Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
Party political offices
Please come discuss policy regarding party political office inclusion in infoboxes, navbox templates, succession boxes and WP:LEADs Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Political_Party_offices.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Obama task force or WikiProject?
Would people here be interested in establishing a WP:task force for Obama-related articles? The task force could be a shared subgroup of WP:WikiProject U.S. Presidents, WP:WikiProject Politics, and "inactive" tagged WP:WikiProject United States Government. A simple prototype is at User:Mike Serfas/Obama, which would be moved here.
Alternatively, J JMesserly proposed a WikiProject for the Obama administration, focusing mostly on the Obama technological agenda at User:J JMesserly/WikiProject Obama administration which has attracted some support. Mike Serfas (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- User:Rootology made the project. Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama - I am torn...but believe it should STILL be a task force of this project. We cannot have a project for every country's leader... -- Mjquin_id (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - actually, I agree with you. The guidelines on WikiProjects advise to have a much broader pool of contributors than WikiProject:Barack Obama currently has before proceeding. I don't really have a good sense of what routine upkeep is required to run a WikiProject, but I note that many WikiProjects with thirty or more listed members have been tagged as inactive.
- I think that the level of support recommended for a task force can be reached, and it might be easier to manage. Best of all, in theory, it should be possible to tag articles once for the Obama task force and thereby bring them beneath three WikiProjects at once (four if you count the new Barack Obama WikiProject), and potentially have all that manpower to get them rated and improved.
- Because of the high level of interest in the Obama campaign and in Wikipedia, one would think that there would be a vast pool of interested contributors, but consider that the my.barackobama.com "Wikipedians for Obama" list comprises only 123 members.[1] This really shouldn't be surprising when we consider that with 300 million Americans, Wikipedia and the Obama web base could each have 200,000 members and still have only that much overlap by random chance. Getting people willing to actually edit Wikipedia articles will doubtless be more difficult than getting them to subscribe to a mailing list, so it may take substantial recruitment efforts to sign up enough people for the WikiProject to work well.
- As I understand it, the main thing I need to get the ball rolling is your consent to place the task force pages under WikiProject U.S. Presidents, and after that we can work out the details. Meanwhile I think it would be best for all interested to sign up to all the developing projects in order to encourage further supporters while we decide which way to go. Mike Serfas (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Update: WP:WikiProject Barack Obama now has 17 people signed up, so it looks like it may stand. Mike Serfas (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Air Force One is counted, so does the Limo count??
Does the Presidential State Car (United States) (and by small default Official state car) fall under the WikiProject U.S. Presidents group? Don't wanna add the template to the talk page without confirmation.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Project Name (and Categories)
Any chance we can move the "actual" project name to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_US_Presidents redirect? The periods cause incredible grief with templates and categories. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
How to deal with a separate "Presidency" article
I note in that in the old version of Template:USPresidencies, that by factoring the "Presidency" section of a biography out into its own "Presidency" article (as is done for Washington · Jefferson · Roosevelt · Eisenhower · Ford · Reagan · Clinton · Bush · Obama), we create a bit of an editorial dilemma. We should attempt for formulate a "recommended" balance between how the material should be distributed between:
- The lead of the biography
- The "Presidency" section of the biography
- The "Presidency" page itself.
The current FA-quality articles include Ford, Reagan and Obama (the latter of whom there is yet little to say). In the case of Ford, the "Presidency" section is trivial at the moment while in the case of Reagan (who had a relatively popular and eventful two-term career), we have a rather hefty section of this FA which stands at 150kb. Should we strive for greater uniformity between the contemporary presidents (let's say, starting with Ford)? I would think that a similar structure and balance between these articles would be of service to the reader.--Spellage (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Saxbe fix
This year marks the 100th anniversary of the first Saxbe fix, which became effective on March 4, 1909 and facilitated a March 6, 1909 appointment. I have been trying to get this through the WP:FAC process so that I can propose it at WP:TFAR to be a WP:TFA. Because of its centennary and its membership in an underrepresented category of articles, it would have extremely high priority and almost assuredly be approved for the main page on either the 4th or the 6th if it is promoted to WP:FA. I intend to renominate it at WP:FAC in five to seven days for one final attempt at FA promotion. The article could use any assistance that you may be able to lend in terms of copyediting so that it represents the best of WP. This is your chance to get invovled not only in a FA if we get this cleaned up, but an FA that would surely go to the main page. Please come help clean this up. Also, any details on the Hilda Solis fix that you may be able to find to properly cite that eventuality would also be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Commentary welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to expand this article to GA status, but I could use some help. Is anyone interested? If you are, either respond here or on my [talk page. I intend to use Polk by Walter R. Borneman as the main source.-Kieran4 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
George W. Bush GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed George W. Bush for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
GA Reassessment of George Washington
I have done a GA Reassessment of the George Washington article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to need work on referencing. My review is here. I am notifying all the interested projects that this article is on hold for a week pending work that needs to be done. I don't think it will require too much to satisfy the GA Criteria and I sincerely hope that someone will step forward and take this project on. It would be a shame to delist what is in all senses but one, a good article. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Gerald Ford FAR
I have nominated Gerald Ford for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
Thomas Jefferson GAR notification
Thomas Jefferson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Lincoln's disam page
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Lincoln#Attempts at a consensus regarding wording on the disambiguation page, extra opinions are needed to generate a consensus. Hesperian 03:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hones Abe FA
I'm trying to get Abraham Lincoln up to FA, and his article is within the scope of your wikiproject. It's a big job, but the article is in pretty good shape. Anyone want to help? Drop by the talk page if you're interested. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I created this to be similar to the Canadian i.e. Examples one, but with an American Flair! Here goes...?BLuEDOgTn 01:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I like it...You meant for it to replace Template:US_Presidents? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Book-class
Since several Wikipedia-Books are US Presidents-related, and that in theory a book per president could probably be written, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP US Presidents people can oversee books like Presidents of the United States (1861 - 1928) much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.
There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone for/against this? Or confused? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
This list could use some attention. I think most of the relationships are real, but it's hard to know without sources! Шизомби (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Franklin D. Roosevelt FAR
I have nominated Franklin D. Roosevelt for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey all. I know this probably isn't the right place to bring this up, but I've nomianted 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver for featured article, and I was hoping some of you would consider reviewing it? There have been only a few comments so far, and I'd hate to see if fail simply because of lack of reviewers... — Hunter Kahn (c) 14:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)