Main page

Talk

Embassy

Requested Articles

Members

Portal

Recognized content

To do

Help

	Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
	Old U.S. notice board archives: National, Southern, Northern
	This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States This page is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Hi, I'm seeking comments/thoughts on an effort to replace generic citations to the Geographic Names Information System in various articles with its specific entry.

From my understanding, many geographical location pages were created early on with the {{GR}} template. Specifically, {{GR|3}} would produce a reference to the Geographic Names Information System, per Wikipedia:Geographic references#United States. The {{GR}} template was deleted following this TfD in 2014. SporkBot was used to replace the GR template with a generic {{cite web}} reference in its stead. Many of these generic references are still present in American geostubs.

What is everyone's thoughts on replacing all such instances with updated, specific references, using the {{cite gnis}} template? I understand that the reliability of GNIS data is...iffy, for lack of a better word, but in my opinion, having a verifiable link to the specific reference is better than a general link to a database. I've made a change to the Piercys Mill, West Virginia article as an example.

For full disclosure, this discussion was initiated after (oops) I filed a BRFA for a bot that aimed to make these changes across mainspace. I was reminded that consensus is needed first for bot tasks like these, so here I am! Thanks for your consideration, Staraction (talk · contribs) 21:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good idea. MisawaSakura (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for instances like the Piercys Mill, West Virginia example - the bland link to the http://geonames.usgs.gov domain is not helpful and the citation should point to the specific link for the feature. I will note that this conversion will not be possible for all affected articles - several years ago, the GNIS purged out a number of its entries - I believe these were generally entries where the location was not known, but I may be misremembering that. I'm not sure how you will want to handle those entries where the specific GNIS entry page no longer exists, but it may not hurt to log those - I expect that a number of those are extinct Native American settlements mislabeled as modern unincorporated communities and these otherwise likely have a higher rate of spuriousness I would expect. Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Hog Farm, my plan was just to log the instances where the bot, for some reason or another, isn't able to verify the GNIS ID, then just to sort through them manually. I believe that would account for the purged examples you're giving here. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 04:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. For full disclosure, I was notified to this discussion, and I suspect it's because I added a lot of these citations years ago (or at least the one on Piercys Mill); that was long enough ago that I don't remember exactly, but I think I used GR 3 because I didn't realize Template:Cite gnis existed yet. I'm all for replacing those with specific references, and to be honest I should have done more of that work myself years ago. (I'm also in favor of logging articles where the GNIS entry no longer exists; given the recent discussions around the reliability of GNIS, I suspect many of those may not be viable articles.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:54, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support replacing with specific references. Generic GNIS and census links are a huge headache and fixing them would be much appreciated. When you're finished, would it be possible to provide a list of ones that couldn't be resolved? There's a good chance some of them were spurious "populated places" that were removed from GNIS, and this would be a great starting place for cleanup on wiki. –dlthewave ☎ 17:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Dlthewave, that was the plan! I hope to put the unresolved ones here. (Finding out that removed GNIS entries were sometimes simply inaccurate in this AfD was actually partially what inspired this bot!) Staraction (talk · contribs) 18:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted the log page and will try to start researching those once the bot is able to start its runs. Hog Farm _Talk 18:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Hog Farm, the bot has started running! There's a lot of entries at the log page for now, but I don't want to waste your time with those, because most of them are in edge cases with my code that I haven't accounted for. I'll let you know when they're a lot more limited! Staraction (talk · contribs) 21:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Oregon State Capitol 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. Hog Farm _Talk 18:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2026 United States strikes in Venezuela#Requested move 3 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 23:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Britney Spears § Shall we remove the 2019-2021 personal life section?, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Salvo article draft - please contribute here. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gun show loophole has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Douglas MacArthur 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. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Acer rubrum has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:United States congressional delegations from California#Requested move 12 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Enron scandal has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Six § Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man Season 3, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trumpism#Requested move 8 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 14#Category:Members of the Alabama House of Representatives that may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to weigh in on moving Category:Members of the Alabama House of Representatives to Category:Alabama state representatives so that it's consistent with Category:Alabama state senators. Woko Sapien (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver P. Morton has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Raccoon 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. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Casino Royale (2006 film) 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. Hog Farm _Talk 05:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trolley Square shooting#Requested move 11 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 09:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Killing of Renee Good#Requested move 10 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 09:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lockheed Martin shooting#Requested move 10 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 09:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This RM may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Paul, Minnesota has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_2009#Split_by_month about spliting the list by month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian, Mississippi has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Delaware#Proposed_merge_of_List_of_counties_in_Delaware_into_Delaware,_take_two, regarding the merger of list of counties in Delaware. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Second Cold War § Asarlaí's photo insertions. George Ho (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:International Hockey League (1945–2001)#Requested move 16 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) . . (he/him) 23:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:First ladies and gentlemen of Alaska#Requested move 18 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HurricaneZeta^C 20:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject GovDirectory has added a weekly Collab Hour in a time slot that is more user friendly for folks in Americas time zones, we hope you'll check it out. We'll be there Thursdays, 8-9 PM Eastern (5-6 PM Pacific). Details are on the GovDirectory project page.

While this is primarily a Wikidata project, there is also work to do to in Wikipedia on list and Category articles. For the U.S., the focus is mostly on federal and state information at this time--and there's a lot to do! JMMaok (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A concern has been raised regarding the GA criteria for the SpongeBob SquarePants article. The relevant discussion is at Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants#Article review. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas S. Hinde has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Super Mario Bros. Movie § Removal of Japan as production country, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sherri Martel has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Declaring a Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia#Requested move 1 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 13:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Materialists (film)#Requested move 1 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 14:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Deaths, detentions and deportations of American citizens in the second Trump administration#Requested move 4 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Twitter#Requested move 9 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article Susan Huber has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and for Notability concerns for 15 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Unsourced WP:BLP. In ordinary times, not a big problem, but nowadays, this is a legal risk.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Seer (company)#Requested move 2 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ROY is WAR Talk! 04:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:State Sponsors of Terrorism#Requested move 26 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 12:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bellaire, Texas has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Navajo Nation Zoological and Botanical Park has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bank of America 400 (Oval)#Requested move 4 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 11:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Speculative fiction by writers of color#Implementing the split about how to split this page following the AfD discussion where there was agreement to split apart the page. Please share your thoughts for what sections you believe should be split off/merged to other pages. Thanks and have a great rest of your day. Historyday01 (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiProject United States editors. I have submitted a request at Talk:Better.com#Overview_of_subsidiaries to add a summary of the company's subsidiaries. Additionally, I have submitted a request at Talk:Vishal_Garg_(businessman)#Early_life_and_education to improve the biography of the CEO, if any editors here are interested and reviewing. Glad to answer any questions you may have! Disclosure: I am an employee at Better (Better Home & Finance Holding Company). Thanks, KC at Better (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Prominent individuals mentioned in the Epstein files#Requested move 5 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been unsourced since its creation in 2004. If someone could help by adding sources I would appreciate it. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute regarding whether certain navboxes (example Template:Alabama) should be pruned (example diff). A list of what I think are related navboxes (so far) is in my sandbox (permalink). There should be a central discussion to decide whether the navboxes should be pruned. Is this the right place for that? People from this project might like to comment on the general principle here, or comment at ANI or one of the navboxes. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is useful to list the largest cities in a state by population in the state's navbox. It would be helpful to be consistent, perhaps choosing a set of thresholds for whether to list a city based on the distribution of large cities among the various states. For California, for example, listing all cities above 100,000 population would be excessive, but Vermont has only 11 cities with above 10,000 people. It should not be too hard to come up with a set of thresholds that limit the list of cities for each state to 10–20 cities (e.g. 11 cities above 10,000 people for Vermont, 12 cities above 50,000 for Oregon). Someone just needs to make a spreadsheet and crunch some numbers, then come up with guidance at the project level. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently in a discussion and waiting on Vmanjr's reply. This suggestion is no different from the status quo meaning before I had removed the sections and linked them where applicable. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Logoshimpo That discussion seems to pertain to something slightly different. You can be in two discussions at once you know, haha.

On that note, I noticed you've opened a lot of discussions at all the individual talk pages for the templates where you made your bold change. This is technically what the "D" in WP:BRD tells you to do, but this discussion page that we're on right now will likely be a much better place to talk about it. I would advise you to add additional comments in those other discussions you've started, to link to this discussion. That way, any editors there who want to chip in regarding your proposed changes can come here instead, so that everyone can all talk about it in one place. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 05:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it actually revolves around the same general premise (what cities/regions deserve mention in the state infoboxes), but I agree with the larger sentiment that we centralize discussion here in the WP. I've already replied below with my thoughts, and indicated that we should continue discussion here. Thanks! Vmanjr (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it's going to be included at all, why not just say "top 10" (or even top 5 - 20 seems beyond excessive) instead of applying an arbitrary cutoff? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The top ten might be viable if it were cited in the literature. For example: [1] lists 13 metropolitan statistical areas but where that is in that citation is not yet something I can find. Logoshimpo (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it's going to be constrained at all by population and not just a complete WP:laundry list, then knowing the population is necessary and therefore the top ten can be selected. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cities don't just revolve around the population. Water supplies and piping including other infrastructure is managed by certain governments. Sometimes, cities cross state boundaries and the city manages this regardless of which parts of the city lie in which state. Logoshimpo (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed the part of the discussion where infrastructure was suggested as criteria for navbox inclusion. What point are you trying to make? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

wbm1058 gives very illustrative examples. We need definitions as inclusion criteria. If we make our own criteria for navbox inclusion, the population will change every 10 years even though it won't be by much and some articles will make the navbox due to the population being above or below a certain value. The likelihood of an article being removed or added to the navbox will be much lower by using census defined areas (definitions) as the inclusion criterion. Logoshimpo (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of why I proposed using the top however many, as opposed to a cutoff value. Sure, once in a while #11 might overtake #10, but it's not going to happen every day, as opposed to total population which IS dynamic, and as already mentioned boxes do need to be updated on occasion. Nothing is truly permanent. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't 10 in itself an arbitrary cutoff? Sure, it's one we use often, but it still has no basis other than being a nice round number. Admittedly, I don't feel all that strongly about whether we have a cutoff, as long as there's some consistency on how it's chosen. However, as I mentioned below, this should really be done with metro area population and not city proper population. There are decades of studies by statisticians and geographers that show how city proper population is a terrible gauge of prominent regions in a state/country (particularly in the Eastern U.S.), and it's the reason that the federal and state governments make extensive use of MSAs instead of city populations. Vmanjr (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, I don't have an opinion on which population metric is used because it's not a subject I'm familiar with - I'm happy to leave that up to consensus by editors that are. I just feel that if there is to be a cutoff criterion at all the top X is more consistent than defining a different population number for each individual state based on the current size of towns/cities/metros within the given state at the time it's decided - and then potentially having to go back and reevaluate/adjust any and all of those on a regular basis as population fluctuates. In most cases the top X will stay the top X even as they all fluctuate, and only occasionally would a smaller location increase enough to bump another off the list. That's well within normal maintenance editing vs constant monitoring. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I think we have consensus that using population value is out of the question but listing all the Place (United States Census Bureau)s/Census-designated places/cities/metropolitan areas of a state is the best route. Logoshimpo (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can see from Template talk:Illinois#Cities/Towns & Villages, Template talk:Illinois#Disagreement with Removal of Items from Template, Template talk:Illinois#Top 20?, Template talk:Illinois#Top 10? Top 1?, and Template talk:Illinois#Criteria for including a city/town in the Illinois template that this isn't a new issue. Logoshimpo (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Logoshimpo if they would like to argue their case for the removal of that section (per the "D" in WP:BRD). MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 04:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: That might be good but such detailed procedures are a bit too complicated for implementation and maintaince. The issue requiring attention is that Logoshimpo wants to prune cities from navboxes. For example, the diff in my comment above added "Cities" to the first Topics section of {{Alabama}} while removing the list of 10 "Cities with 50,000 or more residents". I have seen two or three people opposing the changes and one support. More opinions are needed: what should be used—the navbox before pruning or after pruning? Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything complicated about coming up with a list of 50 states and criteria for the list of cities to be included in each state's navbox. It's a two- or three-column list. Answering your Alabama question, the state navboxes should all be returned to their pre-Logoshimpo revisions; the edits are clearly controversial and should be discussed in this central location. A notification could be delivered to each navbox's talk page, linking to this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I put a notification at talk for each of the navboxes listed in sandbox, see original post. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would heavily argue in favor of listing the largest metro areas (MSAs in OMB/Census Bureau speak) over the largest cities. Throughout the U.S., but particularly in the eastern half of the country, core city populations are constrained by geopolitical boundaries that for multiple reasons were not permitted to expand even as the urban cores themselves grew. MSAs avoid the need for arbitrary definitions of importance (e.g., population cutoffs, perceived importance), and also avoid giving undue weight to satellite and suburban cities who don't hold conventional importance at a grander scale (e.g., beyond a region or state - for example, how many people know of Overland Park, Kansas' second largest city, over Kansas City and Topeka, which are 3rd and 5th largest?).

If we go that route (and I really hope we do), there is a debate on which grouping one could pick:

• MSAs only
• Core-based statistical area (MSAs and uSAs): some uSAs can be bigger than MSAs but have a smaller urban agglomeration, and just happen to have larger rural populations in their counties
• All OMB statistical areas (CSAs + non-consolidated MSAs and uSAs): CSAs do have some degree of connectedness (mainly population interchange), but by definition don't center around a single agglomeration and can arguably just represent adjacency
• Urban areas: truly a definition of the largest urban cores, and perhaps more in line with worldwide population stats for cities, but less widely known and utilized in the U.S., and the OMB's latest definitions have separated urban areas that popular opinion often considers to be a single region but have density gaps between them.

Using our extremes, California has 25 MSAs, 35 CBSAs, 22 OMB SAs, and 193 UAs; Texas has 26 MSAs, 67 CBSAs, 42 OMB SAs, and 195 UAs; Vermont has 1 MSA, 6 CBSAs, 5 OMB SAs, and 12 UAs. While each has its imperfections, I would personally support MSAs (broadly known; has some concept of a minimum dense urban core). The nice thing about MSAs is that it is consistent, and that I believe there isn't much harm in listing all MSAs if the biggest such list is going to be 26. Furthermore, if we include MSAs consistently, then I don't think there's a need for a separate cities list.

If we're concerned about states like Vermont and Wyoming, one could argue for including uSAs for states that have less than X MSAs (e.g., X = 2), but then that cutoff can again feel arbitrary, which is what I believe @Logoshimpo was advocating against (and I agree about). Vmanjr (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings to @Randy Kryn and @Zackmann08, who I believe are interested in this topic as well. Vmanjr (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the ping. My only opinion on this matter is that WP:CONSENSUS must be reached by those knowledgeable about the topic. Mass pruning of navboxes by an editor with fewer than 3,500 edits, to their own arbitrary cutoff, with no attempt to discuss it is what I object to. Beyond that, no opinion. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think they did attempt to discuss it, Zackmann. It's just that their attempt failed. It looks like they tried to start discussions at each of the individual templates they made the changes at, and of course that doesn't really work for building consensus in this case, but it's exactly what the WP:BRD essay tells you to do. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 05:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:MEN KISSING You should check the multiple ANIs. They reverted multiple times BEFORE starting a discussion. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:49, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would everyone please focus on the navbox issue and discuss other things elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your route/assessment. For states like vermont and wyoming that don't have MSAs (but have uSAs): we can just not include them in the template. Logoshimpo (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Every state has at least one MSA [2]. Vmanjr (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am less sure that attempting to have a nation-wide standard would produce acceptable results in all cases. I also don't really think it would reduce future discussions about what should be in nav templates, based on my experiences elsewhere. Attempting to standardize a bit would be fine, of course. I'm a bit hesitant to link to MSAs since many of those span multiple states and I think, in general, readers are more interested in particular cities than the greater region, even in the case of the east where the core cities are often less than half of the population of the region. Skynxnex (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about something similar so maybe another solution would be to include uSAs for states like vermont and wyoming [this contrasts my earlier proposal of not including them at all]. This should be a middle ground of standardization and relevance (on navigation templates). Logoshimpo (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I suggested at the end of my post above. I think that could be a reasonable trade-off for small states. Vmanjr (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think linking to city articles in parentheses is better though [wbm1058's approach]. Logoshimpo (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way it exists in Template:New York (state) is a nice compromise, as I agree that most readers would want the city article and not the MSA. We use MSAs to identify prominent cities, and then the infobox links to cities, with a metro area article in parens if it exists as a standalone article. Embedding a slightly modified example here:

• New York City
  • metro
• Buffalo–Niagara Falls
  • metro
• Rochester
  • metro
• Albany–Schenectady–Troy
  • metro
• Kiryas Joel–Poughkeepsie–Newburgh
  • metro
• Syracuse
  • metro
• Utica–Rome
  • metro
• Binghamton
  • metro
• Kingston
• Glens Falls

Vmanjr (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I like this approach, although I might amend it to "metro area" for clarification. It's cleaner than the current live version, and offers readers both options with the one most are likely to prefer first. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is a better approach as I stated that "I think linking to city articles in parentheses is better ... [wbm1058's approach]". Logoshimpo (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would caution about mandating hard and fast rules for cutoffs at the federal level – this is as much art as science. I find that there are too many different types of statistical areas to keep them all straight, especially the difference between MSAs and uSAs. Just limit this discussion to more broad guidelines, while keeping the details to be decided at the state level. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Having said this, I'll bring our specific discussion about New York here, as an example of the issues involved. New York statistical areas § Core-based statistical areas is what I worked off when I made the most recent {{New York (state)}} adjustment that combined cities and metros into a single list on the template. I cut it at #10 (Glens Falls), making it include all metros with populations over 125,000. Arguably it might have made more sense to cut it at #9 (Kingston, 182,000) as the gap between 9 and 10 is large. Or, #8 (Binghamton, 243,000), which would mean a cutoff of 200,000 rather than 125,000. Dropping into the second ten brings the first μSA (Jamestown-Dunkirk, 124,000) into the conversation. That's only a few hundred people smaller than Glens Falls, which led me to some discomfort with including Glens Falls. Do we exclude it merely because it's a μSA and not an MSA? Watertown-Fort Drum (114,787) is an MSA, so do we include that, but not Jamestown? Watertown itself has a population of only 24,000, which makes me question the idea that it's the core of a "metropolitan area", though it does have its own TV station due to its remoteness from other cities. Jamestown has a population of 28,000 – slightly larger. Again, we exclude that because it's a mere micro, while Watertown's a metro? wbm1058 (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can (and should) exclude because it's a mere micro. That is the whole reason that OMB/Census Bureau make that distinction. For your examples, Watertown--Fort Drum has an urban core population of 51,832, Elmira an urban core of 62,468, and Ithaca an urban core of 59,102 (source). In contrast, Jamestown's urban core is only 44,424. For geopolitical reasons, MSAs and uSAs expand to county borders, which is why some uSAs can be bigger than MSAs, but at its heart, it's the size of the dense urban core that defines a "city". Again, city proper populations are more or less useless for gauging the size and prominence of a region.

I mean, hundreds of statisticians and geographers did this work meticulously over decades for us. Why should we ignore their findings and definitions simply because one number is bigger than the other? They have clear intent that an MSA has more prominence than a uSA. Us doing anything else (e.g., making our own definition of a core of a metro area or gauging prominence based on TV stations and remoteness) is WP:OR.

As for Top-X rankings, while I am not opposed to using some per-state cutoffs, that does have an arbitrary nature. Why 200,000 or 125,000? What constitutes a large enough gap? Those are judgment calls that again start veering on WP:OR unless we have some consistent way of defining them. My argument is that there aren't all that many MSAs in any one state, so let's not try to establish a cutoff that will be hard to achieve consensus for, and instead make things easy for all of us by just listing them all. We can use the approach you had for the New York template (which I quite liked), linking to the MSA's principal cities, and when a distinct article for the metro area exists, adding that link in parentheses. Vmanjr (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is that smaller metro areas aren't sufficiently notable to have their own stand-alone article, e.g. Kingston, NY MSAKingston, NY MSA redirects to Ulster County, New York. In such cases, on my largest metro areas list, I only link to the city at its core, Kingston, New York. This is why, for at least some states, a combined list makes more sense than separate lists of largest cities and largest metros. Navigation templates should only be linking to stand-alone articles, not to redirects or section links. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I worked around this by removing the section and adding a link where it wasn't already present. But I think Vmanjr's strategy might be the most inclusive. Logoshimpo (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Iron Giant § Edit War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Owen has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jack Johnson (boxer)#Requested move 21 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:American invasion#Requested move 22 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Christian. I have this draft called Draft:Pardon Integrity Act. A guy named EatingCarBatteries, who rejected the draft, told me to go to the Teahouse for help, and they told me to go to the US WikiProject for help expanding the draft to make it a true article. It's a proposed amendment to the Constitution which would give Congress the ability to override a presidential pardon. The draft has three sources and a PDF of the amendment. Christianhatley527 (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:M72 World Tour#Life Burns Faster at Sphere, which is well within the scope of this WikiProject. HorrorLover555 (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Operation Northwoods#Requested move 18 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Iran–Israel war#Requested move 19 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran#Requested move 28 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Dublin, Georgia riot and the discussion on its talk page. This event wasn't really a riot - no widespread destruction of property, no mass murders, no complete civil unrest, no mob action, the black population in the county wasn't forced to leave, etc - but can the title, should the title be changed?... I looked up all the WikiProjects that should have some interest in this event but most of them are semi-active or complete inactive, so I'm asking for input here. Thanks. - Shearonink (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Second Cold War § Term or series?, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. George Ho (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the National Philanthropic Trust article. DrThneed (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are three separate discussions regarding the Wallace Shawn article over at Talk:Wallace Shawn#Nickname in infobox and concerns about banned user, Talk:Wallace Shawn#Accolades and Talk:Wallace Shawn#Time to split off the filmography section?. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]