Template talk:United States topics

message: Should Legal history of marijuana in the United States be included in this template? —User:Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 21:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fleshed out the US-specific drug links in the controversies group. Thanks for pointing it out, MrZaiustalk 02:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that the link to drug policy is enough to cover the subtopics (specific to marijuana). Certainly there are other topics in the template that could be broken down with similar specificity, but I believe this template should serve as a link to summary-style pages that have links to other appropriate titles, not a list of every "n in the United States" articles. As such, I am removing several of the drug-related topics from the template. Madcoverboy 14:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I suppose it is.  Didn't occur to me because I created the page from the US section at Prohibition (drugs) specifically to give me an excuse to group those articles here by topic instead of littering them all over the place alphabetically. ;) MrZaiustalk 15:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal history of marijuana in the United States

message: Currently, the title of this template is "Major topics in the United States". Shouldn't this be "Major topics of the United States", or even simpler "United States topics"? Regards. --Old Hoss (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I see your point, it seems a slight majority of article titles in this template are "in the United States." While most of the section devoted to history seems to favor "of," most of the topics covering current events seem to favor "in." I counted 39 "ofs" and 43 "ins" but... that really doesn't mean anything. An article titled "Plumbers of the United States" would seem to imply it contains a list of famous plumbers, while an article titled "Plumbers in the United States" would seem to imply content on plumbers in general. Ergo, I think it makes more sense to use "of," since this template is indeed a list of major topics of the United States. More importantly, would anyone care if we changed it? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template title 

message: There are two types of separators:  and .  The former should be used in between parenthesized items, with the latter used between main items.  I've updated two groups but more remain.  66.167.49.13 (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two types of separators 

message: Should aport not be included in this template? Surely it is an significant as music, film and television.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.12.203 (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for the suggestion. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sport 

message: I feel that the inclusion of material here is somewhat haphazard- including "Uncle Sam", the "Puerto Rican independence movement", and "Pornography", while leaving out the "Iraq War", "9/11", and "Feminism".  What is our rationale?  In other areas of Wikipedia, we rely on reliable sources- I think we should do the same thing here.  Nothing should be included here if we can't find a reliable source that declares it to be a "major topic".  Also, I'm sure we can find some kind of scholarly history material or other such source that gives a list of what it considers to be "the definitive most-important topics in America". johnpseudo 20:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You bring up a good point, it seems this template has the potential to become rather large and stuffed full of links. Policy states navboxes should not be too large or too small. However, I think most of the current links are notable major topics, although I'm not sure there should be more than one link for the Puerto Rican debate (when was the last time that was even in the news?). I'm also not sure if finding reliable sources declaring "major topics of the US" is feasible. I think the general guideline is, broad-scope topics listed with a few major narrow-scope topics nested adjacent. If you want to add 9/11 or the Iraq War to the list of politics, go ahead, I don't think anyone would disagree with you that these are major topics. This list wasn't created by one person and therefore it is haphazard as such. In the end, we decide what gets included here by adding them, discussing them and so on, just like any other part of Wikipedia. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say we should add things that fall under 2 criteria. (1) Only include "X in the United States" articles if there are also articles about X for other countries. (2) Include articles that are emblematic, intrinsic, or unique to the US but are also notable internationally. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah but what other countries? The US has far more articles than all the other countries. Many countries lack basic articles such as sports or personal income. Also, I don't see why they have to be "notable internationally." If someone from another country wants to learn about the US, they probably already know about the Iraq War and 9/11, but most likely they know nothing about Uncle Sam or our transportation system.  --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Putting aside my reliable sources complaint for now... would you (Madcoverboy) include something here if it was the #1 most-important thing in the United States, but was hardly known about outside of the US? How could we say this is a complete list of "Major topics of the United States" if it's really just a "Major U.S. topics that are considered important outside of the U.S."? johnpseudo 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How should we decide what gets included here?

message: Best. Edit summary. Ever.
Normally, I would say that WP:ICONDECORATION discourages this, but I think that the scope of the navbox would make this a good exception to the rule. I would ask that any well-meaning editors not revert this. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 02:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  US flag icon 

message: Should Theater be added to the template, maybe right next to "television/cinema"? Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Next time, why don't you be bold and add it yourself? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks -- templates make me nervous.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theater? 

message: IMO, cabinet departments like Dept. of Homeland Security and Dept. of Commerce don't belong in this part of the template. Keep Coast Guard, NOAA Corps, and Public Health Service Corps, but eliminate their parent agencies. --Orlady (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that was such a good idea that I implemented it. --Orlady (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take the cabinet departments out of the "Uniformed Services" section 

message: How about this version of the template, modified from here to remove the multiple [show]/[hide] links..? :
CsDix (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-neutral display - templates should  present all the links in a neutral manner (meaning all the same size and font).Moxy (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which links are presented non-neutrally – do you mean the section titles and/or group names, or something else..? CsDix (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

text:  (...continued here: ) CsDix (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a good link - Its clear they have there own plans here. Best to bring this up at  WP:USA - as its were they tlak about this (as reflected in there recent change to the template). A conversation at some faraway template does not mean it can be changed all over. I will always object to a format here that is not the stranded and involves more coding and cause the template to  waste of space.Moxy (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

text: A few things on the proposed box on the right: (1) "Governance" should read "Federal Government"; (2) The Coast Guard is defined as one of the Armed Forces under Title 10 of the United States Code, and thus should be included in the parenthetical. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing width taken by group-plus-subgroup names 

message: Shouldn't you give the template the colours of the flag. This is my example of new colours for this template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:Navbox_United_States
RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colours 

message: the VP is listed under Legislature as part of the Senate. While there is some ambiguity about the exact constitutional position of the VP, the article says it is the second-highest executive position, so I think it should be grouped with the President under Executive. jonas (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vice President 

message: Add the big 6 foreign intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA, NGA, NRO, DIA, ODNI) to the template and those that are already accounted for, reduce them to acronyms to save space). 69.36.132.252 (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, make that big 7 (the previous 6 + FBI). 69.36.132.252 (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: CIA, NSA, NRO, ODNI, and FBI are already on the template. We'll need to make a decision on inclusion here, because putting all 18 agencies of the United States Intelligence Community isn't very useful, and the template is very bloated as it is right now. I don't think there's any official mention of the "big six" or "big seven" agencies. Liu1126 (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  See page 17 (https://irp.fas.org/dni/icd/icd-1.pdf). You'll see the Program Manager Group -- the agencies listed are the ones I listed above (CIA, NSA, NGA, DIA, NRO, and FBI, advising the ODNI). Those are the ones that should be included here. And here's another reference: https://news.clearancejobs.com/2016/10/24/lesser-known-intelligence-careers/ in the first sentence of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:9E01:C410:61F9:C375:A258:996C (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. — Urro[talk][edits] ⋮  21:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2024