian-related project tags, making it rather confusing for a less experienced editor to know where they should go with a problem. I also note that the three Smithsonian tags have different classes (Start and C) and importance ratings (High, Top and none), so it makes it even more confusing. But more importantly, it doesn't indicate why that page couldn't just have been tagged with "WikiProject United States / District of Columbia"; what is the benefit for the article, the reader, or anyone else that the glam projects are added to the US template? Fram (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that the below section, "Suggestion to remove GLAM projects from WPUS template", was originally just a part of this section, but has been moved to its own section by Kumioko since. Fram (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

More changes

Another group of changes. Will add a few more before I submit.

  1. Fix the invalid parameter logic. Kumioko (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
This is the only change I have at the moment so I went ahead and asked for the edit to be implemented. Kumioko (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:WikiProject_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1152335346"