Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States governors

Name

This project should be moved to Wikipedia:Wikiproject US Governors. See the Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects - it's a common convention. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a notice: one colon is used, so it becomes Wikipedia:Wikiproject US Governors. -- CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The P in Project is usually capitalized. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ummm...page move weirdness

Wikipedia:WikiProject US Governors already existed, actually (as an inactive project), so Wikipedia:WikiProject:US Governors couldn't be moved over it. However we've now begun discussing the latter on the former's talk page... I'm going to mention this over at Requested Moves to see if an Administrator can help clear this up. -- nae'blis 06:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't required - you can just scrap useless stuff from the old wikiproject and copy-paste text there. It's not a good idea to fork wikiprojects, if one is inactive; just replace the old one. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 06:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just done that. All the old stuff was a standart template, not worth keeping. Just use the new page now. I'll put a redirect on the old one. --CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 07:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright thanks yall. --Zonerocks 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Listing of Acting Governor

I'm concerned with the accuracy of Lists, Succession boxes and Templates, concering the governors. Acting Governors should not be included, as they're only Lieutenant Governors or Secy's of State etc. GoodDay 15:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Governors of Arkansas

Would somebody please check that article? It's claims that upon Governors Dale Bumpers & David Pryor's resignations, their Lieutenant Governors Bob C. Riley & Joe Purcell (respectively) didn't become Governors. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Members

Does this project have a list of members? I'd like to join. I have done extensive work all the Governors of Indiana. Almost all of them are of B quality of better. List of Governors of Indiana is FL, Jonathan Jennings and Oliver P. Morton and Governor of Indiana are GA. William Henry Harrison and Thomas R. Marshall is FA. I am working on an article on historic gubernatorial elections in my sandbox. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I updated some parts of this project recently because it had fallen into disrepair. If you'd like to start a list of members and start recruiting, that would be great. As far as I know, we are the only two current members of this project. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe there are three of us, depending upon whether Designate (talk · contribs) is here to stay. He's cleaned this place up even more recently than I have. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Well I am glad to collaborate or offer any assistance on governors of Indiana or Indiana Territory. I am quite familiar with those topics. I am familiar with some governors of other states to a lesser degree. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Signpost article

Since this WikiProject seems to be in a state of revival, now might be a good opportunity to try attracting some new members through the Signpost's WikiProject Report. I'm a writer for the Report and the project I've been trying to cover for next week has been uncooperative. An interview with Designate and Charles Edward about what you've done the past couple weeks and where you'd like to take the project would make for a very interesting read. What do you think? -Mabeenot (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

While I would be glad to cooperate, I've not been active as a member of this project really. I have worked on dozens of articles in the scope of this project, bringing some to FA quality, but have done so within the confines of WP:INDIANA. I do look forward to future collaborations though, and do intend to assist this project were I can. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You could talk about what you've done with those articles, since there don't seem to be many old members still around at this project. Maybe even talk about how WP:INDIANA and other state projects could collaborate with this project. It's just an idea. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't really worked on any governor articles other than the occasional list, and I probably won't be an active member here. I just wanted to put the infrastructure in place because it seemed like there were a few people interested in this subject. —Designate (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to do that. That was actually my interest in this project, was to see if we could put together some sort of standardization for governor's articles. Maybe a kind of template on what should be included, in the articles like other projects have. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've put together some questions for the Signpost article. Feel free to give your honest opinion and write as much or as little as you like for each answer. I also included a question directed at each of you to specifically highlight your contributions/background. If there's anything else you'd like to add that wasn't covered by the questions, feel free to leave a comment at the end. Here are the questions. Thanks for participating and let's see what we can accomplish with a little publicity! -Mabeenot (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to pass on this. Designate (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Illinois governors work group

This project seems marginally more active than WikiProject Illinois, so maybe I'll get more of a response here. I am interested in putting together an Illinois Governors work group. Much of the coverage for Illinois governors is as bad as any state's - stubs, for many of them. Is anybody interested? Fishal (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not :-(. Shame. Fishal (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This project seems to be pretty dead. There was a short attempt at revival earlier this year but it didn't get past the planning stage. -Mabeenot (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's really a shame. Well if anyone out there is interested in collaborating on the Illinois governors, contact me. I've just expanded Ninian Edwards and nominated him for GA status, so we'll see how that goes. Fishal (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ninian Edwards has been reviewed. I have fixed some ref tags and am changing the lead section to address a reviewer's concern. Fishal (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Was Winant a politican more than a teacher?

I see that John Winant, former governor of New Hampshire, is described first as a teacher and second as a politican. I think this should be reversed. He was briefly a teacher but spent his life in politics, first in New Hampshire, then in Washington and then as an ambassador to England. Can I change it? Granitesprite (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger of this project into WikiProject United States as a task force

It has been suggested that this project be merged into WikiProject United States as a task force. Since the project appears to be inactive and fter reviewing this project I could find no evidence that there are any members associated to it or meaningful activity on the project page or talk page in almost a year. I have reviewed all the memebrs on it that seem to have commented or edited the project and I will be contacting each of the editors who seem to still be active for their input. If anyone has any comments, suggestions or concerns please let us know. --Kumioko (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Its not entirely inactive, but I am ok with the merge. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok. Thank you. I apologize for not waiting longer to move forward with the merger. I couldn't find any member list or anything so I thought that the project was inactive and didn't think I needed to wait. I'll stop for now and see if anyone else has some comments. Do you know if there are any other active members? --Kumioko (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, User:Designate is the only other active member. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I left a comment on his talk page and I noticed there was a problem with JLbot that I need to fix so I will see if I can get that sorted out. --Kumioko (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on the discussions above (especially #Members) I would not consider this an active project. I cleaned up the main page last year but there's been very little activity. Merging it sounds like the best idea. —Designate (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I will continue with the migration of the articles into the WPUS template then. I apologize for the waffle with JL-bot. I'll get that fixed. Please let me know if you have any other concerns. --Kumioko (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Alvarado and Gutiérrez?

I assume that editors working on this project are aware that these two men were Mexican governors of Alta California, not U.S. governors. WCCasey (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Connecticut Governors

Hello, I have removed this project's tags on the first 15 Connecticut Governors because they served when Connecticut was a British Colony (or independent state, as the case may be) and not as a part of the United States. I did leave the 16th (Jonathan Trumbull) as he served for one year after the US Constitution was ratified. Connecticut is (AFAIK) the only state in the union that counts its colonial governors in its numerical sequence. Likewise, the Governors of the Saybrook Colony & the Governors of the New Haven Colony should also not be tagged. Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so far as I know, CT is the only one that includes colonial governors in its main sequence, no doubt due to it not creating a post-colonial constitution, and operating under its colonial charter, until 1818. --Golbez (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with that but I don't think that its a huge problem having them there either. Using the same logic, We currently have Christopher Columbus and the Mayflower under WikiProject United States and although I believe that most would agree that these 2 relate significantly to the US, using your logic, they should not be in the WPUS project. --Kumioko (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! The United States wikiprojects should *not* include anything before 1783 because there was no United States. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be ok to tag them for WikiProject US History though —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Um... why would that be? It is not US history! Should New York City be tagged for WikiProject Netherlands? Should the original 13 states all be tagged for Wikiproject England? Or how about George Washington, a stalwart soldier of the Crown of England during the French and Indian Wars? No, of course not... and the scope of the United States projects should be... the United States. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think your talking apples and oranges here. What I am saying is that things that occurred on the soil (to a certain point) and should be considered to be within the scope of United States (or at least one of the projects being supported by WPUS). New York City shouldn't be in the scope of the netherlands because its here in the United States. Using the same logic these articles wouldn't fall under the state projects either because those states didn't exist then. Neither would most of the city projects. So where should they go? Are you recommending we create a new project relating to Americas topics that occurred between the Chris Columbus discovery through the American revolution? That seems to be the only available conclusion left. --Kumioko (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Also I believe that the notion that these are not US history related is misplaced as well. I seem to recall a number of History teachers throughout my years of schooling teaching many topics between Columbus and the American revolution as US history. --Kumioko (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, the US did not exist until 1783, it was still a part of ENGLAND. This is an unalterable fact, and you are out of scope by suggestsing otherwise. How far back do you want to go? Is the Clovis culture a part of Wikiproject United States, too? [/sarcasm]. Ah, but New York was FOUNDED by the Dutch! By the logic you want to use, it's a part of their history! You see, you need to be consistant... either the past belongs to a country or it doesn't. QED. Which means an awful lot of US articles are going to start being tagged for England, Holland, Spain, France, Russia, Sweden, etc. Are you in favor of California & Arizona being a part of Wikiproject Mexico?

Now what gives you that idea? Connecticut is not a state project, it is a project regarding all things Connecticut. Connecticut started circa 1625 (or earlier, if you want to go by the Algonquian tribe), not 1783. So: no, what I'm suggesting that you not indiscriminately tag every tangently related article on Wikipedia with Wikiproject United States. Please take pains to note that while the Connecticut tags the Connecticut Western Reserve as a part of our history, we do NOT tag Ohio. Why? Because we only can legitimately claim a part of it's history, not everything that has ever happened there. Or, if you want another example: we do not tag anything the predates Fort Hoop, even if it occurred "on Connecticut soil".

Apparently public education wherever you are is as bad as it is my state then, too. Are you going to tell me now that Thomas McKean was a President of the United States? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Do not insult other users. And, to respond to your edit summary of "The US project has a start: in 1783. You can't go before that." So, American Revolution doesn't belong in the U.S. Wikiproject? --Golbez (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

How is that an insult? It's a statement of opinion! I would say no, it would not. It would belong under wikiproject England, or wikiproject American Colonies, but not Wikiproject United States. The United States did not fight in the revolution. That is like tagging Treaty of Versailles with wikiproject Poland just because Poland came into existance again after the Treaty was signed and World War One was declared over. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well at least you've made it clear your opinion makes no sense, so we can safely discard it. Things immediately relevant to the history of the country (Thirteen Colonies, American Revolution, Declaration of Independence) are relevant to the project. If you disagree, I suppose that's your right, but you can't honestly expect anyone to agree with you. You either have a lot of edit warring, a lot of whining, or a lot of silence in your future. --Golbez (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this right... you're saying to tag all that stuff with WP:US instead of WikiProject United States History... and I'm the one that's not making sense? I'm so very happy to become educated by reading this... so the US was able to fight in its own revolution before it even existed! What's next, Christopher Columbus set sail for the Indies before he was born? This reminds me of the old tele-movie Amerika, where Lincoln is (retroactively, after the invasion of course) co-opted as a socialist hero. You're rewriting history. Please stop it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I was not aware of that project, though that doesn't necessarily matter: for major foundational stuff like the Declaration of Independence and the Thirteen Colonies and the American Revolution? Yes. That absolutely belongs in the United States Wikiproject. However: No one really gives a shit what's in the scope of what project, that's the kind of micromanagement that some people seem to enjoy and contributes less than zero to Wikipedia. (Especially when the argument isn't even going on on that Wikiproject's talk page!) If someone is confused, or sees an article missing from what appears to be the relevant project, they can remove or add it, but cosmically, it simply don't matter. --Golbez (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not a mind reader... I have no way to know what you are or are not aware of, but you chose to weigh in on the debate, so I must reply in kind. I don't enjoy arguing, I actually consider this to be a huge waste of time. Secondly, that's your opinion. At no point have I said that there can't be a middle ground, but OTOH no one has made an offer of one yet either. Instead of replies to my examples, I'm getting a "you're wrong because I say so" comments. Finally, well that's obviously not true since a) you just used the word shit and b) I obviously do. (Oh, and I strongly suggest you take your own advice about not insulting people, some that are less thick skinned than me might have taken offense to this last post of yours.) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, First I'm not offended so no worries. Its common knowledge that the US educational system (like Wikipedia) has many flaws. I think this discussion is way beyond the scope of this project and if Markvs88 wants to open a discussion about how topics relating to the United States before 1783 don't pertain to the project then he is free to do so but I would recommend doing it on the WPUS talk page rather than here were only a few would see it and only tangentially relates to the topic. Personally I don't see how it would be in the scope of US history if in his arguments its not in the scope of US but that's just me. Personally I think much of his argument is a Red herring. As for the untagging according to what Marks views as out of the projects scope its fine. Since I do somewhere in the realm of 20, 000 edits a month the likelihood that the article will get retagged in short order is very high. :-)--Kumioko (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but been there & done that. Surely, you recall our long debate back in Decemmber 2010/January 2011 [[1]]? I don't feel like tilting at windmills, and given the "consideration" that my views have been given (twice now), I'd rather not waste my breath again. I was grateful, however, for your eventual chastisement that you cannot claim to speak for an entire wikiproject, and ask you to not carry out this "threat" of blind re-tagging. If you want to write off my point of view as a red herring without real discussion, that's fine. I'll just have to write you off as a prima donna. Fear not, I will continue remove spurious tags whenever I see them, since you've been so willing to discuss things on points. [/sarcasm] Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

First I again fail to be insulted by your gesture at calling me a prima donna and in fact I find it quite a compliment because a prima donna, although frequently irritating, is commonly the driving force behind a shows existence and success. So thank you. As for removing the tags, in this edit you removed the WPUS banner but left a pile of junk behind and in fact you left the US tskforce intact for the MILHIST project and the state project leading me to 2 conclusions. One your decision that articles before a certain date should not be in WPUS is tainted by your dislike for the project and your actions reflect that. If you truly believed that these articles were outside the US scope then you would have removed the US task force from MILHIST and removed the state project. Since you left them behind your actions indicate that it is the project you have a problem with and not the scope of it. Second, you should pay closer attention to your edits. If your going to talk trash about someone else's house you should make sure your own house is in order first! --Kumioko (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You are aware that Cook's Regiment was a Connecticut formation, and that it IS military history? Geez! Not only do you not seeem to understand why the US project is not applicable, you seem to not understand what projects ARE applicable! As for the junk... sorry, I missed it. Did you "miss" retagging Roger Wolcott (Connecticut) & Thomas Fitch (governor) less than 12 hours after you agreed it was correct? Don't get me wrong, I do not dislike the US project. I dislike out of scope tagging. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am quite aware but Connecticut didn't become a state until 1788 and before that it was a colony or territory, (i.e. not a state and not a part of the US) therefore it would be, as your logic goes, outside the scope of WikiProject Connecticut. As you have stated above it cannot possibly be in the scope of Connecticut if Connecticut didn't exist. So what happens if in the future WikiProject Connecticut or United States history decides to use the WPUS template? Are you going to say these articles are out of scope then too? Just so you know there is no intent or discussions about those two projects joining WPUS, its just a hypothetical. --Kumioko (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, no. As I pointed out above, Connecticut already existed by at least 1625. The militia was raised when Connecticut was already over 100 years old, with men from Connecticut, and was provisioned by Connecticut, under the ultimate leader of the Connecticut Governor. As for "So what happens..." I am unclear what you're asking here. If you're asking if CT or USH merged with the WPUS, then it would be some other template and not the straight WPUS template on the article, like all those DC articles using the supported template. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kumioko here. The governors of pre-United States colonies are within the scope of WP US History, which is daughter project of WP United States. If you learn the history of United States in a school or college, the histories all invariable start with the Native American tribes, progress through the colonial era, and then reach the period of the United States. While not all of those are necessarily within the scope of WP US or WP US History, many are with the scope of the project as it is described on the projects' pages. Colonial governors are clearly within the scope of the project. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wild idea here -- then TAG THEM with the US History banner, and not the Wikiproject US Governors one. Sheesh! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The scope of this project states "The project generally considers any article related to the Governors of the US, to be a valid topic. We will have pages for every governor in US History." If colonial-era governors qualify as a "governor in US history", why shouldn't they be tagged with this project's banner AND that of US History? (I personally don't care either way.) Magic♪piano 12:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Magicpiano... that's exactly my point. No colonial governors (of any state, and thus the first 15 of CT, the ) should be tagged US Gov's, as they were NOT US Governors but colonial ones. I have no problem with them being tageed with the US History banner, but the Wikiproject US Governors is out of scope. IBest, Markvs88 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No Mark that is not at all what you are stating. Not even close. You are trying to argue that Colonial governors would not fall into this project and Magicpiano is saying they believe these articles should have both this and the US History project banners. --Kumioko (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes Kum, if you'd read what I wrote instead of just automatically assuming... I said that I agree with MP that they should fall into the US History, and re-iterated my rationale why they are not in the US Governors project at all. For the Nth time: colonial America already has a project it falls under, and that's not the modern United States project. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko has understood me, Mark has not. I asked a question that was effectively directed at Mark: given the stated scope of this project, why does it not apply? You seem to me to be arguing that "colonial-era governor" is not a subset of "governor in US history". If "colonia era" is part of "US history", it seems to me there is a subset relationship. If not, there is a discussion about whether all sorts of other pre-independence topics belong in "US history". Magic♪piano 18:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As I've been saying: it does not apply given the project scope! Notice that here: [2] says nothing about races between candidates (which Kumioko has also been tagging and I've been untagging), and it has specific wording: "Talk About how the state did under the governor". There was no United States before 1783. Each colony (including Connecticut) was an independent state -- a country of its own bound in a loose confederation, or (pre 1776... (ie 1625-1776 = 150 years of non-US governors)) each was a seperate COLONY of the Kingdom of Great Britain. Simply put, these governors did not govern any state within the United States, and so they cannot be counted within this project. Please consider my points above regarding Thomas McKean, George Washington and New York City. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The scope does not say that it includes only governors of states. (Are governors of Puerto Rico and American Samoa excluded?) It says (I repeat) "governor in US history". Have you gained consensus at any other relevant projects that would be affected by your interpretation that the colonial era is not a part of US history? (As far as election races are concerned, the scope expressed here doesn't mention them explicitly, or IMHO implicitly either. Sounds like Kumioko wants to extend the scope.) Rather than engaging in a protracted edit war over something as benign as project banners, why not try find consensus first on all of the affected projects, not just this one? Magic♪piano 22:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Truthfully this discussion is a little pointless because all I have done is replace one banner with another. If the article has been tagged its because the members of the project determined it. I had nothing to do with it. So although I personally do think that they are in the scope of the project my own feelings are irrelevent. The decision was made prior to my involvement in the project so if Mark wants to untag them then IMO he is doing that in counter to what the project ha already decided to do and is doing it without consensus. I also agree that he should be getting a consensus before volunteering other projects for additional work. With that said the whole point of tagging these articles is so that they can be improved and properly maintained by an active project, preferably multiple active projects concurrently. So by removing an active project from tha talk page of the articles, regardless about arguments of scope, is really hindering the further development of the article and is counter to the whole point of tagging them. --Kumioko (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to MagicPiano: The scope does not say that it includes the governors of anything BUT states. I agree, the way it is written, PR, AS, VI and other US territories are not be included either as the project is about US STATE GOVERNORS. Have I gained consensus? Of course not, I can't even get an intellectually honest debate HERE (you excepted) on the topic. Actually, as usual Kumioko is merely furthering his goal of tagging any tangently related article as a part of the US Wikiproject. I am not edit warring, I am reverting out of scope tagging. I'd love to gain such consensus, but where would one start? Consider: after over a week... Kumioko has still not answered the basic question of "when does this US project begin"? Again, please note that I am not debating any-post 1783 governors. I have no problem with US GOVERNORS being so tagged. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Then you read the scope opposite of what I do. Nowhere does it state that the governors had to be governors of a state. "United States governors", read inclusively, would include governors of non-states, including pre-state territories and possessions like American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and maybe even the presidents of the Republic of Texas. Magic♪piano 01:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to MagicPiano: Yeah, we do read it from opposite perspectives then. Except where it does say "Governors of the US" in the scope thingy. I can't wait to see the governors of Panama, Mexico and Philippines added. Oh, and Douglas MacArthur! (Yes, I'm being sarcastic here.). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Kumioko: If it were pointless, feel free to concede defeat, or at least ANSWER me (and I don't mean dismissing my points!) so I'll go away. Please, why aren't these "members" that "tagged" the article here then? Please stop trying to hide behind a nebulous group, that didn't work last time against Racepacket and it won't work here and now. If you want to take this to mediation, I'm all for it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I answered this question already but Ill answer it again. It begins with the colonization of the Americas in the territory that would become the USA. Not parts of Canada, not Mexico and not prior to the colonization with the exception of a couple specific things that pertain directly to US history like the discovery of North America by Columbus. It isn't restricted to 1783 to current. With that said I will tell you the same thing I told Racepacket months ago. If you want to start a discussion to determine what the consensus of the project is and if the project members decide that the project should not include events pertaining to US history before 1783 then I can live with that but as far as I can tell you are the only one that believes that these articles are not of interest to the project. --Kumioko (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Which I have pointed out as absurd: the US began in 1783. You cannot claim that men walked on the moon in 1958 because that's when NASA was founded. QED. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the two of you have a fundamental disagreement about the scope of this project, I would suggest leaving the banners as they are (i.e. in the M:WRONG state), and first act to gain a wider consensus (through an RFC process or similar) to clarify the project's scope. Specifically, to see if it should include or exclude any potentially contentious items: pre-independence governors (and related articles and lists), heads of governments that controlled territory now part of the US, governors of post-independence non-states (including those of territories and possessions), lieutenant governors, and related articles (like election and campaign articles). The result of the process should be a new scope statement that reflects consensus. I personally view project inclusion somewhat generously; I also don't think this dispute is worth the space and time either of you have put into it. Please improve articles instead of edit warring. Magic♪piano 01:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to MagicPiano: Would you start the RFC so it's from a "third party"? I will, however, continue to revert any further tags, re-tags, or re-re-tags of non-US governor scope as I've laid out (that being a) election articles and b) the Conneticut Governors that predate 1783.). That is non-negotiable since the alternative is swimming against the tide. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree and as I stated above I just changed banners, I didn't add any articles to the project. IMO though the scope of the project is already established and if Mark wants to change it then the requirement is on him to do so and he needs to get consensus for the change. Not arbitrarily change it because he personally feels the scope to be absurd. If the project supports the change then fine. He isn't even a member of the project as far as I can tell so I am not sure why he even cares other than just to make noise and distract us from other tasks that need to be done. --Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Kumioko: Kum, if you'd simply follow the scope, (or, hey! honor what you posted at 16:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC))this would not be an issue. QED. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok enough of this nonsense. I have tried to discuss this calmly but clearly you have no intention to do that. The scope is set and has been set by the members of the project, which you are not as far as I can tell, a member. Not one other participant in this discussion agrees with you about the scope. If you want to change the scope then start a discussion to do so. Otherwise drop it and move on. If you continue to waste time by removing tags from articles that are currently in the scope of the project forcing myself or others to replace them then you will leave me with no other choice than to start an ANI and ask an admin to get involved and either block you or topic ban you from this project. --Kumioko (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've also been trying to discuss this, but when you will not discuss WHY you believe that the US started before 1776/1783 (as is listed in the United States article!), it makes coming to some sort of conclusion difficult! I'm not wasting your time, as you are a) not following the posted scope and b) not keeping your word from 16:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC). Note that (above) I have asked MP to start the RFC, as I have no experience in doing so. If you wish, you can go ahead and start it. Otherwise, I may not get to reading up on that and how to do it for a day or three. As for you block threats: yawn. There is nothing in this thread that would get anyone blocked, and I suspect you know that. Let's keep this civil, eh? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Scope of WikiProject United States governors project

Disagreement has arisen about the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States governors. The present scope is ambiguously worded, and editors have failed to reach consensus on what it should be. Specific areas of concern:

• Should the scope include articles on governors (and related topics) of colonial entities (e.g. Province of Massachusetts Bay, New Netherland, New Sweden) that governed territory that eventually became part of the United States?
• Should the scope include governors (and related topics) of post-independence territories and possessions (e.g. American Samoa, Oregon Territory), or should it be restricted to governors of states only?
• Should the scope include heads of independent governments (e.g. Republic of Texas, Vermont Republic, Kingdom of Hawaii) that eventually became part of the United States?
• What types of related articles should be within the project's scope? (Editors have specifically disagreed on the inclusion of articles on elections of governors)

Ideally the outcome of this RFC will be a new project scope statement. Thank you for your participation. Magic♪piano 16:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I see three options here:

1. Add pre-statehood governors to this project
2. Create a 'pre-statehood governors' WP
3. Ignore them altogether, allowing them to handled by the individual state/colony/territory WPs.

Personally, I find #2 to be a total waste, and #3 abandons the realization that an article can be handled by multiple WPs. So that leaves us, IMO, with only #1. However, I think it should only apply specifically to pre-statehood governors - that is to say, only governors of the preceding territories or colonies. Governors of Florida Territory, East Florida, Massachusetts Bay Colony, Hawaii Territory. It should not apply to leaders of former sovereign states, excepting the brief glimpse of independence afforded to the thirteen colonies. So I would omit presidents of Texas, presidents of Hawaii, kings and queens of Hawaii, etc.

In the hypothetical case that Cuba, for example were to become, a U.S. state, would we add Fidel Castro and Fulgencio Batista to the project? No. However, were Ontario to join, would we include former lieutenant governors of Ontario? ... Good question. At that point, possibly. It would certainly warrant discussion.

So, to answer your questions specifically: Yes, it should include former colonial entities; yes, it should include territories and possessions; no, it should not include independent states; yes, it should include elections, as those are relevant to the topic.

Finally, this is ultimately irrelevant. No one really cares what articles are in what WP, as it has zero bearing on the article, except perhaps as a method of defining standards or collaboration, both of which can occur outside of the argument over which WP(s) an article belongs in. Wasting time arguing over if an article belongs in a certain WP is perhaps the worst possible waste of time on WP - it's the ultimate in rule wankery, and we have a rule against that. This isn't a complaint against those bringing this RFC, but the one who has demanded it be brought. --Golbez (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this isn't a matter of expanding the scope its a matter of clarification. The project previously already had most or all of the Colonial/Pre US governors on the list and 1 user felt that was outside the scope and started to remove them. Aside from that I agree with Golbez. --Kumioko (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The debate rages.. lol. FOr the records, I disgree with Mark, agree with the "colonial era governor's are within the scope of this project" position. My prior statements were a bit misinterpreted by Mark. As this project was being moved to a taskforce within WP:US, I was arguing that these colonial era articles are within the scope of that project, because they are within the scope of its subproject WP US History. If WP Governors is going to stay around, then those articles are clearly within this project's guidelines. Mark, your detagging is against consensus, and your statements in this debate have a hostile tone to them. This is just a wiki project for organizing editors to work on content.. We could call it WikiProject Serendipity - it don't really matter. If we agree what articles we want to work to improve, the name is just that, a name. The scope, as stated on the page, includes all governor's in US History, and US History, as a subject, predates the US, and does include the colonial period. If we as a project decide we want edit something as part of this project, then we are free to do so. I understand your argument that pre-US governor's are not US Governors, and you are very right. But that don't mean we can't choose to edit them within the scope of this project (or soon-to-be taskforce). —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I'm indifferent as to what is decided (since the presence or absence of banners does not generally affect my editing choices), but am willing to help craft scope language that is clearer. I've just been watching a slow-moving edit war on talk pages on my watchlist, and (per discussion in previous section) thought this RFC necessary. Magic♪piano 19:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Reply to Golbez/Kumioko: I have read and reread Golbez's statement, and I believe that we have several points of similarity. Since you both agree with each other, I am therefore replying to both of you at the same time. Please bear this in mind: I am only objecting to the mis-categorization of these articles, and NOT to them being tagged by multiple projects. Note that I also do not have any problem with any governors in office as of 1783.

1. This is really a non-starter, logically. It'd like adding a "Wikiproject NY METS" tag to every "Brooklyn Dodgers" article because Mets came afterwards. The various colonies and independent countries that eventually became states were either Independent or belonged to another country. As I pointed out, George Washington isn't tagged for "Wikiproject England" for his loyal service in the French and Indian Wars. (Ergo, neither should Douglas McArthur be tagged as a US Governor for running Japan.)

2. I agree, this would be a total waste of time for such a limited group.

3. In most cases, they're already tagged by their "local" project. But you raise the point about multiple tagging, and it is a good one. I of course have no objection to multiple WPs, so long as they are within scope.

I also agree... it should not apply to soverign states, which is why it also cannot apply to the 13 colonies: they were part of ANOTHER soverign state, the United Kingdom or a loose union under the Articles of Confederation. Theophilus Eaton, the first governor of the Colony of New Haven was *not* a US governor, nor was Gurdon Saltonstall, whom governed the Colony of Connecticut from 1708-1724. He died 59 years before 1783... how can he have been a US governor? It doesn't make any sense. At the end of the day, the status of the "13 colonies" (~9 years of independence) is no different than Texas (~10 years of independence). I agree with your Cuba example, and my opinion is the same for Ontario: the split would be at when they joined the Union. If we just "borg" everything that came before into a present category, then the whole of the Roman Empire falls into Roman Catholicism. I think you'll agree that's a stretch!Let's go one further: Royal Governor of La Florida... surely the Kings of Spain weren't naming "US Governors" in 1565, for over 200 years before the US existed!

So, I have another option to consider, which could be done in a couple of ways.

4. Set a hard date for WikiProject United States to begin: either 1783 or 1776 (recognition or Independence, I won't argue for or against either). This is an issue that is of relevance (as Kumioko pointed out) that there are any number of articles in the WikiProject United States that predate 1776/1783 such as Mayflower or Christopher Columbus.

Option A: Everything before that date gets tagged by WikiProject United States History.

Option B: Everything before that date gets tagged by WikiProject Pre-Union United States (or better name?). This would be a peer of the the American television, Superfunds, U.S. counties, U.S. Governors (et al) "subprojects". This subproject would devote itself to all articles dating to prior of the founding of the US but that are of importance to the US, and articles regarding an area which eventually joined the Union as a state or territory.

Personally, I prefer Option A, as Option B is kind of reinventing the wheel to me. OTOH, I do not have any affiliation with either project per se, and I don't really see much activity on the WikiProject United States History page so am good with either, and B does eliminate the problem of considering Hawaiian leaders vs. colonial ones -- they're all in the same pot.

• Reply to Charles Edward:: Any of my replies are meant to be as hostile as yours are to me. I think we can all get behind the idea of *not* being hostile? Btw, I can't be "de-tagging against consensus" when there is as yet no consensus. Also, I think you'll find that WikiProject United States History is not a subproject of WikiProject United States.
• Reply to MagicPiano:: Thanks for taking the time to do this. If nothing else, it does at least start a fresh discussion. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to keep this discussion going indefinately but I have a couple of problems with the previous statement. One problem I have is your idea to create yet another WikiProject for Pre-Union US just for the sake of symantics to add to the 200+ US related WikiProjects we have already. WPUS already has the structure, membership, etc so there is no need to create another WikiProject, that would just be embedded into WPUS as a task force or Subproject anyway. If we have a group of members that want to devote time to that era and want to create a spinoff then thats totally different and fine. But we shouldn't be doing it just for the sake of separating them. I also want to further clarify that as with others I do not have a problem with these articles being shifted to US History however, that project needs to agree to it and they should have the members to support it. Which I am not sure they do. I also think that if at some point in the future WikiProject US History is included under WikiProject United States, Government, Governors, etc. we will be right back here again arguing about what the scope of the project is. -Kumioko (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your replies have been hostile because you are not impugning just our positions, but us personally, with name calling and other attacks. Please stop doing that. You are indeed detagging against consensus, because there is not consensus to detag - the argument works both ways. When there is no consensus, the status quo stands. But there is consensus, Golberz support my position in his statements above. Kukimo tacitly supports it, and so do the members of this project who so tagged the articles... You are the only one who supports detagging and removal, and its not entirely apparent to me you even participate in this project regularly..

To use your own argument, if the Rangers decided that the Washington Senators was within the scope of their project, that would also be acceptable. Because before they were Texas Rangers, they were the Washington Senators. WikiProjects are not a categorization, they are project to coordinate editors to work on content. That is all. There are no guidelines or rules as to what a project can or cannot include, other than what its editors decide to work on. This argument is really silly anyway, because we editors are not going to change our editting habits because of your arguments, all you are really going to do is get some tags removed from articles, which means we will have to work a little harder to find the article we wish to improve, because you think the editors of this project should not work on them within the confines of this project? Silly. There are already hundreds of dead projects out there with too few editors, why make another one? And yes, WP US History is a daughter project of WP US. Read the page history and see how it was started - and both projects list each other as relational projects. This point is entirely moot though. I have no problem with moving all the contested articles to WP US History. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)}`

Completely uninvolved comment. The purpose of a WikiProject is to get people enthusiastic, involved, and working together. Therefore, define your scope widely. If people want to work on obscure sub-areas, great! You can always spin off task forces and sub-projects. So long as you have some people who will put effort into the core areas of the project. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Related uninvolved comment. It's interesting how disagreements like these have gotten more people involved in this project than anytime in the past two years. I feel this project could divide its scope among three working groups/task forces: US governors since statehood, colonial and territorial governors, and foreign governors of annexed nations. This would give a broad scope, promote coverage of governor by multiple projects, prevent the leaders of Texas/Hawaii from being neglected, and still differentiate between our current conception of governors and the long lineage of pre-statehood governors recognized by many states. -Mabeenot (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to project editors to join in editing article on Jesse Ventura

Hi, everyone,

I see this WikiProject has been rather quiet. I have recently developed the habit of tracking which Wikipedia articles gain especially many page views, from the weekly list of top 5000 pages and from the 2014 annual list of most viewed pages. On both lists, we can see that Jesse Ventura is a very frequently viewed article, probably the most viewed article in the scope of WikiProject United States governors. With other editors looking on and providing advice, I think it would be fun to try to expand and refine the article on Jesse Ventura until it can be submitted for good article review. Articles on living persons are always the trickiest to edit, but there are abundant reliable sources on Ventura's life and career. I see that recent edits to the article have come from an editor who works a lot on articles about professional wrestlers. Because of Ventura's varied career, the article about him is of interest to several WikiProjects, and should be able to draw in a lot of interesting perspectives. Anyone interested in joining in? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Jon Corzine Good Article Reassessment

(former governor of New Jersey)

Jon Corzine, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review

I have nominated Lawrence Sullivan Ross for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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 "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dylanvt (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)