Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States regions/3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  We Need To Work Together 

message: 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)
thread_title: Non-Participation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: United States Metropolitan Area

message: 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)
thread_title: United States Time Zones

message: 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)
thread_title:  Still active?