Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States regions/3

This page is part of WikiProject U.S. regions space.

Project Parentage

On the meta page it says we do not have a Wikipedia:WikiProject parent. I propose we list our parent as WikiProject Geography. Davodd 01:16, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

US v Amer

honestly didnt spot the proposed distiction. and Am. SW is a whole other thing from Am. Mid-Atl states. jengod 06:16, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

We Need To Work Together

I cannot help but feel that we are hampering each others efforts by not collaborating more with each other. Wikipedia is a community of people building an encyclopedia, a wikiproject is a department or sub-group, so in theory it should be more close-knit than the larger community. Our project is not functioning as a community and if we do not begin to at least collaborate more with each other our project will fail.

This does not mean that you have to know that Jfitts is originally from Scottsbluff, Nebraska or that jengod has a Bachelor of Arts in English from Stanford, though it certainly wouldn't hurt. The key problem lies in that more often than not project participants do not know what other participants are doing. I posted a notice that Davodd and I had completed the unofficial regions template and infobox, yet there has been no discussion on it and the official regions article prototype is worthless without others contributions. In short we need a better way of communicating with each other, and notifying participants of changes and current policies.

I propose that in addition to the project page we have a community page, that would function as a hub for our project. Please review the proposal at Community.

--JCarriker 06:49, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

I think the Community page is a good idea. I have not had the time to participate in this project as much as I would like, so it has been difficult to keep up with exactly what others are doing and what needs to be reviewed or discussed. Having one place I can check in on to see what's currently going on and what needs to be done would be very helpful. Jfitts 16:25, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

After thinking about it some more, I would suggest another section be added to the Community Page. A section that shows what each of us is currently working on would be helpful, both for coordination and accountability. Participants could move items from the Work Needed section to the section that shows that they are currently working on it. This would be especially helpful for large tasks that involve multiple articles and would take more time to complete. It would be reassuring to know someone is working on it, and others would know who to coordinate with if they wanted to help. Jfitts 16:46, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Non-Participation

Just wanted to let you all know that I'm removing myself from formal participating in this project, in part because I don't think it needs to be so formal. I think that identifying a list of regions, and identifying some topics that should be covered in articles about them (history, boundaries, maps, significance) is worthwhile, but I think taxoboxes and rigid naming conventions are excessive for what regions are: informal affilations of people by geography. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Good luck! jengod 21:59, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

I hope that you will reconsider your decision to leave the project, you have been a very good contributor. Please stay and discuss the matters you disagree with, I'm not sure about the taxoboxes but I'm sure that something can be worked out the naming conventions. Balance is something that is very important if you feel that things are getting excessive, I wish that you would stay and try to work out a compromise. Also if you leave there will not be no female participants.

-JCarriker 22:18, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm not sure what you're looking for from me. I have some interest in U.S. Regions, mostly in historical terms. I was primarily interested in following this project as a more or less passive participant. I'll keep an eye on things and if I see something that I have thoughts on, I'll share them here. Good luck. Bkonrad | Talk 23:30, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

United States Metropolitan Area

I believe the United States metropolitan area page is causing problems.

People put nicknames in the "Other Names" column, and others think these nicknames have official meanings. Hence the wildly inappropriate map and list of cities on the Greater Los Angeles Area page.

Metropolitan statistical areas are redefined every ten years or so. In fact the page in question is obsolete as of 2003. Also, people have fiddled with the official names of the metropolitan areas too.

At the very least, I'd suggest removing the "other Names" column from the table. It could be appropriate to give each Metropolitan Statistical its own (very wordy) name, but it would probably just add clutter. Mackerm 01:56, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I dunno. There's always going to be a disconnect between the statistical areas that the census uses and what people living in a place think of as a metropolitan area. So long as the links under "Other names" do not claim to be identical to the statistical area, I don't think there's that much of a problem. Bkonrad | Talk 02:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I might remove that map on the Greater Los Angeles Area page, at the risk of ticking off the person who posted it. Mackerm 03:45, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

United States Time Zones

I had a brief discussion with Davodd on this, but it still nags. Look at the Time Zone page, and note that only the US zones include the word "zone" in their names. In Talk:Time zone someone linked to U.S. Law 15USC260-267 which defines U.S. time zones, and I don't see four-word names i.e. "Pacific Standard Time Zone" in the law. Please correct me if I missed it, but should these four-word titles be changed to three-word titles, i.e. "Pacific Standard Time" before too many people link there? Mackerm 03:45, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've had a look at the recent major edit (& I've taken the liberty of fixing some typos). Offhand, there is nothing substantive I disagree with, though I think some of this could be better put, and there are a few sentences that seem to me to be seriously unclear. Please let me know (either here or on my talk page) when we should feel free to edit. -- Jmabel 01:32, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning...?

Some phrases in this project page that do not make sense to me (so I imagine they need editing by someone who knows the intended meaning):

"The use, and abuse, of regions creates a disambiguation..."
"The ... perceptual nature of regions...
"Regional article should also be specific in nature."
Also, there's a reference to "the following articles" with no list following.

--Jmabel 07:55, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clarify the first two points you raised. The last two were things I missed when updating the article, they have been deleted.

-JCarriker 16:25, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

A couple thoughts

Is "archaic regions" as used here different from Historic regions of the United States?

Are regions as used here always composed of complete states? Does it make sense to consider that "portions" of various states often constitute regions is some cases? For example, bioregions or cultural regions don't necessarily respect state boundaries? older≠wiser 16:06, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes and no, many of the articles included in historic regions are not regions but specific political units. Ohio Country and Yazoo Lands would be East Jersey and Gadsen Purchase are not.

Yes, I know that article is a grab bag of different categories, but the project page mentioned awareness of only one article on an archaic region.

2. No regions are not always composed of whole states, unfortunately that is the way most atlases display them. Fortunately the concept of a sub-region undermines such assertions. We don't cover bio or ecoregions, there is already a wikiproject that does.

-JCarriker 16:25, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

OK, although I think using the term "sub-region" may be a bit misleading since it implies that a region is a constituent part of some larger region. I guess in a sense all the non-whole-state regions are part of the U.S., but then that also applies to all the regions. Re: bioregions, in some cases there is a fair amount of overlap between a bio- or eco-region as technically defined and a more informal identification with that region as a cultural grouping, for example: the "desert southwest" or the "Pacific Northwest" or the "Great Lakes region". Not sure what we can do with this, but it seems that if there is an overlap we may want to consider what to do in such cases. older≠wiser 16:52, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-regions are part of constiuent regions. Perhaps the page could use some more clarifications? We cover political and cultural regions, to make sugestions about the standard of bio regions would be to over step our commission. We may need to collaborate with ecoregions since, as you have said, some ecoregions have distinct cultural ties, such as Cascadia or the Piney Woods.

I have changed the phrase grouping of whole states to grouping of states from the Non-Census Bureau Regions section because it gave the impression that regions are locked into political borders. No intellegentr person believes that regional cultures die at political boudaries. Unfortunately from time immorial encyclopedias and most textbooks have chosen to portray regions in that way.

We could portray regions outside the concept of entire states when we display a map. However, I would not uncomfortable with such a decesion. Not because it is not a good idea, it's a very good idea, but because it is a somewhat original idea for an encyclopedia. We're not suppose to be orginal. Perhaps if the project got the permission of Jimbo Wales to do it we could.

You've raised some very valid, interisting, and good points. I look forward to our continued conversations and our ultimate decison.:) (P.S. I'm not using the patronizing royal we, I'm using the communal wiki we.)

-JCarriker 00:44, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Should we consider all points with the exception of Sub-regions adopted?

Just a question, I haven't made up my mind yet. --JCarriker 03:10, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to Create a Wikimedia msg box for regional articles

The box I am proposing can be found here. I beleive it includes most of the regions on a national level, the state boxes already cover intra-state regions, I'm not sure what to do about interstate regions, excpet create there own box. I won't create a Wikimedia page until approval has been given or a week has gone by.

There have been no objections and a week has gone by I'm creating the box. I'll post a link to it here and on the main page when it's been created.

Template:U.S.Regions

-JCarriker 01:14, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Still active?

I've moved Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Regions to the Inactive section of the WikiProject page, as it hasn't been edited since Nov 1st; I wanted to let you all know, and ask if you're still working on it. If so, feel free to move it back up into the active section. JesseW 08:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Updating project

We've had some time to see our policies in action and I think it is time to review them and consider making some changes. I propose three lines of thought below.

1. Removal of hierarchy in article titles. This has been misinterpreted from the start and has led to at least one user, who disagrees with this policy, creating an alternative article to U.S. West at American West. There may be more such instances but I am currently unaware of them. I propose that if a region has a direction in it the article appear at ---ern United States. If the article title includes a proper noun in it (other than "United States"), such as New England, the article should remain unmodified at that designation unless a disambiguation becomes neccesary, at which point it should be moved to Region Name (United States). Regions that are described in terms of geographic features will appear as Geographic Feature states (for example, Gulf States).

2. Regional categories may prove problematic because some state pages would include a great number of categories. We either need to adopt a policy that opposes these categories or create a category for every region and post them on the relevant pages. The incomplete categorizations that exist now are not NPOV, and violate several of our goals.

3. We need to create a dialogue about what distinction, if any, we are going to make between regions of national scope and ones that aren't, especialy in regards to the template. Why is Delmarva Peninsula on the template while Ark-La-Tex and Tennessee Valley are not? Should all, none, or some other combiniation be included? We need a standard.

We also have not accomplished our original goals, or indeed made a project wide effort to do so, but that is a subject for another day. -JCarriker 11:55, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

1. I'm mostly with you, but:

I still think we need articles on the Census Bureau Regions, if only because the Government uses these for statistical purposes. Perhaps, this these should have names that explicitly include "Census Bureau Region" as part of the name, and if the Census Bureau doesn't use "Western U.S." then neither should we in that context.
What are you going to do about (for example) Mid-Atlantic States?

2. I don't care a lot about categories, but they will be less confusing if they are well hierarchized. Thus, Category:Borscht Belt should be a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of a category for Category:New York. 3. No opinion, haven't really looked at the template. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:10, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

1. We are in general agreement, but:

I have not proposed removing them as the standard, this grouping of the states is still by far the most common organization of West, South, Northeast, and Midwest. I still believe that that information, should go in the main article of the region. The history of the census bureau regions could be included in the U.S. census or census bureau article, while the statistics for each region could be included in the 2000 census article as well as in the regions articles themselves. It was never our/my intention to force a categorization permanently at wikipedia, but rather to provided a clear standard when it necessary that a firm and established definition be provided. However the hierarchy has been interpreted as just that, which is why I am suggesting standardizing the names more.
Under the proposed guidelines, Mid-Atlantic States should either be moved to Mid-Atlantic states or Mid-Atlantic (United States), both policies could apply. My preference is the former.

2. I have categorized this page as if it were the Texas article, to show how cluttered it could get:

Category: U.S. states Category: Texas Category: States of the American West Category: States of the American South Category: Central States of the United States Category: South Central States of the United States Category: Southwestern States of the United States Category: Southeastern States of the United States Category: Border States of the United States Category: Coastal States of the United States Category: Gulf States of the United States

Do we really want to plaster something that bulky onto state pages, especially considering that we could be constantly having to paste them back in and explain why? It seems to me a policy opposing putting them on state, and city pages would be much more useful. The policy would only apply to regions of national scope so that Borscht Belt would be not be involved. Also links to the states could be provided in the Category itself: without cluttering the top of state articles.

3. For the template how about a simple policy that states composing at least two entire states, and part of two others. So for example not only the Northwest, but also Pacific Northwest meet this criteria. Delmarva Peninsula- all DL, half MD, part VA and Acadiana Southwest La, part of Southeast TX do not. -JCarriker 13:51, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Two supplemental remarks, bother related to your category example:

"Border States of the United States" seems odd: traditionally, the term "Border States" doesn't mean states on the international borders, it means states on the border between North and South. Texas is not a "Border State". Kentucky is.
Some of these categories would be subcategories of one another. For example, Category: Southwestern States of the United States is presumably a subcategory of Category: States of the American West, which is a subcategory of Category: U.S. states. And is Category: Southeastern States of the United States at all distinct from Category: States of the American South?

-- Jmabel | Talk 23:10, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

1. It' just normally shortened to Border states in modern speech when the context is clear, I forgot the context sorry. Since the context is not clear, you are correct, it should be International Border states. Border states- MO, KY, WV, MD, DL, DC. International border states- too lazy to write them.

2. That's true but to be categorized they category would need to be on the page wouldn't it? Please elaborate on your idea. To answer your question the is Southeast distinct from the South only in that it normaly does not include all of the South, or what could be interpreted as the south. Missouri is hardly ever part of the Southeast, likerwise WV, MD, DC, and DL are rarely included. VA is sometimes included but not as much as Texas and Oklahoma are.

Fine. So Category: Southeastern States of the United States would be in Category: States of the American South, and Texas would be in Category: Southeastern States of the United States. But Texas would not need to be directly included in Category: States of the American South. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:21, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable and I have no objections to that categorization, but I have concerns about its application. I don't think going about removing the U.S. state category would be something that would be accepted by the community. Also, I think that we would be in the place of continually removing, the categories and explaining why only to find them back in place latter on. Such, actions inevitably lead to hostility and that would not be good for the project. I agree with your categorization hierarchy, but I still think that it would be easier just to add the links to the state pages on the cat page itself, and reserve the actual cats for other articles eg. West-> Northwest -> Pacific Northwest = Cascadia, Mt. Rainer, Salem, Oregon ect. -JCarriker 12:20, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

A side note: I was on the WP:VFU the other day and noticed they had a sufferage policy, perhaps we could also apply one since we vote on our policies. How about a simple policy of having registered as a paticipant prior to voting-- as an addendum to VFU's existing policy. Jimbo, as benevlonet dictator, being the exclusion of course. -JCarriker 00:23, May 2, 2005 (UTC)