Talk:United States/Archive 85

Demographics section
I've restored this version. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been reverted. Here is what the current version looks like -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2016
The "Ethnic Groups" section has a list that is way too long and do not fit in properly with the rest of the information. I request that someone shorten this list.

50.39.117.81 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I have reverted the list to the way it appeared at 17:14, 7 January 2016‎ (UTC). Wikipedia should not be a host for excessive listings of statistics, and a far more comprehensive discussion of ethnic groups in America can be found at Race and ethnicity in the United States. Mz7 (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2016
199.124.3.2 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Closed as no request was made. MilborneOne (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Language
Is English the de facto language of the US or the de jure Language of the United States? I am referring to the infobox, as it is not made clear --86.190.133.99 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is made clear in the note:
 * --Mark Miller (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Article grossly over sized
So since the last time this can up the article has gotten even bigger - United States ‎[356,747 bytes]. Article needs some serious trimming of usless info. 4 paragraphs on food and water? Editors need to sit down and move lots of info to sub articles. Article so big people are simply avoiding reading it. -- Moxy (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that the article is too big, but: "Article so big people are simply avoiding reading it."? Citation needed. --Golbez (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Its huge 59 worst article we have Article size - Too much detail. As for source on what is too long pls see You Won’t Finish This Article Why people online don’t read to the end as it outlines the problem. If you want readers to read the article as a whole some basics need to be followed as per Too long; didn't read. -- Moxy (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Prose size (text only): 96 kB (15449 words) "readable prose size" -- two to three times as long as recommended by Article size. Germany, which has a significantly more complicated history, has 71 kB (11179 words) readable prose (that is also a bit too long). Major work on moving details to subarticles is needed. —Kusma (t·c) 16:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's shorter than other encyclopedias like Ency Brit. Who wants every  reader to read ALL of it?? What an odd goal. 99.9% are interested in specific topics that are all reasonably short. Rjensen (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Its much shorter at Ency Brit? I simply dont see how huge sections on minor topics  like "Water supply and sanitation" need so much details let alone even be here. As stated in the link above....people  avoid the article because of its details. We have size guidelines for a reason....but this has come up many times with no luck....just more info added to the article.  Wish those here all the best of luck.   -- Moxy (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this article is seriously too long. The main reason is that new editors with a special interest arrive and add more and more marginal details about their favorite subjects. The text has become quite unwieldy. The comparison above between the United States and Germany is flawed; while Germany might have "a complicated history," so does the United States. And the US is much larger, four times more populous, and far more influential in the world. The article "United States" is going to be long -- but exactly how long is a pertinent discussion to have. It's only going to get worse. --Mason.Jones (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No question the article is far too long, but that is an issue of not being able to agree fully on what to remove. Once the discussion begins on removing stuff, people tend to object strongly to what is being suggested. Sometimes the very suggestion of reducing the size of the article is met with suggestions to remove content with strong consensus to remain. Perhaps more experienced editors should be given a chance to begin removing the more recent additions with no consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the article is not too long for readers. If someone wants to get the entire United States, they can expect to spend a couple of hours on that topic. Nobody seriously thinks that the comprehensive coverage of the United States can be handled in 15 minutes. 30 minutes? Personally I have a hard time imagining a reader with an equal interest in all of the many topics. Usual thing is to zero in on a handful of topics, and the article will then leave them to longer and more detailed articles. Rjensen (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it was too long for readers, or that the amount of time a reader might take on the subject was limited, but it seems ungainly in places with, perhaps too much statistical data and sometimes written with a less than encyclopedic tone. I think the article needs a good copy edit for brevity, clarity and encyclopedic tone. I also think there may be room to trim...not hack. As I said, a lot of the main parts of the article have very strong consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, an option is always to discuss placing less important statistical information and data as a note.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur with Mark Miller but also concur with Moxy---the section on water supply and sanitation is way too long. In a high-level article like this, what it should say is some number about the overall size of the water supply, some number about how much of that is consumed per year, and some number about water quality. That's it. The rest should be in a more specific article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I chopped down the excessive treatment of water supplies, and added mention of the West Coast routes and the Flint water crisis. Rjensen (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I also sharply cut the national debt-- or at least the coverage of it. Rjensen (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I returned all the content as notes so we did not lose sourced information but I reverted the edit to ‎Political divisions. That was not an improvement.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2016
se les dio sabiduria y se les presto las herramientas para que fueran luz, pero tal parece que se les ha olvidado, El significado de su aguila, no culpen a nadie por lo que se viene solo miren adentro y luego abran los ojos o el tercero :), para saber el por que de lo que acontece, sigan aciendo caso omiso y ocasionando disputas por poder hace muchos años se les dijo y se les advirtio, pues este el tiempo de resarcir sus culpas. es su decisióm, siempre la ha sido. el conocimiento es la luz no las cosas mundanas que tratan de vendernos por eso estoy acá y no haya. les recuerdo el protocolo de kyoto, ojala hayan incerementado el poder de sus bolsillos por la energia ocura los tiene acaparados y ya saben lo que significa, peor el ciego que no quiere ver. 181.63.26.168 (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. This is the English Wikipedia, please make requests in English. Cannolis (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)