Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Superfund/Archive 1

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
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
 * List of cleanup articles for your project

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

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

Ikip 02:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Superfund sites
I'm working on the article about Newtown Creek in NYC, which was proposed for Superfund listing by Federal Register notice dated September 23, 2009. It's inevitable that this site will be listed, but it hasn't been yet (probably won't be for a few more months, at least). I've removed the NC article from the "Superfund sites" category because I find it misleading to include proposed sites on a list so named, but alternatively, the category could be renamed something like "proposed and confirmed Superfund sites." Just wanted to see if there are other opinions on this -- it may not have come up much before, due to the paucity of site nominations during the prior federal administration. Decafdyke (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is probably OK to keep the current category as is. That said, I just created Category:Proposed Superfund sites for cases like this.  I wasn't sure if the category was needed at first (I didn't think that there would be too many articles on sites that hadn't been listed yet), but you are right, it is misleading to tag a site in Category:Superfund sites if it is only proposed.  Some proposed sites have been waiting for years without being listed on the NPL!  Let me know what you think of this solution. Cmcnicoll (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks great IMHO. Thanks. Decafdyke (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

new related WikiProject: United States Public Policy
Hi everyone! I want to invite anyone who's active here and has an interest in American public policy (for example, environmental policy) to join WikiProject United States Public Policy, which is just starting up. We've got some cool things planned, including working with students and their professors for several public policy courses.--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

New Jersey
I'll be working on some New Jersey Superfund pages. NMP Dice (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

United States related Tag and Assess proposal
There is a proposal on WikiProject United States to task Xenobot with tagging and assessment of articles that fall into the scope of WikiProject United States. Please take a few moments to provide your comments about this proposal.

If you are interested in joining WikiProject United States please add your name under the applicable section here. --Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to help with WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates
I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into WikiProject United States. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this project Still active
Sorry if this is a stupid question but it appears this project is inactive but before I slap an inactive project banner I thought I would just ask. --Kumioko (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the definition of inactive? I am not sure what the benefit is of adding the inactive banner. But I agree that in general, activity on Superfund articles is pretty limited.  Cmcnicoll (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well inactive means that there is basically no project activity even though there may be activity within the articles themselves. There is also semi active. It just appears that there is only 1 or 2 participants, it appears there is no ongoing recruiting or discussions on the talk page (other than some span and general maintenance) and no edits of consequence to the project page. Its not a badge of shame it just lets folks know that its not active. There is also a tag for Semi active. How would you feel about it falling under WPUS? --Kumioko (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So the change would just be to the banner template? Although I like the idea, since WPsuperfunds is specific to the United States, I am not sure how that would add more traffic to WPsuperfunds since it seems like the superfund banner would be less noticable. I don't think many of the articles have the WPUS banner on them right now.  I guess that is why you want to put the superfunds banner within it, so that more talk pages have the WPUS banner?  However, I think that adding the US banner above the superfund banner will effectively hide the superfund banner.  I think that WPUS could also include the individual states, roads, counties, and others in the US-related WikiProjects template. But my major concern still exists; that the change in the banner will result in less people clicking on the WPsuperfund (or any other subsumed WP) link.  Cmcnicoll (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just looked how the banner looks on the List of Superfund sites in Washington, D.C., and I can see that the WPDC is still in the banner title. This removes my above stated concern about hiding the superfunds banner.  Now I generally support the change to include WPsuperfunds in the WPUS template.  My only question is how many different banner titles can fit in the WPUS banner title?  I don't think it would be good if it only can fit two, because then the same problem of hiding the superfund project could exist (e.g. when the states/DC were added to the banner as well). Cmcnicoll (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I placed the semi-active tag on the WP. Cmcnicoll (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question I can pretty much fit as many as needed (There is a test version with about 65). There are only a few articles with more than ten that apply and I think the Barack Obama article has the most with about 20 so even articles with several should be pretty clear. Only a handful of the US related projects have any interest or need to be added to the WPUS banner currently so there are only about 10 currently that might be added at any point in the near future. Someday maybe we can add more. In regards to the assessment and classing of the articles. When the WPUS tag is added it adds the article to the appropriate category under United States articles by quality and adds the article to the District of Columbia topic under Category:United States articles by topic. When and if I add the Superfunds project the same thing would happen. The article would be generically assessed and classed and then it would be added to the Superfunds topic. The only reason to have a separate assessment and class for the Superfunds project would be if the article had a different assessment or class than it would have under WPUS, which I could see for the importance, but not the assessment. If you still want me to add these though I can. I just want to be clear that is whats intended before I do. --Kumioko (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer to the first question. As far as the second, I would like the Superfund articles to be able to have a different importance assessment. Also, it is helpful of course to have categories of just the Superfund articles (see Category:WikiProject Superfunds articles).  That way I can just look at that category, and its subcategories, to just find the superfund articles that are C class or stub class in order to improve them.  Also, the importance of one article will definitely be different for each wikiproject, so that needs to be different.  I like how Talk:Pauline Johnson uses the WPCanada template for their banner, since the Vancouver WP can independently rank the article's importance. The quality/class should be the same within one article, so it doesn't need to be reassessed for each WP.  But I for sure want a separate category for each WP (see also the categories in Talk:Pauline Johnson).  The "expert attention" and "needed photos" are nice too, but not essential.  But it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to make them independent variables for each WP in the template also.  Wouldn't that solve one of the major problems with getting the other cities/states WPs on board?  It seems like many of them have unique templates, but can't all of their 'uniqueness of code' be incorporated into the WPUS banner template?  (This of course doesn't solve the problem of "ranking" WPUS higher than the others, but that isn't a big deal to me.)  Cmcnicoll (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Here are the answers and action items I think but let me know if I missed one. Please let me know if I missed anything. --Kumioko (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I will add Superfunds to the list of projects WPUS supports in the next couple days along with the ability for its own class and assessment
 * 2) I Will modify DC to ensure the same
 * 3) US counties never had it previously so IMO its not needed at this time but we can always add it later if needed.
 * 4) Image requested all but deprecated the need for image/photo requested within the individual project banners so I would prefer to use that instead. I don't know if its possible to break this out by individual project though.
 * 5) I think the WPUS template supports attention already but I will double check and add that if not. Again, I don't know if its possible to break this out by individual project though.
 * 6) To answer your last question almost all of their projects can but a few can't such as US roads (they have some unique things, some of which cant be duplicated) and US public policy (they have a unique assessment system).
 * CMC I wanted to let you know that WikiProject United States now has an independent class and importance for WPDC. When I add superfunds I will do the same thing. Please let me know if you have any more comments or suggestions. --Kumioko (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks good, thank you. Good luck including more WPs. Cmcnicoll (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added WikiProject Superfunds to WikiProject United States
I have added WikiProject Superfunds to template:WikiProject United States as well as independant importance for the project. I am goign to begine converting the articles over. Please let me know if you have any concerns. --Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

US Collaboration reactivated & Portal:United States starting next
Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.

The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with WikiProject United States
People from a variety of WikiProjects have had concerns about the scope of WikiProject United States and its relationship with other WikiProjects. We have created an RFC and invite all interested editors to discuss it at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject United States. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding "Popular pages" to U.S.-related projects
A very interesting tool of the Wikimedia Toolserver is called WikiProject Popular pages lists. These lists are similar to project-related article lists like U. S. article lists used for generating assessment statistics. The Popular pages lists include the rank, total views, average daily views, quality and importance ratings for the listed articles. Here is the full list of projects using popular pages lists. An FAQ also is available at User:Mr.Z-man/Popular pages FAQ.

I recently added links to lists of popular pages as shown below to the U.S. Portal - WikiProjects box and the nominations sections for each of the selected articles boxes.

Portal:United States/Projects/Popular pages

Because this project was not included, I am bringing up the popular pages tool here. This tool makes it very easy to track three of four balancing dimensions when selecting articles for showcasing at a portal - quality, importance and popularity. When tracking the fourth dimension, topic, the related article lists tool (such as for U.S. article lists tool) also might be useful by filtering on categories of interest.

If you do decide to use this tool, feel free to update Portal:United States/Projects/Popular pages as well.

Regards, RichardF (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I submitted a request. Cmcnicoll (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool! :-) RichardF (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Superfunds to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at WikiProject Superfunds/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
.--Kumioko (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Superfund sites that aren't NPL sites
There are a number of sites listed by the EPA that appear to be superfund sites but which are not NPL. Some never were NPL. If the listed sites are indeed Superfund sites, it would be sensible to add them in the interests of completeness.

Then again, there were a hell of a lot of these sites. Fifty-four (54) in my county alone. Most of them wouldn't warrant an article about the site, but they're apparently still Superfund sites.

Someone more familiar with EPA parlance needs to look at this, and decide whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to name articles such as List of Superfund sites in New York something more like "National Priorities List sites in New York", or "List of NPL sites in New York."

Thanks. Bananabananabanana (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot run to auto assess some of the Unassessed articles
There is a discussion here for a Bot to do an assessment run through the 2000+ Unassessed articles that currently fall under WikiProject United States and the projects supported by it. Please post any comments or concerns you might have there. --Kumioko (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate
One or more articles relating to this project have been nominated to be a future United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month. All editors interested in improving these articles or voting for next months collaboration are encouraged to participate here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Please See - Submissions
https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Gowanus Canal
Gowanus Canal, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC) -- epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)