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.
Please look over the new map and display (ignore the article text and states that make up the region). The new map is more geographically accurate, and uses WikiProject Maps color scheme. It also sheds the old infoboxes in favor of the standard image display. You can find discussion and criticisim of the old system in archive 4 above. -JCarriker 13:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
States included in the Northeast vary from source to source. States shown in dark red are always included, the striped states may or may not be.
The Northeastern United States is a region of the United States of America defined by the US Census Bureau. The Northeast is bordered to the north by Canada, to the west by the Midwest, to the south by the South, and to the east by the Atlantic Ocean. Its largest city, New York City, is also the largest city and metropolitan area in the United States.
Looks good offhand; I'd be interested in seeing how it looks on something where part of a state was in a region and part was not. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go. I am still concerned that such a display could open the door for more discord—not only would states being include be debated but also how much of them would. However I'm not opposed to it and I'll do whatever the participants decide. -JCarriker 10:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. I'm not committed either way on whether we should do the "part of a state" thing, I just wanted to make sure we weren't precluding it. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am very impressed. I think we should adopt this new scheme. Acegikmo1 19:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good. I'd prefer something like Image:Africa-countries-central.png to the lines-through-the-not-always-included-states look, though. --Amcaja 03:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would as well, however concerns in regards to the color blind and grayscale images raised concerns and even opposition. Please see the fourth talk archive above. -JCarriker 10:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1.5 years later, these maps have caused endless discord and edit wars over whether state X belongs in region Y, as well as flouting commonly accepted and government definitions, e.g. suggesting the West can exclude the Pacific Coast states. Please, can we get rid of them in their current form. Inviting various subjective cultural definitions of regions, plus going by whole states only so that a decision has to be made for the whole state, is a recipe for conflict.
We should have a clear separation between, on the one hand, well-defined, whole-state definitions, like the 4-region division of the US, which can be well-defined by an authoritative source or a consensus of sources; and on the other hand, attempts to define cultural areas, whose maps should have gradual or continuous transitions of color rather than black-and-white lines, to head off outrage and consequent edit wars.
While we're at it, I also feel the colors are ugly, that the red and bold stripes may actually be inciting more anger in editors, the beige is insipid, the state lines are too faint, and the scale is too small for good visibility because too much space outside the US is included. --JWB 04:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although much of Oklahoma is decidedly "southern", as is most of Texas "Southern" or "Southwestern", the western part of Oklahoma and the northwestern part of Texas (especially the "Panhandle" region including Amarillo and Lubbock) have far more in common with Kansas and Nebraska in culture, economics, and even climate than they do with eastern Oklahoma (the Oklahoma Ozarks are much like the Arkansas and Missouri Ozarks) or eastern, southern, or far-western Texas. These areas (1) were never under more than nominal control of the Confederacy, (2) were thinly populated until the latter part of the 19th century, unlike the true South, (3) are largely ranch and grain country, in contrast to the dependency on cotton and lumbering so characteristic of the American South, (4) have been settled heavily by people from the Midwest, and (5) have real winters, all making them very distinct from, for example, eastern Texas -- which is far more similar to Georgia than to the Texas Panhandle.
The distinction of this region from the Southwest is also marked: it had at most nominal control by either Spain or Mexico and only slight Mexican cultural influence (contrast San Antonio and El Paso) until late in the 20th Century, when Hispanic cultural influence expanded significantly outside of the traditional Southwest. The north-south section of the Texas/New Mexico state line is an obvious border because to the west the land is too dry for grain farming, and such places as Santa Fé and Albuquerque that have long dominated northeastern New Mexico and El Paso that has long dominated the far-western part of Texas have had major cultural influence of Mexico or Spain throughout their existence.
Texas is not neatly a part of any region of the United States, and is not a region in itself; it is a transition zone between three regions of America. Dallas (cotton country) and Houston are largely Southern; El Paso is clearly Southwestern, as are San Antonio and any parts of Texas to the south of San Antonio. Amarillo, Lubbock, Wichita Falls (the latter has a "Midwestern State University"), and perhaps Fort Worth, Abilene, Midland and Odessa are more Midwestern than Southern or Southwestern. Austin fits no obvious category. --Paul from Michigan 23:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All sounds accurate. How exactly do you think we should handle this in the maps? Or was this more focused on the articles about the regions? - Jmabel | Talk 20:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think the only way to really handle it is to draw lines through states, rather than trying to group them together all as part of one region. This is necessary for most states in the US, so there is a lot of work to be done. I do think, however, that such a project is useful. The question is how to allow people to give local informed input on where exactly to draw these boundaries. For example, I can only draw sure lines in a few states, but this is far less than is needed to form a more accurate picture of "regions" as such.
I kind of like the maps of European regions with blurred out edges, like at Central Europe. Could still be better, and no map will make everyone happy, but blurry edges makes a lot of sense to me. Pfly 00:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Houston and much of the surrounding area has lost most of its Southern identity, moreso than Dallas it seems. Combine that with a heavy Hispanic population, if anything it feels more like South Texas than East Texas, which could be considered southwestern. MANY businesses in Houston describe themselves "Southwest" such as car dealerships, medical buildings, etc. However there is a fairly large African American population, so it's difficult to categorize the metro area. If you go outside the metro area, especially to the North and East it is most definitely Southern, with the dialect, cuisine, large African American population, rich greenery, and a slew of filthy motels, restaurants and gas stations. There is little distinction between East Texas and Arkansas. But if you ask my opinion of how to categorize the state of Texas, I would always call it both Southern and Southwestern. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.2.29.5 (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
>>Paul from Michigan makes some good points, although I would like to respectfully quibble with a few of them. Let me start by addressing the point about Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls (I am a native of that north Texas city and graduated from MSU). In fact, the moniker "Midwestern" as the college name has always been a source of wonderment around these parts, as no one from around here remotely thinks of the area as part of the midwestern United States. Specifically, back when I worked for the college newspaper, I interviewed a professor who was writing a book on the history of the institution and asked about the origin of the name. He said it had NOTHING to do with any perceptual identification with the Midwest, but rather because it was "midway" in what was at that time perceived as the "Southwest". To wit: Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas...which was a "twin" to the southeast, and together made up the Greater South.
>>Now, the part about Amarillo and the upper Texas panhandle being more culturally midwestern is very true. But the rest of west Texas (Lubbock, Abilene, Midland, Odessa, etc) was settled overwhelmingly by Southerners -- not Midwesterners. And even though the topography is -- depending on the exact location in west Texas -- more midwestern or southwestern in look and feel, the Anglo culture remains primarily Southern in many important ways (fundamentalist religion, speech, voting patterns, etc). This in itself is a very important -- perhaps the most important -- reason why west Texas below Amarillo cannot be classified as Midwestern, but rather some blend of the South and Southwest (due to the hispanic population).
>>I might mention too, on a light note, that cotton is DEFINITELY king in the Lubbock area! LOL
>>But to wind it up, other than the part about west Texas (other than the upper panhandle) being midwestern, the rest is pretty well on target. The trans-pecos of El Paso is emphatically the desert/hispanic southwest of New Mexico and Arizona, while East Texas is where the Deep South begins. I get out that way quite frequently and once had a fellow from Mississippi tell me that if it weren't for the license plates, it would be hard to tell he wasn't back home! LOL TexasReb 14:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to almost every article on wikipedia, be it Southern Culture, Southern Cuisine, the Bible Belt, or Politics of the South, Oklahoma is decidedly part of the Southern United States. However, I do not believe these maps reflect that. I offer that we amend the first map to include Oklahoma in light red instead of striped (as there is no way that Oklahoma and Delaware can be on the same level of "southern" culture), and add Oklahoma to the second map, as while it was not officially part of the confederacy or the union (as it was Indian Territory), it's residents aligned with the Confederacy (and it was the last territory to surrender to the Union).
I think it is very important that we shade these maps by self-identification, as it is the best indicator of culture. When outsides try to arbitrary judge the legitimacy of a culture, it usually falls victim to bias. According to the study referenced in this article (http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jun99/reed16.htm), nearly 70% of Oklahomans self-identify as living in the South.
The Gallup organization also considers Oklahoma as part of the South and references the fact in their importance of religion map (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx), where the top 10 most religious states are listed. Not surprisingly they are all Southern, and Oklahoma is included.
I could provides all sorts of data from academic journals; however, I don't feel it necessary at the moment. I feel as if the consensus is that Oklahoma is usually included in the south, and we should edit those maps to reflect that.
The Map of the "East Coast" is completely wrong, and obviously submitted by someone from New England. Not including Virginia or Pennsylvania in the universal defition of east coast is ludicrous.
Concur - Jmabel | Talk 20:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Billings Gazette, the newspaper for Billings, Montana, capitalizes Eastern Montana, implying that it is almost like another state the way Nocal and Socal are considered to be "real" distinctions to different parts of California.
Great Falls is barely into the Great Plains (the southern end of GF is at the lowest foothills of the Rockies, but it's still wheat farms and ranches even in the hills) and Billings is quite firmly into the Plains, and thus Great Falls, Billings, and the prairies of north-central and eastern Montana are lumped into the region "Eastern Montana", which is truly more like "West Dakota" than the more stereotypical mountain areas of Montana.
The plains east of Billings, Great Falls itself, and the plains north of Great Falls are all losing population to Rural Flight just like the Midwest proper, even if they're mostly beef country as opposed to grains. And people in Eastern Montana would identify with Minneapolis-St. Paul as quickly as they would with Seattle, Denver, or Salt Lake.
With all that said though, I think people in Eastern Montana would not call themselves Midwestern unless they lived at the eastern end of the state and commuted/shopped in North Dakota. But still I think that it is incorrect to totally exclude Eastern Montana from the Midwest and I think it is in fact Midwestern in many ways. Just like Eastern Colorado past Denver.
The eastern parts of the Continental Divide states are of prairie and ranching/farming nature; why not include them into the Midwest? People in Denver view the parts of Colorado east of the Denver metro as the Midwest considering it is practically identical to western Kansas. Same goes for Eastern Montana, although Eastern Montana is more west-ish than eastern Colorado.
Even the fringes of Wyoming, such as near the Black Hills are part of the Great Plains. -Miketherocker (sig added by JCarriker 09:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
That's right, the original boundary between Montana and Idaho was supposed to be the continental divide, but it was incorrectly mapped, thus resulting in the bizarre shape of Idaho and incorporation of what is now western Montana into all of Montana.
Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can these pictures be uploaded to WikiCommons?[edit]
Hi everyone, I'm from chinese wikipedia. I'm translating the english content into chinese. However, I'm wondering that is it possible for the authors of the maps to upload them to wiki commons so that it's easier to share maps among different languages of wikipedias. Thanks Mike9133 22:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I like the current coloring scheme used (such as Image:US map-Midwest.PNG), I think we should use a better U.S. map to base these region maps on. For instance, Michigan's Lower Peninsula is largely errored around the Saginaw Bay region, as well as the continental 48 states being shown almost "squeezed" into a disproportionate shape. I think we should remake these maps into images derived from Image:BlankMap-USA-states.PNG, or Image:Blank map of the United States.PNG.
Thanks for you suggestion. I'll see what I can do in creating a map per your suggestions, but please note that any change will have to be approved by the project participants. In the mean time, please consider joining WikiProject US regions. -JCarriker 05:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently created the stub at Atlantic Northeast and would like a little bit of feedback on it, if possible, as I'm not sure where else we can go with this topic. Thanks.--Pharos 03:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of making articles on regions that cross international boundaries. I wish the Project here was not called "United States Regions". For example, I live in the Pacific Northwest, which is usually defined as including parts of Canada, except by United States government agencies like the Census Bureau. I'm also unhappy with the way regions seem to be required to conform to state lines within countries. I've put a lot of thought into "regionalization" and whenever I browse wikipedia's region articles I get the urge to rewrite them all! Obviously I won't, but merely suggest that people take political boundary lines way too seriously. And anyway, with differences in state sizes, using them as building blocks for regions makes for some unfortunate side-effects. For example, more than once I've been told that "Texas is not a region". Yet it strikes me as geographically, historically, and culturally as distinct as most regions. You could fit several New Englands into Texas. But because it is a single state, it apparently does not qualify as a region.
Anyway, excuse my little rant. And I like the Atlantic Northeast idea. Perhaps if I get to it I'll start by making a page showing some of the ways the country/continent has been "regionalized" by others. Pfly 08:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiki Project United States just opened. This project aims at improving the collaboration between the many projects and editors working on US related articles; thus increasing the quality of US related articles. Please feel free to join and leave your suggestions on the talk page. Thank you. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friends: thanks for the nice maps, but I would suggest that a color change and/or bolder striping is used so that the differentiated states are visible in the thumbnails. TotoBaggins 00:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How, if at all, does this project relate to the 13 regions which the US government had had in place, I think before Clinton took office? Badbilltucker 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, am not sure what you are talking about, and since it's been a few days since your comment, apparently no one else does either. If there are (or could be) articles on them, then they would be within the scope of this project. Can you point us to something? - Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 18:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of Esperanza was a clear indication that similar beauacracy must be removed from wikipedia. I have therefore removed the "beaucracy" from this project unilaterally, lest it become fodder for the projects deletion.- JCarriker 04:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Government of Maryland has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Cirt (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why -ern endings rather than just their names for the article titles?[edit]
I noticed that the policy is to have region names under articles with -ern endings, such as Midwestern United States, Southern United States, and Northeastern United States, even though those regions are referred to as the Midwest, the South, and the Northeast throughout their respective articles (since those are the common names). It seems they are to reduce confusion, but Midwest redirects to Midwestern United States and in the disambiguation page for The South, the Southern United States page is listed as "The South."
Is there any reasoning behind not simply using the common name for each region as is done with the smaller regions within these areas, such as Pacific Northwest? Of course most of these terms such as the South and the Northeast are too generic by themselves, by why isn't the common name in the title with United States in parentheses for instance? Midwest (United States) and so forth? Just curious. Wangry (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
