Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Dakota

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject South Dakota and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:SDAK

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
South Dakota This page is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota articles

I added highways to every county.--MNAdam 20:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something some other projects have done is not to try to get a collaboration within a set period of time, but rather for the members of the project to decide which articles they consider to be of top importance to the project, and then let them free to try to bring those articles up as they have the opportunity. I wonder if that sort of thing might work here. Given the comparitively small number of articles tagged with the project banner, I think maybe 25 could be the number of articles to shoot for trying to improve the first "round". It might also get a few more people to work on those articles, if the banner indicated their priority. Thoughts? Badbilltucker 01:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we need to get priorities.Spiesr 16:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was Yankton College really the first liberal arts college west of the MISSISSIPPI River? Should that be the MISSOURI River? (The reason I ask is that I can think of one liberal arts college in Iowa that was established in 1846...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.12.216.185 (talk) 16:51, November 18, 2006

Wikified Oahe Dam article. Is it enough to update the stub tag? Also, not sure what to do with the section I labeled "Native American Displacement." I think it's relevant info, I just don't know how to begin. Thoughts? Sculptorjones 02:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I substantially expanded the content for Karl Earl Mundt and removed the "stub" tags from the article, but not the Talk page. Does someone want to review the article now? --orlady 04:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in Milbank, just down the road from Revillo, and "everyone knew" that the origin of the town's name was "Olliver" spelled backwards. Always found this particulary unusual...I can't find a reference online, but would any of you project members at Northern have access to a hard copy reference? (I live in Nebraska.) RJASE1 19:26, 7 December 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 22:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The county articles in South Dakota need work. They aren't using the standard infoboxes:

• {{Infobox U.S. County}} - currently there is just a picture of the county
• {{USCensusPop}} - currently there's a "handmade" box showing populations

I have added "infobox needed" banners to all relevant articles, discussing the need for both of these changes. /Timneu22 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedians, a list of possible South Dakota-related articles found by bot is available at User:AlexNewArtBot/SouthDakotaSearchResult. Colchicum 15:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on a historical table listing members of the South Dakota Senate from 1889 to the present. Anyone interested can take a look at it in my sandbox. The information was pulled from the South Dakota Legislative Research Council and the 2005 South Dakota Blue Book published by the Secretary of State. Note that there is a blank table for the House, as I haven't quite gotten that far yet. I think the article has merrit, as other states have complete or almost-complete lists of their respective state legislatures (see Members of the California State Legislature). I think an article such as this would improve South Dakota articles, particularly since several former state legislators already have articles due to them being later elected governor or congressman. There is also sufficient information to be found in libraries to generate at the least stub-based articles for former state legislators.

My reason for posting this is to check with the group on a preference for where to place table in the main article space. There is already a List of Members of the South Dakota State Senate which is currently a redirect to the South Dakota State Legislature article. My thought is the article could go under Members of the South Dakota State Senate, with the current "List of" redirect moved to point to that new article. I would do the same with Members of the South Dakota State House of Representatives once I find the time to start that project. If no one has any serious objections to this approach, I will make the change.Dcmacnut 03:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One comment on how I have the Senate listing broken down. There are three separate tables to make navigation easier. I selected the yearly cutoffs based on where redistricting resulted in a clean break in senate terms so there would be no overlap.Dcmacnut 03:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Article added.Dcmacnut 19:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have an early 1900s governor of SD whose article is currently at the title Robert S. Vesey, with one s in his surname, but the body text refers to him as Vessey with a double s, and the overwhelming majority of links to his article are also spelled double-s Vessey. As there's now also a Robert Vessey in the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island, could somebody clarify how your former governor's name should be spelled, so that we can make whatever link corrections and/or disambiguations are needed? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked the history and saw that it was moved from Robert S. Vessey by User talk:Kid Baxter who doesn't have any contribs beside moving the article, so I moved it back to match everything else. Spiesr (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm going to dab the Canadian one, then, since a state governor is certainly more important than, and hence gets title precedence over, an MLA. And going by the sole comment on Kid Baxter's talk page, regarding the copyright status of a photo of the Canadian Vessey's caucus mate Cynthia Dunsford, it's pretty clear to me now that the move was a misguided disambiguation attempt. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, 1803 articles are assigned to this project, of which 263, or 14.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All sources for the above South Dakota-related article are off-line, and my on-line research finds nothing to verify this event. The one url cited in the article is not working. The only links found doing a google search are to a piece done by comedian, Stephen Colbert, in 2007. This link (http://conversationstoppers.blogspot.com/2007/10/pumpkin-riots-of-1923.html) suggests the whole thing may have been a spoof/hoax. See also this link (http://www.wikiality.com/Pumpkin_Riots) to a Colbert related site, also suggesting this is a spoof. Someone with access to the cited sources needs to check this out and determine whether this article is a hoax. If so, it should be deleted -- even though it is an entertaining story. Please report any findings to the article's talk page.Cbl62 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

0 articles in Category:South Dakota articles missing geocoordinate data do not have geographic coordinates. Coords are useful for making the article appear on Google Maps & many other mapping services; and they allow our users to click through to see the article subject location on a map. There's a short guide to on how to add geocodes to articles ... it really is very easy to do. I hope you'll take some time to ensure that South Dakota is as well represented as it can be on wikipedia by fixing up the listed articles. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the articles missing coordinates may be NRHP-listed places. It's easy to add coordinates to any NRHP article by adding the NRHP infobox, which comes in with coordinates already. There's a handy NRHP infobox generator tool supported by User:Elkman, at http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php. You just enter "SD" and any part of the name of the place, and it generates a cut-and-paste ready infobox, all filled out with the available info, usually including coordinates and a map image. doncram (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case some of you watchlist this page and not South Dakota, just a note that I'm planning to nominate our flagship article for GA status in a week or so, and I've left a few comments at Talk:South Dakota about a couple of final proposals before the nomination. AlexiusHoratius 14:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now nominated; I don't know that there will be too much work to do when it's reviewed, but we'll see... AlexiusHoratius 09:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:42, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Please see Category_talk:Dakota_Territory#people_cat.3F.Skookum1 (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on assessing the importance of some articles, and I don't know that our current importance criteria is too helpful (Top importance = Articles that are of utmost importance, etc.) I was thinking that it might be an easier task if there were clearer criteria to use. I had always kind of liked what Wikiproject North Dakota used, so I stole it and made it a bit more SD-specific, along with making a few changes based on my own POV and adding a few things. It can currently be seen at my sandbox. (This isn't meant to be that rigid of a guideline or anything, just something to help when doing article assessments. Also, the criteria I've put down so far isn't set in stone, changes are of course possible if someone has a major problem with a particular entry.) I was wondering what other members thought as far as the new criteria and whether or not we should adopt some form of it. AlexiusHoratius 10:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems okay for the most part. Spiesr (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went ahead and added the criteria to the assessment page. I also added a few things today that I had come across when tagging articles, like what to do with politicians and so on. (I figured mid for former governors, senators and congressmen, as well as current major state officials like the cabinet, and low for everyone else, like state legislators.) AlexiusHoratius 14:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that National Register of Historic Places listings in South Dakota was tagged as "low" importance. I think it should be high or mid. It covers approximately 1500 places throughout South Dakota, which comprise most of the most important, preserved houses, archeological sites, public buildings and so on. I could understand rating one of the NRHP-listed places, on its own, as low importance, but not the list of all of them! doncram (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll reassess it as "Mid". I actually had trouble making a decision on that one, as well as most of the other 'list' articles as well. On one hand, they often don't provide much information and few people are going to see them, but on the other, like you said, it could be argued that if many of the, say, river articles are assessed as 'high' or 'mid', then the list of all rivers should at least be 'high'. The day I did the articles beginning with "L", I thought to myself that I may have been going a bit too high with the importance ratings, so I guess I kind of over-compensated when I hit the articles starting with "N". AlexiusHoratius 03:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...But I'm gonna put the recently-created "NRHP sites in X County" lists as "Low". AlexiusHoratius 04:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed u doing that at, for example, National Register of Historic Places listings in Lawrence County, South Dakota. I would hope that the wikiproject would choose to adopt these lists and develop them by seeking photos to add, and adding descriptions, and perhaps creating the individual NRHP articles too. This could be a great way to involve wikipedians from all over the state, as there are NRHP sites everywhere, and each one is individually wikipedia-notable. You say "they often don't provide much information" but I don't agree: they have addresses and coordinates already and fully establish what are the NRHP sites in every county. Also you say "few people are going to see them", well, that is perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy. I am not meaning to argue, and I am not likely to become a member of this wikiproject or visit this state any time soon, but I think they should get at least Mid rating. And be adopted and developed!  :) doncram (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm still thinking "Low" for the county lists, sort of a state-wide importance sort of thing, but I'm willing to change it if other members want to. I hope I didn't sound like I was disparaging your work in this area, we all have our interests or niches, and I think that they are all important in helping build the encyclopedia, I just think that in this case, especially with county-specific things like this, state-wide importance is the most important factor. Anyway, I do think that the lists are useful to people interested in this area, and, like you said, taking photos of these places could be a cool task if someone wants to take it on. AlexiusHoratius 06:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem. Thanks for adding some starter pics to National Register of Historic Places listings in Brookings County, South Dakota! doncram (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The no-importance category is now empty, meaning the bulk of the assessment work is pretty much done. Towards the end, I removed the project banner from around a dozen or so articles, most of them were about ships named for things in the state (although I kept USS South Dakota as I suppose it could still fall under the project's scope) as well as a few people and events in which the article made no mention of the state. I'll probably go back and re-assess a few things - I'm thinking about bringing some of the longer state highways and governors of Dakota Territory up to "Mid". On the whole, though, most of the work is pretty much complete. AlexiusHoratius 19:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that photos of all South Dakota county courthouses be added to their respective article, and possibly the corresponding county seat article. This would serve to beautify the article and serve as a visual representation of the county. Help is needed adding them to their respective county pages by adding the following to the County Infobox template

|ex image = courthouse image filename.jpg

|ex image cap = xxx County Courthouse in xxxx, South Dakota

The following counties do not have courthouse photos. Contributors may want to cross them off once a photo is taken and uploaded. -- Ichabod (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora County Beadle County Bennett County Bon Homme County Brookings County Brown County Brule County Buffalo County Butte County Campbell County Charles Mix County Clark County Clay County Codington County Custer County

Davison County Day County Deuel County Dewey County Edmunds County Fall River County Faulk County Grant County Gregory County Hand County Hanson County Harding County Hughes County Hutchinson County Hyde County

Jackson County Jones County Lake County Lawrence County Lincoln County Lyman County Marshall County McCook County McPherson County Meade County Mellette County Miner County Moody County Pennington County Perkins County

Potter County Roberts County Sanborn County Spink County Stanley County Sully County Tripp County Turner County Union County Walworth County Yankton County Ziebach County

I have reviewed Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on the page for the Journey Museum and Gardens off and on for quite awhile but have come to a point where it needs either a serious overhaul or a massive edit to make it more NPOV and WP Museum Standards compliant to get it to the next step. At this point, I have no idea where to go with it. If someone would be willing to help me out a bit to either edit/fix it or point out what specifically should be done to do so, it would be very helpful. If I could just get someone to put a week's effort into it, I may be able to take it from there (unless of course someone would like to help beyond that :) Fact-of-the-matter (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Ghost Dance/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had some luck in the past few months finding South Dakota-related public domain photos on the Black Hills National Forest photo gallery, and recently started looking through the Library of Congress site and uploaded a few photos. I've looked through some of these but not everything, if any one else wants to check these for pictures there are the links. (For the LoC one, just enter something like "Sioux Falls, South Dakota" or something into the search bar.) Just make sure that they are either specified as having been taken by a government employee or published before 1923 (otherwise they aren't in the public domain - many of the photos on those sites are PD, but some are not.) AlexiusHoratius 02:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was brought to my attention a few days ago that the historical facts presented in the section Controversy in the Mount Rushmore article are questionable. I posted this on the discussion page but since I have not heard anything, I thought perhaps I should post it on one of the project pages associated with the article. Atuuschaaw (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is semi-protected, I have a question about the peaceful takeover and renaming of Rushmore to Crazy Horse Mountain in 1970. According to what I have seen and heard, it was not only AIM members Dennis Banks and Russell Means, but also a group of United Native Americans led by Lehman Brightman. The 1970 NBC news video interviewing Brightman can be viewed here on Quanah Parker Brightman's YouTube channel. Quanah Parker Brightman is the son of Lehman. There are also photos of newspaper clippings posted on Quanah Parker Brightman's Facebook concerning the takeover. If necessary, I think I could acquire copies of the photos of the articles. Please let me know what the next step should be. Thanks! Atuuschaaw (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to put in South Dakota for a FA candidate. What do you all think? Renaissancee (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'll defend that article's status as a GA any day of the week, it's still a long way off for an FA. Both the writing and sourcing are decent but not great, and they'd have to be great, as the phrase anal retentive doesn't even begin to describe the average FA reviewer. (I'm serious, it's ridiculous. I've never encountered anything that approaches the level of nitpickery at FAC.) Virginia is a recent FA and a good example to hold up against SD. I'm not saying don't work on it, I'm just saying know that it would be a monumental task to take on. An easier (and arguably more useful for our dear readers) task may be to take up another article of major importance to the state, such as Sioux Falls, Black Hills, or Government of South Dakota and expand and improve those to get them towards decent GA material. I started Culture of South Dakota a month or two ago and that could use a lot of expansion. Also, a lot of high or top importance South Dakota articles are really lacking - for example I'd give Sioux Falls about a C and the other cities Ds or Fs right now. AlexiusHoratius 03:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of converting List of high schools in South Dakota to a sortable table, with columns for name, type, city, county, and mascot. The code used is simple enough if anyone wants to lend a hand. Also, I only know a few of the mascots off the top of my head, so if anyone could help add more of these go ahead. AlexiusHoratius 10:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject South Dakota/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject South Dakota/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject South Dakota/Requested images. It's basically a page for listing and discussing the really important stuff related to South Dakota that is still missing a photo. Feel free to add to it or amend it if you want. AlexiusHoratius 07:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, {{South Dakota portal}} has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been replaced by {{portal|South Dakota}}. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Mount Rushmore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list is largely complete, but has bits and pieces of information missing, and needs images filled in - any help in completing it would be much appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the South Dakota articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 20:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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) 19:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:United States is a current featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. -- RichardF (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the recent additions to the Bill Janklow entry seem to be taking it in a somewhat negative direction. Wikipedia's objective is to present a balanced, fair, neutral perspective, with additions made being backed up by verifiable references, valid and verifiable images and so forth. This becomes all the more important when the subject is a well-known public figure and when the nature of the additions is contentious, in dispute or, in some cases, incomplete. I ask and encourage editors to take a look at this entry, assist in cleaning it up, and assist in assessing the neutrality and accuracy of additions and references. Thank you! SWMNPoliSciProject (talk) 02:31 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's summertime and a lot of people are probably planning trips to the Hills or other places around SD. Just a reminder that a lot of fairly important articles on subjects out there still lack good photos - stuff like main street/infobox photos for larger (or smaller) towns (for example Hill City and Spearfish, among many others. The lack of a good pic of Bear Butte is another obvious one.) Also, the current infobox photo for RC isn't bad but isn't great either. Pretty much anything with an article - rivers, towns, mountains, important buildings, etc. Let me know if people have questions about uploading photos here or onto commons. AlexiusHoratius 15:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The floods article is need of some local expertise. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.Americasroof (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many km2 were in Great Sioux Reservation in 1868?--Kaiyr (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find an area given anywhere - as they said on the reference desk you could get a rough estimate by eyeballing it - or if you want to add up the area of all counties in West River and add a bit for the piece in Nebraska, I suppose that would give you an estimate that's a bit more exact. AlexiusHoratius 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone recently suggested that this project may be inactive or semi-active and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there has been no significant activity on either the main project page or the talk page since 2010. Please feel free to contact me if there are any comments or questions. --Kumioko (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, I'm rather opposed to this proposal for several reasons, some of which appear on WikiProject Montana's talk page. We don't have too many members, but I think we get along alright. Some of the activity I've noticed, such as the West Virginia icon being 'demoted' in favor of a huge US icon on the talk page of a West Virginia state highway, makes it seem as though the scope of WP:US is a bit too wide. While it's not a perfect example, WikiProject:European Union focuses on articles highly related to the European Union; it doesn't put a huge tag on the talk page of every village in Romania. AlexiusHoratius 06:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I'll keep watching the page but Ill tentatively strike this one from the list of projects that want to be supported. On the West Virginia comment though the intent isn't to demote anything or to take over a project. Its simply a matter of trying to take care of the articles. In the next coupe months I think you will see a lot more effort in article improvement and communication rather than the infrastructure work that's been going on the last couple months. The icons were a problem I agree and they are much much bigger now and only slightly smaller than the WPUS logo. BTW this is only the most visible thing. Whats a little harder to see is all the work being done to build up the categories, the bots running through the articles doing various different things, adding things like to do lists, article alerts, automating the recognized/featured content across projects, etc. Take care and happy editing. --Kumioko (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this project does not wish to be supported by WikiProject United States I'll leave these suggestions here if anyone wants to take them for action.

1. I found quite a bit of content containing South Dakota or , SD that isn't tagged for the project yet. I created a page for that here. There are quite a few redirects but there are a lot of articles as well. There may also be a few false positives but it looks pretty clean.
2. The project doesn't currently track things like needing infoboxes, references or articles containing to do lists, etc. This will allow editors interested in that topic area to more easily focus there efforts.
3. I also noticed that some content types (like FM) are not supported by the WikiProject template. That may be good as well.
4. I created a subpage for the project to automate updates of Quality content using JL-bot. All you have to do is place it on the project page and the bot will automatically display the Quality content you want. The subpage can be found here.
5. The project has a to do list here but its currently not linked to the WikiProject Banner template and I also recommend that's done.
6. The project is currently receiving article alerts here but I couldn't find a link to that on the project page and that would also be useful for visibility of the projects content that is submitted for deletion or comment.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments or need help with implementing these items if desired. --Kumioko (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:South Dakota will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in South Dakota's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join GLAM-Wiki US

Hello! This WikiProject aligns closely with the work of the GLAM-Wiki initiative (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums), a global community of volunteers who assist cultural institutions with sharing resources with Wikimedia. GLAM-Wiki US is a new community initiative focused on organizing cultural collaborations within the United States. GLAM organizations are diverse and span numerous topics, from libraries and art museums to science centers and historic sites. We currently have a backlog of interested institutions- and we need your help! Are you interested in helping with current or future GLAM projects? Join→ Online Volunteers We hope you'll join the growing GLAM-Wiki community in the US. Thank you! -Lori Phillips (Talk), US Cultural Partnerships Coordinator For more information visit→ The GLAM:US portal or GLAM-Wiki on Outreach

What were its counties between the 1912 and 1982 elections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.242.9 (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I searched around on the internet a bit and couldn't find anything exact. (South Dakota's 1st congressional district has some clues, but isn't specific.) I know there is a really large atlas at many libraries that basically has maps for every congressional election. There's one at a library near me, I just don't have it in front of me. AlexiusHoratius 16:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides my recent edits to the members list, this WikiProject's main page has been inactive since January. It's quite sad to see this WikiProject in such disrepair, especially since South Dakota is one of the most underrated states in the US. I noted that it was proposed that this WikiProject be supported by WikiProject US, and the proposal failed. I'm still new to Wikipedia and newer still to its community, but I suspect that if WP:US was a parent of WP:SD, it would bring in many more editors to aid in the development of SD articles. I have no record of the recent work that has been done on South Dakota articles, but I suspect that it's low. The state of some of the highest-priority articles in this WikiProject is appalling, to say the least. While we are a tight-knit community, and it is difficult to find sources out-of-state (especially when relying on a Google search), perhaps some more prospective editors would be willing to get this project back on its feet. Editors in nearby states also might have access to physical resources on South Dakota. South Dakota has a very rich history (which is what I deal with) and a unique culture that is often ignored. At the very least, a to-do list needs to be produced. Being a newbie, I haven't the foggiest idea how one would start a proposal to have WP:US support WP:SD. Thoughts? TCMemoire (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contact the US project and request that the group be "merged" into it. In circumstances like this, that would generally just mean the US banner would be used for SD articles. This state, like a lot of others, including Nevada and some others, has a bit of a problem in terms of lack of readily available sources to outsiders. If someone were able to get together a good list of reference sources on the state, and possibly those sources listed as among the best or most useful sources in those reference sources, that might be a good way to start in working on the content. Although not a listed member of this project, I would myself probably support such a merger, to the degree of using the common banner at least, because that also adds those articles to the US project's assessment list, which is probably more widely seen than this project's separate list. John Carter (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. Does that mean that, like WP:Nebraska, the US project would be listed first and then would say "This article is supported by WikiProject Nebraska"? (For example, what is shown on the Omaha, Nebraska talk page.) The list of references is an excellent idea; I will try to start one on the main page of WP:SD (unless there is a better spot for it), though I won't be able to complete it by myself. Thank you for your input! TCMemoire (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in Black Hills-related articles, navboxes, categories, and lists. While Category:Black Hills covers much of this topic, there hasn't been an effort to curate all things Hills-related into navboxes or other formats that help the casual reader explore and discover all of the information about this region. Black Hills-centric material helps readers in a way county-focused or protected-area-focused structures do not. The current status of my work is here:

Wikipedia:WikiProject_South_Dakota/Black_Hills

The ultimate goal is Black Hills as featured article with A-level supporting articles. Runner1928 (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in the Americas may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss South Dakota. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! I was curious if anyone else thought it might be a good idea to make a (nonbinding) guideline on how all the individual US state WikiProjects should organize themselves, to help standardize them. I originally put this suggestion in the WikiProject United States talk page, so feel free to look there if you're interested. It's pretty empty though; basically all they said was to see what each of the individual projects thought about it. Please tell me if you have any concerns with this idea; hopefully we can find a way for everyone to love it! Also, I'm new at making proposals, so please forgive me if I do anything silly. :) Hope that you like this idea! JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have ran across several issues that affect multiple articles concerning South Dakota and there is almost no coverage in the relevant articles. In fact I have ran across only one that contained information that should be found in a comprehensive encyclopedia.

• The Cheyenne River, or part of it, has arsenic issues: "Arsenic Pollution On The Cheyenne River Reservation"
• Uranium concerns: There are past and present concerns over uranium mining, abandoned uranium mines (AUM's), and possible wide-spread contamination or radioactive pollution in the environment. There is some content in the article Uranium mining in the United States#South Dakota with mention of the Black Hills and anti-nuclear activists. Aside from possible contamination there is the fact that restoration of strip mining areas were not provided for during mining. Mount Rushmore reportedly has 169 AUMs within a 50 mile range: Uranium Contamination Across America: Holding the Silent Killers Of Environmental Destruction Accountable

References:

• The Toxic Threat Of Abandoned Uranium Mines In The United States

• Study of Abandoned Uranium Mining Impacts
• "Clean up the Mines"
• Clean Water Alliance
• There are future plans for in situ uranium mining by Powertech (USA)
• Uranium Mining Poisons Native Americans

These are issues with much controversy, and almost no coverage withing Wikipedia. I just briefly looked concerning South Dakota, and the references are staggering, which would suggest there needs to be coverage and possibly "Controversy" sections in relevant articles. I suppose, unless it is not really a problem just "conspiracy theories", that it is important. If I missed content someone please point it out to me. It seems we have a lot of great advertisement articles, like the good article South Dakota, but there needs to be coverage on the "not-so-nice things in the world to keep us informed. Otr500 (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Dakota Sports Hall of Fame inductees, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Dakota Hall of Fame, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts have been created for dozens of missing South Dakota Supreme Court Justices at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States state judges and justices#South Dakota. Please feel free to complete these drafts and move them to mainspace. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more states than they might otherwise work on. If there's the interest I will start 1000 State Challenges like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of states regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for the US and your specialist/home state like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every state, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any state sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thankyou.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the upcoming "420 collaboration", which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017! The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion. WikiProject South Dakota participants may be particularly interested in the following: Cannabis in South Dakota. For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject South Dakota/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota.

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 Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, 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 WikiProject South Dakota, 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)

Kyle, SD is in Shannon County. There is no Oglala Lakota County in South Dakota.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.200.242 (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline456 and I could use some eyes on the new article Paul Erickson, where we've run into a whole bunch of neutrality-related issues. This is an article about a South Dakota Republican operative who's received a lot of news coverage recently in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New South Dakota userbox templates are now available at Template:User WP South Dakota and Template:User WP United States. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 23:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC on moving the year from the end to the start of article titles (e.g. South African general election, 2019 to 2019 South African general election) has been reopened for further comment, including on whether a bot could be used move the articles if it closed in favour of the change: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. Cheers, Number 57 15:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I am a librarian at Dakota State!

Over the month of April, students at Dakota State will be editing wikipedia to help update the Dakota State University and Karl E. Mundt pages.

Later in the month, we will be adding Indigenous artists and woman coders from South Dakota to Wikipedia.

Please contact me if you have any suggestions or would like to participate in the edit-a-thon.

Thanks a million!

-Vaughan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaughancello91 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Portal:South Dakota, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:South Dakota and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:South Dakota during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new article about the documentary film, Women of the White Buffalo. Let me know if you want to help with further research, Right cite (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts have been seeded for the following missing Justices of the South Dakota Supreme Court (many of whom also held other state offices, or played other parts in the history of the state):

Any help getting these finished and moved into mainspace would be appreciated. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i am not an archeologist, but am developing about a lot of sites (in South Dakota) which are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. I have been encountering problems/gaps in trying to link to wider archeological topics. Have raised some specific and general questions, would welcome comments, at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Archeological sites on NRHP in South Dakota. Thanks for considering! --Doncram (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

and turns it into something like

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

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

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

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

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

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

Wikipedia users in the United States Mountain West and High Plains will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 14, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the history, articles, or photographs of our region is encouraged to attend.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great Storm of 1975 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please someone create a page, there is tons of history! [1]. Jidanni (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move request at Talk:Black Hills land claim that may be of interest to members of this project. Larataguera (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]