Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Collaboration

message: What is the appropriate use of the  template? I just come noticed it being added to quite a lot of articles that are not candidates. It seems like clutter on a talk page that has never been a candidate or the subject of a prior collaboration. older ≠ wiser 22:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of template 

message: There were several articles that were nominated and recieved the needed votes in the time specified.  They just sat there with no one updating the USCOTW and then they were all deleted.  What gives?  How does this work and who is making the changes after the votes?  How did Mount Rushmore get up there with 2 votes (1 vote at the time the others were deleted) when North Carolina and Ohio River flood of 1937 had 5, Independence Hall and Liberty Bell had 3. Morphh 19:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my point was that most of them recieved the needed nominations and were nominated at different points in time.  It was expected by me and I expect others that someone was changing these out every two weeks to the best article.  These other articles had obviously more votes and thus more justification for being on the USCOTW - regardless of the expiration.  You are correct that the other article spent too long on the USCOTW but I don't find your justification acceptable.  It is as if none of these other articles were even nominated.  I have nothing against the Mount Rushmore ariticle - I'll probably even work on it.  However, it seemed like a self-nom / promotion with disregard for the other articles that had more support. Morphh 13:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you've added those noms back and updated the date - this works.  Hopefully we can move through them and give them all a chance.  Thanks and sorry for the aggressiveness. Morphh 13:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you mentioned that, I have shortened the amount of time Mount Rushmore will be USCOTW. It has already been USCOTW once before. (Iuio 15:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: First I hope its ok but I broke this into a separate section because it was different than the ongoing discussion. No, this is not intended to be a WikiProject United States Noticeboard but a United States Noticeboard. There is, IMO, no need to have separate noticeboards for every project, state or topic area relating to US things. In some cases, maybe, but not in general. If a certain topic seems to get a lot of interest or comment then maybe it could break into its own in the future though but I think we should start as a centralized location as much as possible. --Kumioko (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think folks will often see working on these articles as a Good Thing, howevr I find that being to ambitious often results in little progress. I think the selections thus far are on the whole pretty broad. Racepacket, do you feel the ones nominated thus far are too narrow? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Who runs this?

message: Mwahahaha - four years later and a couple of interlopers have seized control....but seriously, reactivated now and we'll see how it goes. Anyone is welcome to ignore my noms and think of some of their own. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: update

message: Should we add to the critera for the nomination and selection of articles that they be nation-wide in scope and not rated as "Top" or "High" importance by another WikiProject? Racepacket (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First I hope its ok but I broke this into a separate section because it was different than the ongoing discussion. No, this is not intended to be a WikiProject United States Noticeboard but a United States Noticeboard. There is, IMO, no need to have separate noticeboards for every project, state or topic area relating to US things. In some cases, maybe, but not in general. If a certain topic seems to get a lot of interest or comment then maybe it could break into its own in the future though but I think we should start as a centralized location as much as possible. --Kumioko (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think folks will often see working on these articles as a Good Thing, howevr I find that being to ambitious often results in little progress. I think the selections thus far are on the whole pretty broad. Racepacket, do you feel the ones nominated thus far are too narrow? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of this Noticeboard

message: First I'm sorry I haven't had time to do much. Hopefully that will change soon. I hope its ok but I wanted to submit a couple suggestions regarding the Collaboration.
#I would like to Archive the old discussions. Most are from 2004 to 2006 and they are just cluttering the talk page. Does anyone have a problem with me doing this?
#I recommend we allow any US related WikiProject to use this Noticeboard and Collaboration. My opinion is that we have it up and running (only 1 or 2 of the other US related projects have their own and in my opinion if they wanted one, they would have started it by now). There is no requirement too of course and I really don't expect many to use it but since it is up and running we should allow any US related project to use it. If another project wants to start their own great. But we should not force them away. The articles will still work on a most votes wins basis so if someone submits Geography of South Dakota and it gets the most votes for the collaboration that month. Great.
#I recommend we go back to the previously established voting method of each article gets three months and it continues to accumulate votes till the end before the article is archived. Whichever article has the most votes at the beginning of each month wins. Wether that article is there for the full 3 months or it gets the most votes in 2 days. If we only give the articles a month to get the most votes before being archived we will for one need to renominate new articles every month and 3 we will be spending a lot of time archiving submissions both of which will cause us more work and make this collaboration require more maintenance and upkeep. I think this will keep it as simple as possible to minimize the amount of effort required to maintain it. --Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea about archiving. I voted for several articles and this is okay I presume.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks and voting for more than one is totally ok. --Kumioko (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of suggestions 

message: There's a problem if you nominate something on the 29th, 30th, or 31st of the month if the following month doesn't have 31 days.  You apparantly have to code manually Purplebackpack89  19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coding Problem 

message: It appears the two topics currently listed in this section are outdated.  Should they be deleted leaving an empty section? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just drafting up something about that too. IMO if they aren't being used then we probably shouldn't display them. I think it just makes things more confusing. I would suggest that we drop a note on those projects and ask if they want to use this one. If this starts going again it might renew interest in theirs again as well. --Kumioko (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They can be commented out. Others have already. See the editing page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. topics on other COTWs

message: I added a couple of reviews to some of the articles on the list. I will go back later and add some more as time allows and I will start working on the items identified as well. I think it might help to focus efforts for some editors if they now what to look for and what some of the areas of improvement are. I also think that if an article comes up and pertains to another project (like California) we should let that project know so that they can participate if they want too in the developement of the article. I believe this will also help to foster collaboration between projects and remove some of the tensions that have come about in the past few weeks. --Kumioko (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration articles, review and notiications to other related projects 

message: I'm very happy to see the USCOTM revived and active again.  I don't have huge amounts of time, but can focus on a handful of articles at a time and would be happy for the USCOTM to be one of them. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's been a bit of a slow start, but suspect we'll see George Washington at GAN or even FAC, so we'll see how that goes. Some side nominations have been buffed nicely too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy to see this revived 

message: Okay, I've clocked it over into March and done some chores. If anyone is keen, they can fill out some blank spaces on Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW/History, like how many edits were done on the last collaboration over February, the diff and word count and maybe a few comments about it. I didn't know much about it so stayed out of it. I'll post on the article talk page too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Housekeeping

message: I know it's ideal that we get 3 votes per month for a topic, but as we are restarting USCOTM, it may take more time to get that level of interest. I suggest we either drop that requirement or at least be a bit flexible for now. It would be good for USCOTM to continue in April. --Aude (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Once it gets rolling good then we can ratchet down but for now I think we need to be a little more flexible. --Kumioko (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived California but left Wall Street as I was a bit half-and-half. Anyway, looks like there is another frontrunner. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  minimum 3 votes per month 

message: Okay, I've clocked it over into April and done some chores. If anyone is keen, they can fill out some blank spaces on Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW/History, like how many edits were done on the last collaboration over March, the diff and word count and maybe a few comments about it - it looks like ol' George is not too far off GA, but some segments of his life need a real working over....so there is a sort of game plan for GA if anyone wants to go to the library.....?Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Housekeeping redux

message: .--Kumioko (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: May 2011 Newsletter for [[Wikipedia:WikiProject United States|WikiProject United States]]

message: A few possibles for posting later.
*Camp David
*White House
*The Star-Spangled Banner
*Space Shuttle program - Collaboration of the Month for August 2011.
*Charles Lindbergh
*United States Postal Service
*Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.--Kumioko (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I like these, they could use work. (Iuio (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple from the list above were selected as candidates or as the Collab of the Month so I updated the list in case someone tries to resubmit them. --Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple possibles 

message: Now, I've found collaborations often benefit from a real 'driver' who can really coordinate a push to GA or FA. I figured TonytheTiger's interest in all things Chicago might be a help here, so let's see how this goes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 2011 

message: Chicago got 154 edits for 15 KB. Not bad for a major metropolis! Good work! I noticed the template hadn't been edited for two months, and the runner-up was the Hope diamond, which is cursed.  So I put 99 Percent Declaration up because it's nominated for rescue. Dualus (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, 99 Percent Declaration was created by Dualus as a vehicle to house POV-pushing original research that was rejected at the main article on Occupy Wall Street, including substantial material that was unsupported by any editor after Dualus began 7 separate talk page sections and 4 noticeboard threads insisting on inclusion; he's also inserted this material into 3 other articles as a response.  Even if this article could be salvaged to have merit and observe policy, editors should be warned that they are being invited into a POV minefield by an editor with a considerable track record of POV-pushing and ignoring consensus among other editors. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 11:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 2011 

message: eu peço ajuda dum valor 197.218.85.163 (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Eu pesso vos ajudar mim aminha família tão pobre favor favor Tai o meu número 869946032 197.218.85.163 (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eu