Talk:Rhode Island

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleRhode Island was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 16, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 9, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 18, 2011.
Current status: Delisted good article

Page Preview Not Right[edit]

So I discovered that the page preview of this article was shown 41.7°N 71.5°W instead of its casual preview. I don't know how to fix this, so i'm letting y'all know about this issue. Spookycheems (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure where you are looking, but I did look through the Wikidata page and saw different lat/lon pairs. One was for the geographic center (where the population exactly balances) of the state, another was a little further north (and the one you illustrated which probably allows for the best sizing of the state through various zoom levels), and the last was the most northern point (although that one looked like it was in Massachusetts and not Rhode Island). Not sure if this is an issue or not considering the geographic centers don't necessarily make the best mapping points. Inomyabcs (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by WallAdhesion. Thanks for reporting. Inomyabcs (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clear the area[edit]

1. In the legend at top, you tell me how 1,055 sq. mi. land area plus 169 sq. mi. water adds up to 1,545 sq. mi. total.

2. In the text you state a third figure, 1,214 sq. mi. What does that mean?

3. 1,055 plus 169 equals 1,224, not 1,214. Is that what you mean?

Fix this mess.

Jimlue (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! The top infobox used to say 1055 + 169 = 1214, cited to the website of the RI Secretary of State website. That same ref is used for the still-present 1214 value you saw as #2. But that source actually says 1045 not 1055, seems like a simple transcription typo, as you note in #3. But then in March 2023 it was changed to 1055 + 169 = 1545, cited to the US Census website, which makes no sense. That source actually says 1034 + 511 = 1545, which is sensible but the article does not look like a simple transcription mistake from that. Easy enough to get them all consistent and matching a source. But which source is more reliable? DMacks (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States pinged for assistance. DMacks (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The US census bureau says this
https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-files/2010/geo/state-area.html Mickey J. Hartford (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also fixed land area to make it make more sense Mickey J. Hartford (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

removal of template[edit]

In edit of 4 September 2023, the editor removed {{sources exist}} offering only the explanation that numerous sources obviously exist, which hardly seems to explain why the editor would have removed this. To be clear, I would just like to establish that removal of the template was inappropriate, Fabrickator (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate further on this, here is an extract from the {{sources exist}} documentation:
This template indicates that an article needs additional inline citations. It is similar to {{unreferenced}} or {{more citations needed}}, but also indicates that an editor has searched for reliable sources on the topic and determined that sufficient sources exist and that it is therefore notable. ... Use this template if the article has no references or if there are some, but insufficient, inline citations to support the material currently in the article, and you or another editor have determined that there are sufficient sources available to be cited..
Based on that, I am re-inserting the {{sources exist}} template. Fabrickator (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabrickator: This is not an appropriate template to use on an article that already had 200 citations. GMGtalk 20:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: The template documentation certainly mentions its use in conjunction with notability, but nothing indicates that this is restrictive rather than permissive. Making an assertion that sources exist for a particular claim alerts editors to the existence of an opportunity to improve the article.
While one could adjust the documentation to actually state that this template is restricted to addressing the issue of notability, it's hard to overcome the literal interpretation of {{sources exist}}. Nevertheless, if this template were really being used inappropriately, then it would be much more palatable to replace it with an appropriate template, possibly relying on the assertion that suitable sources actually exist, rather than simply deleting it. Fabrickator (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabrickator: Using that logic, it should be on nearly every article: Dog (sources exist), Tree (sources exist), Paul Rudd (sources exist), Diabetes (sources exist). This is a WP:COMMONSENSE issue. Nobody is questioning, or needs to be notified that there are additional sources available. GMGtalk 22:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: It's not reasonable to expect editors to be familiar with every fine point of every "tag" that might be placed on an article. If the intention of this template is that it be restricted to notability issues (and hopefully the docs would be updated to make this clear), that's fine. I presume that the person who inserted this was indicating that they had enough interest in the claim to bother to insert the template, that there was no existing citation to support the claim, and they had actually verified the existence of at least one source. If it bothers you because you think they're using the wrong template, then I would suggest replacing it with the appropriate template or templates which hopefully convey the intended meaning. Fabrickator (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabrickator: I presume ...Yeah...you do. GMGtalk 23:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're utterly misusing the template, which would be clear to you if you read it. It should have been immediately clear to you that a giant orange maintenance template does not go in the middle of text. Wikipedia's policy on the burden of proof for statements is quite clear. If you wish for the statement to remain in the article, you will need to cite it. It is not our responsibility to do so for you. The use of a citation needed tag is actually what "alerts editors to the existence of an opportunity to improve the article", and I have taken the liberty of adding one for you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The body-text actually does even include the citation "Roger Williams, letter to John Winthrop in June 1638", which would be a decent {{Cite letter}} missing only the letter's subject if there is one. So {{full citation needed}} would be more appropriate. I added a link to the letter itself to WP:V the actual quote. DMacks (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I gave the wrong link, it should have been revision of 11:48, 4 September 2023. User:DMacks has graciously provided a source which I have put into standard format. The improvement of the article can at least be partially attributed to User:Sativa Inflorescence, who inserted the {{sources exist}} markup, notwithstanding the differing interpretations of the intent of this template. Fabrickator (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Land area[edit]

I don't found any areas in this article. 2001:448A:11A3:1039:FDF7:E9C:8899:6659 (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is contradictory information in various sources. See #Clear the area above. DMacks (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know that's it. I know that it has already mentioned above. 2001:448A:11A3:1039:FDF7:E9C:8899:6659 (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

actually useful map of the state?[edit]

The map in the infobox "zooms" in on the state, but details remain pitifully small. Scrolling down, there really isn't any useful map giving overview of the state.

Compare the map in the Aquidneck Island article. Immediately much more useful scale, though perhaps lacking even the bare amount of details (since its only purpose is to compare the island to the state).

CapnZapp (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple maps of the state in the geography section, including a map showing highways and cities, and a topo map. Perhaps a newer instance of the political map would be useful. The infobox map is the same type used for every single U.S. state. Rhode Island is the smallest state, of course it will not show up large on that map. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

0.0% population growth from 1970 to 1980 can't be true[edit]

I found this in the population growth chart:

1970 946,725 10.1%
1980 947,154 0.0%

This can't be right. There is a definite population growth of about 400 in the 10-year difference. It's a very small change in this context, but can't be 0.0% is impossible. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so I don't know how to edit tables. Can somebody fix this? Thanks. TheFluffyProto (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)TheFluffyProto[reply]

I did the math and that is a 0.045% change in population. That rounds to 0.0% with the number of significant figures used in the table. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]