Talk:Washington (state)

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether :Portal:Washington (state) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Washington (state) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 21:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Washington (state)]] for deletion 

message: 1. Can anybody improve the layout of the "Geography" section by placing the "Major cities in Washington" map right below the state quarter released in 2007?
2. The "Western Washington" and "Climate" sections are reduntant in terms of climate. The information about climate should be just in the "Climate" section. It's pointless to have it in two places.
3. The "Settlement" section says "They settled in Washington to avoid Oregon's discriminatory settlement laws". I think it would be appropriate to add a brief explanation to clarify what that is.
4a. In the "Birth data" section, the entire set of statistics and argument about the Hispanics does not make sense, even more when numbers do not add up. A sample is missing for all 5 columns.
4b. In the "Birth data" section, the title of the table is "Live births by single race or ethnicity of the mother".
What it the point of just listing the mother? What about the father?
5. The "Economy" section says "Among Washington's resident billionaires are, as of December 2017" and "As of April 2014".
It would be appropriate to update.
6a. The "Environment" section says "previous 2004 Ecology".
Whey does "Ecology" have to be capitalized?
6b. The last paragraph in the "Environment" section needs to be updated. I see 2006, 1008 and 2010.
6c. The last paragraph in the "Environment" section also says "An invasive amount of algae in bodies of water would lead to a variety of excess ecological and technological issues."
Why should the sentence use "would"?
7. The 4th paragraph of the "Notable legislation" needs to be updated.
ICE77 (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Item 3 fixed. Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 8. The sidebar gives the population (2019) as 6,724,540 with a link to the U.S. census bureau. However, the U.S. census link gives the 2019 population as 7,614,893; the 6,724,540 number is for 2010. Is this deliberate? If we update this, where do we find the updated information for the other fields in the sidebar?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.34.82.65 (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions and comments 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: As of writing, I have begun efforts to drastically overhaul the article for this state. However, in doing so, and through providing an edit summary, those contributions were staunchly reverted with the contributor seemingly ignoring the complete context of the summaries (see my personal talk page for more). Now, the primary issue appears to be with the lead as they have cited the appropriate guideline; the issue begins, however, with the definition of the policy. To verify current population and economic standings, citations were added so they could not be challenged. Someone could, perhaps, slip through a faulty contribution using old statistics, or worse, malicious statistics, rewriting its popular industries, etc. Those citations were placed to combat any future challenges to current information which the appropriate guidelines have permitted. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:LEADCITE is not only policy, but generally applied across most high-quality articles on enwiki. If the content in the lead is covered in the body (as it should be), then the redundant citations in the lead do little more than cause more headaches for article maintenance. The population and area citations are usually exceptions, but only need to be cited in the infobox rather than the lead, so as not to be affected by major prose changes. SounderBruce 20:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  May you provide examples for such articles, and where it states they should be in the infobox as cited? Thank you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

text:  Actually, MOS:LEAD is a guideline, not a policy. BilCat (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , if you look at Template:infobox city, you'll see that separate parameters are provided for refs for information such as area, population, etc, because those are generally expected to be sourced in the infobox. You'll also see references for that type of information in the infoboxes of articles on most major cities. (I just spot-checked :New York City, :London, :Paris, and :Chicago to be sure.) Whether area, population, etc., should also be sourced in the lead is a separate question, but they should be sourced in the infobox; it's particularly helpful for mobile readers to be able to access the ref for key information from the infobox rather than have to search for the information in the narrative text.  Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Ah, guideline, correct. I thought it was perhaps both. And let me take a gander at those articles; oh, look, lead citations for information that is current and complex (humorous intent, non-aggression). But returning to a serious moment, let me look at the template. I will get back with you all in a few minutes. Thank you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Until there is consensus to actually move around elements like the symbols infobox, you really shouldn't do it yourself. The new location is creating a serious sandwiching issue with the sports tables, on top of being far too low in the article. The lead changes should also be reverted until there is consensus on whether to include citations (which I still maintain are unnecessary and do more harm than good). SounderBruce 03:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, there appeared to be aggression with a complete disregard for understanding; then, there appeared to be a warning from you (Bruce) suggesting that you have the authority to block me along with going along with my lack of understanding of what was proposed was a guideline and not a policy (and you have seniority by personal contribution history); then, I am politely guided by others such as those participating in this conversation to resolve the dispute; and then, here we are yet again at square one; much of the information in the lead is current and deals with complexities, while also the controversies (same-sex marriage, physician-assisted suicide, etc). The recreational cannabis and other such nationwide controversies have never been cited further in the article; abortion was not even expanded upon until I opted to work and improve the article piece by piece by adding the additional mention (with more work, going in chronological order of the sections). From the article's history of contributions, it seems no one has truly bothered (Bruce in particular), until September and I perceive he has been highly-unwelcoming to the task. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, WP:AGF. I am not attempting to block you, but the message is a standard warning about edit warring that is part of standard procedure. There is no seniority or deadline that demands constant attention be given. The section expansions are welcome, but they need to conform with project guidelines and norms, particularly for a high-traffic entry like this one. Some of your edits (e.g. un-capitalizing Western/Eastern, overreliance on primary sources, improperly using Census QuickFacts for comparisons) have introduced errors that need to be fixed. SounderBruce 18:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvements 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
----	
:Washington (state) →  – Per WP:NCDAB. "Washington state" is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear - the parens don't get us anything. State of Washington would also be a reasonable choice. Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 May 2022 

message: It’s inaccurate to describe Washington as “a state in the Pacific Northwest region of the Western United States.” The Pacific Northwest is not a subregion of the Western United States, since it also includes part of Canada.
I’ve tried to correct this a couple of ways, trying different verbiage, but the edits keep getting reverted. N. Pharris (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You may not have noticed, but I changed the "Pacific Northwest" link from Pacific Northwest to Northwestern United States. You may wish to look at WP:BRD in the future, instead of reverting as you did, the next appropriate step would have been to come here and discuss. It's also usually prudent to ping people who you were reverted by so they can participate as well. See WP:PING. Courtesy ping of . —Locke Cole • t • c 20:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Washington article should still be changed, though; “Pacific Northwest region of the western United States” means that the PNW is a subset of the western US, and that’s inaccurate. They’re overlapping regions, not one nested within the other. N. Pharris (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacific Northwest not confined to the Western United States 

message: Billionaires does not an economy make, and thusly, this list of billionaires provides no context to their importance to the economy of WA state. For all us WA residents know, they're billionaires not because of their economic know-how, but that they live in a state without an income tax.
For my two cents, the mention is a bit bragging, a bit promotional, a bit human-worship.
Did not want to just go an immediately remove it as there are a massive amount of WA editors involved on this page and I'd rather be collaborative, and could also not find any consensus at Wiki about such a question.
Thoughts? TheGREYHORSE (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't ever read the article all the way through, so wasn't aware of this, and upon reading it I did get the sense that it was odd and probably out of place. I used WikiBlame to see how long the content had been there and found that there was similar content dating back to 2006 with this edit . The user is no longer active on the project but they did use the edit summary and simply stated "richest". I doubt the content would hold up with any critical review of the article so I went ahead and removed it. Dawnseeker2000 01:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing mention of billionaires from Economy section?