Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 22
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Mark your calendars for Wiki Loves Libraries 2013
|
WIKI LOVES LIBRARIES 2013! You're invited to attend the upcoming "Wiki Loves Libraries" edit-athon. The event will be held from 1–4pm on Sunday, October 13, 2013 at the Portland Art Museum's Crumpacker Family Library, located on the second floor of the Museum's Mark Building (formerly the Masonic Temple). The edit-athon will focus on the local arts community (but you can work on other topics as well!). It will also kick off the Oregon Arts Project, an on-wiki initiative to improve coverage of the arts in Oregon. Details and signup here! |
|---|
WikiProject Oregon members, if you are able to attend, this edit-athon is being held at the Portland Art Museum. Our hope is that attendees will be interested in writing about the local arts community, but it's not required. It would be great if experienced editors could come write, meet other Wikipedians and perhaps even help some of the "newbies". Feel free to bring interested friends! Hope to see you there. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, it sounds like there is quite a bit of internal (referring to the Museum) interest in this event, so hopefully some Museum staff, volunteers and patrons will attend. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Pleased to see the Regional Arts & Culture Council promoting the Wikipedia edit-athon on their website as a workshop:
"Teamster Boss: Dave Beck and Labor Racketeering in Oregon"
Monday, October 7, 2013 at Mission Theater:
Thought some project members might find this interesting. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Anyone have a picture to add to the article? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Right now I think it needs some sources that establish it as notable outside of the glowing travel/restaurant reviews. When I read the article I really assumed it was spam from the business itself, with the references to its weekend music schedule, delicious desserts, being cash-only and so forth, until I saw it was written by you, AB. Can we find some more about the history/notability besides its current incarnation? --Esprqii (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Noted. I was careful not to make the wording too promotional, but maybe I failed. I was incorporating text only taken from other sources (I am not even sure the business has an official website). I posted other links on the talk page, including a fairly helpful one by The Oregonian. Please feel free to amend/improve the article or post additional comments here. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- BTW, I have not really come across anything "negative" about the coffeehouse, apart from the slow service, which I included in the Reception section. I hope to learn more information about when the business was established, when the house was built + details of the former owner(s), etc. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, AB, but I have to say my reaction to this article was similar to that expressed above by Esprqii. I'm not convinced this subject is even worthy of an encyclopedia article (i.e. notable). And, that reaction was even stronger when I saw Otto's Sausage Kitchen, which you created a few months ago. I initially considered tagging that one for major clean-up or possible deletion, until I saw that you were its author. It was only out of respect for your prolific and generally excellent contributions to many Oregon-related articles that I decided against doing that (and added just one tag), but that wasn't really a very good rationale for my decision. This is not just about being neutral and balanced. SJ Morg (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, both, for your feedback. I am not disputing anything here. If the writing comes across as promotional, we should find a way to improve the articles. I constructed these two articles the same way I construct any other... I try to extract as much information as possible from sources I believe to be reliable. I tend to include a little more detail than is necessary, but this gets trimmed down during the peer review and GA review processes. (Often I write with GA status in mind, and I would rather have too much to trim down than have to go back through the sources for expansion.) These Reception sections are no different than the Reception sections I write for albums or works of art (and I have written many). I thought I had the process down, but perhaps things are a bit different for companies? I would include negative reception if I came across it in my research. I do, however, believe that both meet notability thresholds. Might either of you be able to point out specific concerns that need to be addressed, or even take a stab at improving one or both of the articles? In both cases, additional sources have been posted on the talk page. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I have no interest in spending any time on this. Was just offering my two cents. SJ Morg (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- No prob. Until other editor's add their perspective, I will continue working on the article in good faith. Perhaps I will get detailed feedback during the peer review and GA review. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I have no interest in spending any time on this. Was just offering my two cents. SJ Morg (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, both, for your feedback. I am not disputing anything here. If the writing comes across as promotional, we should find a way to improve the articles. I constructed these two articles the same way I construct any other... I try to extract as much information as possible from sources I believe to be reliable. I tend to include a little more detail than is necessary, but this gets trimmed down during the peer review and GA review processes. (Often I write with GA status in mind, and I would rather have too much to trim down than have to go back through the sources for expansion.) These Reception sections are no different than the Reception sections I write for albums or works of art (and I have written many). I thought I had the process down, but perhaps things are a bit different for companies? I would include negative reception if I came across it in my research. I do, however, believe that both meet notability thresholds. Might either of you be able to point out specific concerns that need to be addressed, or even take a stab at improving one or both of the articles? In both cases, additional sources have been posted on the talk page. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, AB, but I have to say my reaction to this article was similar to that expressed above by Esprqii. I'm not convinced this subject is even worthy of an encyclopedia article (i.e. notable). And, that reaction was even stronger when I saw Otto's Sausage Kitchen, which you created a few months ago. I initially considered tagging that one for major clean-up or possible deletion, until I saw that you were its author. It was only out of respect for your prolific and generally excellent contributions to many Oregon-related articles that I decided against doing that (and added just one tag), but that wasn't really a very good rationale for my decision. This is not just about being neutral and balanced. SJ Morg (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Need an admin
Done —EncMstr (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Can someone move Lancaster Mall (Salem, Oregon) back to Lancaster Mall? We don't dab until there is more than one existing Wikipedia article, and this is the only one so far. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Edit-a-thon coverage
Hey, the edit-a-thon got an article in the Mercury's blog, check it out: http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2013/10/11/wikipedia-edit-a-thon-aims-to-improve-crowd-sourced-local-arts-coverage. Tdslk (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, I must thank Alison for doing such a great job. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Post-event article, which should be printed in the Mercury's upcoming Arts section: http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/oregon-arts-project/Content?oid=10779486 --Another Believer (Talk) 17:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations -- this is some excellent coverage, and should help raise the profile of Wikipedia in Portland! -Pete (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Bitar Mansion has been added to the National Register of Historic Places as the Harry A. Green House. This will settle any concerns about the article's notability (see talk page for discussion). --Another Believer (Talk) 22:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Time to mothball COTW
Although it gives me no pleasure to do it, I feel compelled to recommend removing the Collaboration of the Week template from the WikiProject Oregon template that appears on all WP:ORE-tagged talk pages, because COTW has really not been active for at least 2-3 years. The current COTW subject was chosen 55 weeks ago, and the previous pair 34 weeks before that. Worse, most of the last few designated articles did not actually receive any significant collaborative editing as a result of the designation. Citing just one example, as long ago as February 2011, Oregon Convention Center was a Collaboration of the "Week" for almost three months and during that time the article received a total of one edit, and yet its talk page proudly displays a template proclaiming that it was a COTW during that period. COTW-Oregon was too dependent on one particular project member (who did a great job publicizing it in its heyday but who made a very reasonable choice to scale back his WP editing in 2010), and WikiProject Oregon also effectively lost several editors who were very prolific in the late 2000s (some of them scaled back heavily on their editing, some moved to [gasp!] California). But I won't mention names, because I don't want any criticism to be inferred. Sure, collaboration still takes place at WikiProject Oregon, but it's spontaneous, never because of a COTW designation anymore.
It's sad, but undeniable, that COTW has run its course, at least for now. It was great in its day, but it's been comatose for years, and it's time we admitted that. Leaving it in the template in the hope that it might attract new project members to become more active is a nice thought, but that's only a reasonable argument for a few months, maybe a year. It's already been much longer than that without any activity, and at this point, leaving COTW in the template that appears on thousands of article talk pages just reflects badly on WikiProject Oregon, and in my view, borders on dishonest – strongly implying that organized and regular collaboration is taking place when in reality it is not. SJ Morg (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable to me. But maybe we could change it to "Current collaboration" and use it to highlight where the current ad-hoc collaboration is taking place. Seems like it might be a better reflection of what actually happens and at the same time attract new editors to where the action (currently) is, which might encourage greater involvement. YBG (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, and I like YBG's proposal. It is kind of silly to leave it on the template tag when no collaboration is taking place. Another idea might be to update it with the previous week's most popularly-edited article (from the recent changes list). I don't know if there is an easy way to tally it by week. --Esprqii (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sad, but true. The COTW was one of the things that attracted me to WP Oregon. I agree with SJ's suggestion, unfortunately. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- SJ Morg, thanks for bringing this up. You're right that we should make some kind of change. I'd like to point out something you might not all be aware of: WikiProject Oregon was one of the main subjects of research into online collaboration by a research team out of Carnegie Mellon a few years back. Largely based on an in-depth exploration of our COTW program, they reached conclusions like this:
| “ | We examined the capability of volunteer groups performing collective tasks in the context of Wikipedia. We investigated self-managing groups – Wikiprojects, and a group-goal setting mechanism-- “collaboration of the week”—that direct members to work on specified tasks. Our data contained 26 Wikiprojects and 618 collaborations. We found that group members choose to work on tasks highlighted by the group goals more than do non-members; furthermore, by working on these specific tasks, group members increase their general group-related contributions and citizenship behaviors. Our results indicate that group self-governance is a powerful and effective way to address the control/motivation paradox in online volunteer organizations.[1] | ” |
- It seems to me that we (and by "we," I mean mostly Aboutmovies, who started and stewarded the program through most of its active days) designed (or perhaps blundered into) one of the most effective ways to help new and experienced Wikipedians work together in an ongoing way. I would like to see some kind of effort made to revive it, perhaps along the lines of what YBG suggests -- I think we've done something important, and should keep doing it. -Pete (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- What if we amended the paragraph that begins with " This template is within the scope of" to somehow include this page, rather than a (non-active) designated article? I loved when COTW was active and wish for it to make a come back, but until that happens I agree that we might want to remove the "current collaboration" text for the reasons SJ mentioned. We should not be drawing attention to something that is inactive. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- It seems to me that we (and by "we," I mean mostly Aboutmovies, who started and stewarded the program through most of its active days) designed (or perhaps blundered into) one of the most effective ways to help new and experienced Wikipedians work together in an ongoing way. I would like to see some kind of effort made to revive it, perhaps along the lines of what YBG suggests -- I think we've done something important, and should keep doing it. -Pete (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Alas, I agree with some change to make the message more relevant, even if it is to remove it completely.
- For several years, I have intended to update it every couple weeks myself, but have been pretty busy IRL for some time and that does not appear to be changing anytime soon. All I seem to manage lately is reverting vandalism, blocking vandals, and doing light drive-by edits here and there. —EncMstr (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Although I had not seen the info. Pete provided on the Carnegie Mellon study, I'm not surprised that the research team found such value in organized collaboration within WikiProjects. The problem – well, the biggest problem – is that too many of us are too busy in real life, as EncMstr mentioned, for there to be anyone willing to take on the kind of leadership role that Aboutmovies did for organized collaboration here. I cannot fault anyone for that, but without some capable person willing to make that sort of ongoing time commitment, I don't know whether it's realistic to think that something similar to COTW can be created and sustained. But I'll leave that subject to other people to discuss further. I don't like the idea of automatically having the template show the most-edited article of the past week (even if doing so is technically possible), because number-of-edits figures can be very misleading, and also because setting up an auto-generated feature like that (appearing on thousands of talk pages) would inevitably affect certain people's editing in negative ways, intended solely to boost a given article's number of edits. If someone does manage to devise a good successor to COTW, it should definitely be something that encourages improvement of existing articles, in my opinion. I'm amazed (and disheartened) by how many Oregon topics have articles that are extremely underdeveloped or poor-quality (very short, poorly referenced, etc.). Some editors appear to be mostly interested only in creating new articles, while there are already hundreds of existing articles – on relatively important subjects – that need improvement and would benefit greatly from even just a little bit of attention. However, I'm not willing to take on any kind of leadership role here myself (and my work schedule would make it impractical even if I were willing), so I won't criticize others for not doing so. SJ Morg (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. (explosions and gunfire in the background) Aboutmovies dives into a foxhole as carnage permeates the landscape. Insert catchphrase, fade to black, roll credits. The show is over.
- In other words, COTW as it was will likely not come back. Wikipedia is too different, and not enough dedicated editors are around anymore (paraphrasing the above and my own observations). But, if people are willing to chip in, then we could break things down a bit and "collaborate" on some of the components. Though perhaps demote it to Collaboration of the Month (Club) - the first rule is we don't talk about COTMC. I don't remember any of the other rules. Anyway, we could break it down as such:
- One person selects the new selections and updates the main template
- One person handles the "history" part on the COTW page (keep track of what was when)
- One person handles updating the templates on the selected articles (change from the current one, add current one to the new articles)
- One person checks the edit histories of the past month's selection and chooses an award winner for the thumbs up award
- One person sends out the ads to promote the new selection (perhaps the old idea of a bot, or perhaps some other semi-automated process)
- So, if there is some interest, I can take on the first part, but that's all I think I have time to commit for. Each of these is probably less than 5 minutes of time, assuming the notification gets semi-automated (if that's still legal as I hear da govmt trying to take that stuff away). Or we can fade to black. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Although I had not seen the info. Pete provided on the Carnegie Mellon study, I'm not surprised that the research team found such value in organized collaboration within WikiProjects. The problem – well, the biggest problem – is that too many of us are too busy in real life, as EncMstr mentioned, for there to be anyone willing to take on the kind of leadership role that Aboutmovies did for organized collaboration here. I cannot fault anyone for that, but without some capable person willing to make that sort of ongoing time commitment, I don't know whether it's realistic to think that something similar to COTW can be created and sustained. But I'll leave that subject to other people to discuss further. I don't like the idea of automatically having the template show the most-edited article of the past week (even if doing so is technically possible), because number-of-edits figures can be very misleading, and also because setting up an auto-generated feature like that (appearing on thousands of talk pages) would inevitably affect certain people's editing in negative ways, intended solely to boost a given article's number of edits. If someone does manage to devise a good successor to COTW, it should definitely be something that encourages improvement of existing articles, in my opinion. I'm amazed (and disheartened) by how many Oregon topics have articles that are extremely underdeveloped or poor-quality (very short, poorly referenced, etc.). Some editors appear to be mostly interested only in creating new articles, while there are already hundreds of existing articles – on relatively important subjects – that need improvement and would benefit greatly from even just a little bit of attention. However, I'm not willing to take on any kind of leadership role here myself (and my work schedule would make it impractical even if I were willing), so I won't criticize others for not doing so. SJ Morg (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, so…that's what i'm talkin' 'bout. I agree that "month" makes more sense than "week" at this point. I am happy to take #2 and #4. BUT this will only work if there's a few of you guys willing to take a crack at this stuff from time to time! We can bring others in, but we gotta have a few experienced folks working on itf, leading the way. Is that you?? Yes, why yes, I think it is. Let's do this. -Pete (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
So where do we stand on this? I would like to coordinate with Aboutmovies to see about reviving the regular collaborations, as a rotating monthly project. I'm happy to put some regular effort into keeping it going. Anybody else want to join in on the planning or coordination? -Pete (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Happy to help with content creation. I'd offer to deliver notifications, but I already spend a lot of time doing that for edit-athons and other local events. If only I were more familiar with bots and other automated processes. Any ideas? --Another Believer (Talk) 19:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, between Pete and me we have 3 of 5 tasks covered. IF someone wants to do #3, we could start back up and for now skip the notifications. Maybe someone can bug User:Tedder to set up an automated process? Meanwhile if we start back-up, I could simply post a note here as a stop gap measure. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would be glad to do #3, if you could show me what exactly that would look like. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Jsayre, if you haven't already, take a look at the templates on WP:ORE/COTW -- that should give you a pretty good idea what needs to be maintained, and I'm sure either Aboutmovies or I could talk you through it with more specific instructions.
- As for automating, I expect to have an opportunity to hold Tedder hostage in a small enclosed space in a month or so, and try to leverege that toward our benefit…mwaahahahaa!
- Finally, a side note -- I am currently putting together a COTW program for WikiProject Open (see here: WP:OPEN/COTW) and am modeling it off what Aboutmovies did here. So I am very intersted in streamlining and documenting these processes right now -- it would be cool to put together an easy recipe for other WikiProjects to follow as well! -Pete (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would be glad to do #3, if you could show me what exactly that would look like. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, between Pete and me we have 3 of 5 tasks covered. IF someone wants to do #3, we could start back up and for now skip the notifications. Maybe someone can bug User:Tedder to set up an automated process? Meanwhile if we start back-up, I could simply post a note here as a stop gap measure. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Got it. Thanks, Pete. I can certainly take care of those tasks. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, with our small, rag-tag crew I'll set a re-launch date of Nov. 1 for the SS COTM. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Got it. Thanks, Pete. I can certainly take care of those tasks. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hart Lake
Since several people were involved in the Hart Lake article discussion above, I thought I would just point out here that the Good article review is being transcluded above, just below the initial discussion. Thanks, --Another Believer (Talk) 19:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article has been
promoted--congrats (and thank you) to all of you who assisted with the process. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Multnomah County records move online
This is pretty cool. Perhaps we should approach them about releasing some content under a free license? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Fanno Creek to be WP:TFA
Whoa! Did anyone know that Fanno Creek will be the featured article (Today's Featured Article), apparently on November 12th? I just noticed it was protected in preparation. Nice work Finetooth (talk · contribs)! —EncMstr (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Like --Another Believer (Talk) 19:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I did not know. Finetooth (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Another pleasant surprise, I guess. Great work! Jsayre64 (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I did not know. Finetooth (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Glad to be aboard
Hi! I live in Malheur, an area I lovingly refer to as "Idegon". As a matter of fact my username will soon be changing to "John from Idegon". I am glad to be of help in any way I can. But, I would like to shamelessly plug another project I am involved with, The Editor Retention Project. We have a program to encourage good, but under-noticed, editors. The ideal candidate is one who does things behind the scenes and has received little if any formal recognition for it (barnstars, etc). If you know of anyone that fits who bill, please follow the instructions in the ad I have shamelessly placed below! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Do you know an under-appreciated editor who should be recognized? |
| Hi! The folks over at WER-Editor of the Week are looking for some help! We need nominations for "Editor of the Week". The ideal candidate is an editor who works hard, possibly doing behind-the-scenes kind of stuff, that just doesn't get recognized as much as they should. Although we have a preference for newer editors, any under recognized editor is eligible. So please make a note of this, and give us your nomination at: WP:EotW/N. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC) |
It's back - Collaboration of the Month starts now
After sleeping off a really bad hangover for the last couple years, WP:ORE is bringing back the group collaboration. Now monthly, and required or the government will fine you. Resistance is futile. Don't worry, you'll like, I promise. 
Give in to your inner team building and help Wikipedia conquer the Earth.
Anyway, the new articles are Western Oregon University and Sauvie Island Wildlife Area. Enjoy. You have 30 days to help improve them, and at least with the later, real easy to make that better. And for those who volunteered to help out, thank you, and get to work. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Whoo! First COTM edit. ;-) I'm glad you're starting this again. Cheers, LittleMountain5 14:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
It's coming soon
R U ready? Aboutmovies (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Whut iz? —EncMstr (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- You have to wait till tomorrow, but it's gonna be BIG. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, this isn't the next big thing, but its interesting. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- You have to wait till tomorrow, but it's gonna be BIG. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
_(washDA0010).jpg)
? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Click on the right image and look at the details for a hint. Or look at this commons category! —EncMstr (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Are these images new? I've seen batches of these 'scenic' images before. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- The scenic one on the right is newer, one of the batch uploads from earlier this year. Now we just need five guys to stand in front of the place for 30 years. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Are these images new? I've seen batches of these 'scenic' images before. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
List of University of Oregon buildings
Major kudos to User:Visitor7 for creating List of University of Oregon buildings. What a great resource, and well-illustrated as well I might add (with his own images, mostly at least). Thank you for your hard work on this article. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
... was added to the NRHP on 10/30/13. I updated the article accordingly, but perhaps you know of other/better ways to improve newly-listed sites. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Meetup in Vancouver, Washington
If anyone dares to cross the river...
|
WIKI LOVES LIBRARIES 2013! You are invited to attend the upcoming "Wiki Loves Libraries" edit-athon. The event will be held from 2:30–4:30pm on Sunday, November 17, 2013 at the Vancouver Community Library (901 C Street) in Vancouver, Washington. The edit-athon will focus on creating and expanding articles related to Vancouver and Clark County. Details and signup here! |
|---|
Now that the article has received a copy edit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, I am interested in nominating Tragic Lovers for Good status. Please see the talk page for a COI statement. I worked on this article following the promotion of Music for a Time of War to Featured status and This England and Joseph Schwantner: New Morning for the World; Nicolas Flagello: The Passion of Martin Luther King to Good status. If there are any project members willing to make sure this article is fair, any assistance would be appreciated. I admit, the reception section is pulled from a single source with a positive review of the album, but I could not find other reviews to incorporate into the article. I want the reception section to be fair, reflecting the reviewer's comments but not being seen as promotional. I wrote this article the same way I write any other article. Please let me know if you have any comments or concerns, or use the article's talk page. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Get your cameras ready...!
Given the success of several recent photography campaigns, a fellow WikiProject Oregon member and I thought it might be fun to propose more themed photo hunts. So, similar to the Collaboration of the Month, we came up with two topics to focus on for the month of December: street food and Christmas. I created two pages with details:
The concept is simple: upload photos of these two topics and share your work! Whether you upload one or one hundred, these images will help capture the culture of our state and illustrate Wikimedia projects. Our hope is to continue monthly photo hunts. If you have ideas, please share! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
COTM for December - Red & Green addition
Victor G. Atiyeh is red because he's a Republican, and the North Park Blocks are green because they are a park. Got it? Now go! Aboutmovies (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Admin assistance, please
Is there an admin who can assist with moving Weather Machine (sculpture) (and associated pages, such as the article reviews) to Weather Machine? See here for background. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- How about listing the page at Wikipedia:Requested moves? benzband (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
just in time for the holidays
It was fun to see Mill Ends Park top the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Popular pages last month. Anyone know why? The list is usually topped by long-dead child stars, ultimate fighters, or locally produced TV programs that are also claimed by other Wiki projects, but this is a uniquely Oregon one, so curious what drove the traffic to our local leprechaun hangout. --Esprqii (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like Reddit was the culprit. [2] LittleMountain5 18:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty amazing, 235,000+ views resulting from that. --Esprqii (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- I wish there were a talk page template to note page view spikes like this... --Another Believer (Talk) 19:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is. ;-) LittleMountain5 19:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Whaaaat? I'll be sure to examine the template's history, but I suggested a similar template a few years ago and I was told, essentially, "that information is not encyclopedic" and encourages crowdsourcing... or something like that. Glad to see this is now available. Thanks for sharing. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not sure if the template has much encyclopedic value, but I figured I'd update it since it was already on the talk page. Cheers, LittleMountain5 20:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Whaaaat? I'll be sure to examine the template's history, but I suggested a similar template a few years ago and I was told, essentially, "that information is not encyclopedic" and encourages crowdsourcing... or something like that. Glad to see this is now available. Thanks for sharing. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is. ;-) LittleMountain5 19:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- I wish there were a talk page template to note page view spikes like this... --Another Believer (Talk) 19:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty amazing, 235,000+ views resulting from that. --Esprqii (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Sternwheeler daze
This just in from the Department of Self-Promotion: Tourist sternwheelers of Oregon! Several photos have also been newly uploaded (not all of which are in the article). I hope it will be of interest. SJ Morg (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Ashland
I have nominated the Ashland article, a big project of User:Finetooth, for a GAN. I was thinking it could be a collaboration here, as was done for Hart Lake in October (though that turned out to be complicated). I would be surprised if the review starts in 2013, but I am transcluding the review page below. Everyone have a great Christmas and New Year. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
GA Review
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
GA ReviewThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 05:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC) I will review this article and present comments shortly, I like to use the template below and may have additional comments following. Montanabw(talk) 05:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Comments:
I'll be back to review other areas after I've given you a chance to look over these issues. This is nice article and should be able to be passed with only a few changes and adjustments. Montanabw(talk) 06:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
MORE TO COME. Montanabw(talk) 03:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Overall,
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
- Like. Congrats to all involved, and thanks to Jsayre64 for the push! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Two TFAs in one week!
Congrats to Another Believer, whose article, Weather Machine, is on the main page today. Also, newly-promoted Roxy Ann Peak is scheduled to do the same on January 13! Go Oregon! LittleMountain5 17:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! We have some great editors here in Oregon. :) --Another Believer (Talk) 17:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Congratulations to you both. Finetooth (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, that is some feat. We're awesome. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Congratulations to you both. Finetooth (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Category:Healthcare reform in Oregon has been nominated
Category:Healthcare reform in Oregon has been nominated for something. Sorry I am not sure for what - too busy running around trying to notify projects which the nominator did not notify. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- It was a speedy rename to "Health care" which I objected to as there was not uniformity in the presentation of healthcare v. health care, so it has now gone to a full discussion somewhere. I'm not participating because I don;t care much as to which form, I only objecting because it was out of process to do it via speedy w/o a full discussion. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Tabor
There is some redundancy here:
Any thoughts on how these can be differentiated, or even merged? I think that, ideally, there would be distinct articles for the geographic feature, the neighborhood, and the park. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I have expanded this article a bit more (see background info here). I do not think notability should be a concern here, as there are plenty of references that discuss the restaurant, but I do want to make sure the article is not too promotional in nature. I have no COI to disclose here, apart from the fact that I have visited the coffeehouse before. I was just genuinely curious about the history of the house/business and the reported haunting, so I thought I would share my findings here. To me, this is just another quirky Portland-related article. I believe the entry is an accurate summary of how the subject has been discussed in the media, but I invite others to judge that as well.
I have requested a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors, and plan to nominate the article for Good status afterward. Please let me know if you have any thoughts, questions or concerns. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's a cool place. I glanced briefly at the article this morning and made a couple of non-controversial changes. One thing jumps out at me right away. The text sandwich between the Louise Bryant mug shot and the infobox is a layout no-no. I would move her down and to the right. You can probably fit all three images into the layout, but if three don't look good no matter what you try, ditch the image of the front door. Meanwhile, I wish you and everyone else who visits this page a Happy New Year. Finetooth (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your edits and suggestion. I adjusted the images. Ideally, the image of the front entrance would be replaced by an interior shot of the coffee house, perhaps the bathroom!? Have a wonderful holiday season! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
"Picture PSU" and "Streetcar Snapshot"
Greetings, project members. There are still several days left to contribute to this month's photography campaigns, "Christmas in Oregon" and "PDX Pods". So far, 30+ Christmas-related images and 170+ images of Portland's street food scene have been uploaded!
The photo campaign will continue next month, focusing on Portland State University and the Portland Streetcar system. See these links for details about the projects, dubbed "Picture Portland" and "Streetcar Snapshot":
I hope you will consider contributing. Feel free to add any ideas or resources to the project pages. Have a great weekend, a wonderful holiday season and a very happy new year. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have added tables to the PSU project page for recording which buildings/sites have Wikipedia entries, which are illustrated at Wikimedia Commons, and which have corresponding Commons categories. For those of you who are less interested in photography and prefer to create articles, you are most certainly welcome to assist by creating articles for worthy buildings on the campus. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
List of Startups in Portland, Oregon
On the Portland, OR page there are lists of hospitals, schools and companies in Portland, but not startups. Numerous publications have been reporting on startup businesses and incubators in Portland. We've started an article at the Portland Wikipedia editathon, and would like to know where it might fit on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of startups in Portland, Oregon
Contributing Editors
- Bumping and adding my signature with a time stamp. I think this was added way back in April. It might not be archiving due to a lack of time stamp. (?) --Another Believer (Talk) 22:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Boundary
The neighborhoods of Portland, Oregon article is helpful in general, but not for this specific question. Does anyone know the official boundary between the east and west sides of Portland? It is a bit tricky where north and northeast Portland meet. Specifically, is the Moda Center in N or NE PDX? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- The official east/west boundary is the Willamette River: but that isn't what you meant, is it?
- North Williams Avenue (which is also an interesting song by Quarterflash for giving some of its 1970s reputation) is the official North/Northeast boundary. Since that street would bisect the Rose Quarter if it went through, it is a gray area. However, look at this map and you will see that it is 90% North and only 10% Northeast. —EncMstr (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oops, pardon my sloppy wording. Thanks for clarifying, EncMstr. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- The Moda Center address is 1 N Center Ct St, Portland, OR 97227, thus it is in North. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, AM. I did confirm the address before asking, but I suppose I was just seeking clarification that Williams was the boundary, and that the street names follow the boundaries described here at Wikipedia. Thanks, both, for your feedback. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- The Moda Center address is 1 N Center Ct St, Portland, OR 97227, thus it is in North. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oops, pardon my sloppy wording. Thanks for clarifying, EncMstr. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please have a look at Oregon Culinary Institute's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Culinary_Institute and make appropriate edits (for instance, here's another reference to further bolster the page" http://eater.com/archives/2013/07/26/vitaly-paley-eater-interviews.php
Can someone please let me know if you can help rectify the problem and the current warning on the page. It is all verifiable. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LovemyOregonducks (talk • contribs)
- See the talk page also. Valfontis (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Image copyright help?
Could someone check out the OHS images that this gentleman has uploaded for the Henry W. Corbett article? He's getting some bot notices and I would hate to see those images deleted if we can keep 'em. Looks like there might be some formatting issues in the article also. I'm not sure he's got the hang of communicating on Wikipedia yet. Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I worked on this article (offline) a while back, hence the older accessdates, but found the file on my desktop and felt it was time to publish a solid draft. If anyone has a moment to take quick look and/or copy edit, and assistance would be much appreciated. This article is about a nonprofit organization based in Portland. I have posted a COI statement on the talk page, so please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I plan to request a more thorough peer review in the near future, hopefully followed by a good article nomination. Thanks for your consideration. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I still need to re-visit the Roseland Theater article, which is the current project collaboration (and close to GA-ready, I might add), but no without first starting an article for Esparza's. If anyone lives nearby and has the ability to snap some photos, that would be awesome. --Another Believer (Talk)
- I found a few interior shots on Flickr, but an exterior shot would be nice. Or help with coordinates/pushpin map? --Another Believer (Talk) 23:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- I added the locator map. I chose the downtown map because it's more detailed, but the red pog is almost off the edge, so the full Portland map might look better. (Your choice.) Cheers, LittleMountain5 00:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, LM5. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I added the locator map. I chose the downtown map because it's more detailed, but the red pog is almost off the edge, so the full Portland map might look better. (Your choice.) Cheers, LittleMountain5 00:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Coffee culture and the Kenton Commercial Historic District
Greetings, WP ORE members, There are just a few days left to contribute to the PSU and Portland Streetcar projects, either by starting articles, uploading photos, or organizing files at Commons. Here are the two campaigns for the month of February:
The former is an opportunity to capture our famous coffee culture and the latter is for the Kenton Commercial Historic District in North Portland. Perhaps an article for Coffee in Portland, Oregon, similar to better than the article for Coffee in Seattle? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Recently I have been asking roasters how the coffee culture in Portland differs from that in Seattle but have not yet heard a reply that doesn't mention the S-word and the enormous gravitational forces of over-roasting at a factory in Kent that seems to pull the micro-roasters in Seattle toward the dark side, but I will keep checking. In my research I have discovered that many unexpected factors influence the quality of coffee in both cities, including rent and other costs of business not related to a roasting profile. Visitor7 (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Following is a link to the upcoming ArtAndFeminism meetup at Portland State University, to be held on Saturday, February 1 from 9am to 3pm:
This event is part of a national campaign (see Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism). I am not spearheading the Portland event (discussion began offline, then on Facebook), but I am glad to see it taking place and hope to attend and contribute. Please considering stopping by! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Also, speaking of PSU, I'd like to make one more plug for this month's "Picture PSU" campaign. You'll notice many images have been uploaded, Commons categories have been created, and some Wikipedia articles have also been created. Fun stuff! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Just a reminder about tomorrow's event. Over 120 people have confirmed attendance, with an additional 50+ "maybes", on the Facebook event page. Regardless of the reliability of a Facebook RSVP list, I anticipate a large group with mostly new contributors. Experienced editors are more than welcome, especially for creating quality content (and quickly) and to help newer editors. Some press:
- Hallett, Alison (January 15, 2014). "Wikipedia Arts + Feminism Edit-a-Thon". The Portland Mercury. Index Publishing.
- Mirk, Sarah (January 24, 2014). "An Epic Feminist Edit-a-Thon Takes Aim at Wikipedia's Gender Gap". Bitch Magazine. Bitch Media.
- Cleary, Karisa (January 30, 2014). "PSU to host Wikipedia 'Edit-A-Thon' on Feminism and Art". Daily Vanguard. Portland State University.
Hope to see you there! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
In the past, I have distributed event invitations manually. More recently, I have submitted requests for distribution by a mass delivery tool. Ideally, there would be a single list for project members who are interested in receiving invitations to meetups, project newsletters and other Oregon-related activities/notifications. If you are interested in receiving project updates and invitations, please consider adding your username to this list of participants. Thank you! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Archived some threads
I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
COTM - Education Edition
Time to get your education with the Pacific Northwest College of Art and Gutenberg College. Two minor colleges in the states two biggest cities that could use a little TLC - but don't go chasing no waterfalls. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Added some Shellenbarger to Gutenberg Visitor7 (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: Hillsboro, Oregon
Yet another Main Page appearance today. Awesome work! --Another Believer (Talk) 03:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
New Collaboration of the Month
A few days late, but here we go. The new ones are U.S. Route 101 in Oregon and the Roseland Theater.
A on side note, I would like to implement a few rules on the nominations section based on experience as to what types of articles receive actual attention (start class or below), plus try to make it more impactful (importance rating of Mid or above). Lastly, I suggest we require red links to need at least two ELs to RS showing the topic is notable (obviously red links would be an exception to the importance rating requirement). There would also be an exception to the start class or below, in that a GA drive led by a specific editor would be acceptable. Discuss below. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Woah, this venue has a bit of interesting history. Check out the links I posted on the talk page. Any assistance with expanding the article's history, without crossing any BLP lines? Surely the ownership history is relevant, but I don't think too many specific crime details are necessary. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- This article should be easy to promote to Good status. Unless I uncover more info through additional research, the building appears to have gone through three eras: 1) church, 2) Starry Night, 3) Roseland Theater. Help finding details about early history (especially about the building's construction and time as a church, considering the current info is unsourced) would be helpful. Update: I uploaded a few images, none of which are brilliant but hopefully they are helpful in some respect. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Aboutmovies, might you be able to help with the map display in the infobox? I don't know why I always have so much trouble with these... (Feel free to remove the second image if the map causes too much text squeeze.)--Another Believer (Talk) 23:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I took care of it, hope you don't mind! LittleMountain5 00:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wonderful, thank you! I did change the map to one of downtown Portland, though. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- That certainly makes more sense than a full Oregon map. Whoops! LittleMountain5 00:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wonderful, thank you! I did change the map to one of downtown Portland, though. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I took care of it, hope you don't mind! LittleMountain5 00:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Aboutmovies, might you be able to help with the map display in the infobox? I don't know why I always have so much trouble with these... (Feel free to remove the second image if the map causes too much text squeeze.)--Another Believer (Talk) 23:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Roseland Theater. This was a fun collaboration. Thanks to User:Finetooth in particular. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Invitation to User Study
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC).
Snow storm
I hope everyone has been staying safe and warm throughout the snow storm. If you've taken any photographs the past few days, feel free to add them here. Normally these photo campaigns invite contributors to explore a particular theme, rather than being created retroactively, but this time I thought it would be fun to group images taken during the snow storm together, serving as an archive of sorts. If you like the snow and ice, enjoy it while it lasts! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
What?! (Mary's Club)
I'm sorry, but the newly-created Mary's Club article is a must read, even in its infancy. Much thanks to Finetooth for finding such great info on the business' early history. Mary's Club, good article, coming soon! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Photo campaigns for March 2014
Camera-ready project members, you have just a few days left to contribute to this month's three photography campaigns:
- Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Coffee Culture, coffee culture
- Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Kenton, Kenton Commercial Historic District
- Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Winter Storm, February 2014, the winter storm of February 2014
For March, there will be one campaign each for Eugene and Portland. The inaugural photo campaign for Eugene will focus on the East Skinner Butte Historic District. (Unfortunately, I am unable to view the NRHP nomination form to create a list of contributing properties. Might someone be able to help?!) And a special treat next month for Portland residents. Your task will be to drink as much beer as possible photograph the city's beer culture for a campaign called "Beervana", referring to one of Portland's nicknames. How could you not want to participate?
- Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/East Skinner Butte, East Skinner Butte Historic District
- Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Beervana, BEER!
Your contributions to these projects are most welcome, as are your ideas for future photo campaigns. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Reminder: Women's History edit-a-thon in Eugene next weekend
Just a reminder about this edit-a-thon in Eugene next weekend. Hope to see you there! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
New Month, New Collaboration
This month we have by request the really stubby Portland Shockwave, and the woefully under-populated Oregon fire departments category. Not that I have dibs, but I have a decent start for Washington County Fire District 2 and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue based on the research for Hillsboro Fire Department, so I plan on starting articles on both. Also, commons has a fair amount of images available. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- For the fire departments, this might come in handy. Maybe redlink one(s) you might want to work on?
- Adair Rural Fire and Rescue
- Albany Fire Department
- Amity Fire District
- Applegate Fire Department
- Ashland Fire Department
- Astoria Fire Department
- Aurora Rural Fire Protection District
- Baker City Fire Department
- Bandon Rural Fire Department
- Banks Fire District
- Bend Fire Department
- Black Butte Ranch Rural Fire District
- Boardman Rural Fire Protection District
- Boring Fire District
- Brownsville Fire District
- Burns Fire Department
- Canby Fire District
- Cannon Beach Fire and Rescue
- Carlton Fire Department
- Cascade Locks Fire and EMS
- Central Oregon Coast Fire and Rescue
- Charleston Fire District
- Chiloquin Agency-Lake Fire District
- Clackamas County Fire District #1
- Clatskanie Rural Fire Protection District
- Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District
- Colestin Rural Fire Protection District
- Colton Rural Fire District #70
- Columbia River Fire and Rescue
- Condon Fire Department
- Coos Bay Fire and Rescue
- Cornelius Fire Department
- Corvallis Fire Department
- Cove Fire Department
- Crescent Rural Fire Protection District
- Crook County Fire and Rescue
- Crooked River Ranch Fire and Rescue
- Dallas Fire Department
- Dayton Fire District
- Depoe Bay Rural Fire District
- Dexter Rural Fire Protection District
- Douglas County Fire District #2
- Drakes Crossing Rural Fire Protection District
- Dundee Fire Department
- East Umatilla County Rural Fire Protection District
- Elgin Rural Fire Protection District
- Elsie-Vinemaple Rural Fire Protection District
- Enterprise Fire Department
- Estacada Rural Fire District
- Eugene Fire and EMS Department
- Evans Valley Fire District #6
- Forest Grove Fire and Rescue
- Garibaldi Fire Department
- Gaston Rural Fire District
- Gearhart Fire Department
- Gladstone Fire Department
- Glide Rural Fire Protection District
- Gold Beach Volunteer Fire Department
- Goshen Fire District
- Grants Pass Fire and Rescue
- Gresham Fire and Emergency Services
- Hamlet Fire Department
- Harbor Rural Fire District
- Harrisburg Rural Fire District
- Hauser Rural Fire and Rescue
- Hermiston Fire and Emergency Services
- Hillsboro Fire Department
- Hoodland Fire District
- Hood River Fire Department
- Hubbard Fire District
- Illinois Valley Rural Fire District
- Irrigon Rural Fire Protection District
- Jackson County Fire District #3
- Jackson County Fire District #4
- Jackson County Fire District #5
- Jacksonville Fire Department
- Jefferson Fire District
- Jefferson County Fire District #1
- Joseph Fire Department
- Junction City Rural Fire Protection District
- Juniper Flat Rural Fire Protection District
- Keizer Fire District
- Keno Fire Department
- Klamath County Fire District #1
- Klamath County Fire District #4
- Knappa-Svensen-Burnside Rural Fire Protection District
- Lake Chinook Fire and Rescue
- Lake Oswego Fire Rescue and Life Safety
- La Pine Rural Fire Protection District
- La Grande Fire Department
- Lane County Fire District #1
- Lane Rural Fire and Rescue
- Lebanon Fire Department
- Lewis and Clark Fire District
- Lookingglass Rural Fire District
- Lowell Fire Protection District
- Lyons Rural Fire District
- Marion County Fire District #1
- McKenzie Fire and Rescue
- McMinnville Fire Department
- Medford Fire and Rescue
- Mid-Columbia Fire and Rescue
- Milton-Freewater Fire Department
- Milton-Freewater Rural Fire Department
- Mohawk Valley Fire District
- Molalla Fire District
- Monitor Fire District #58
- Monroe Rural Fire Protection District
- Mosier Fire District
- Mt. Angel Fire District
- Multnomah County Rural Fire Protection District #14
- Myrtle Creek Fire Department
- Nehalem Bay Fire and Rescue
- Nestucca Rural Fire Protection District
- Newberg Fire Department
- Newport Fire Department
- North Bay Fire District
- North Bend Fire and Rescue
- North Douglas County Fire and EMS
- North Lincoln Fire and Rescue District #1
- Oakridge Fire and EMS
- Odell Fire Department
- Olney Walluski Fire and Rescue
- Ontario Fire Department
- Parkdale Fire Department
- Payette Fire Department
- Pendleton Fire Department
- Philomath Rural Fire Protection
- Pilot Rock Rural Fire Protection District
- Pleasant Hill Fire and Rescue
- Polk County Fire District #1
- Portland Fire and Rescue
- Redmond Fire and Rescue
- Reedsport Volunteer Fire Department
- Rogue River Fire District
- Roseburg Fire Department
- Salem Fire Department
- Sandy Fire District #72
- Santa Clara Fire District
- Scappoose Rural Fire District
- Scio Fire District
- Seal Rock Rural Fire Protection District
- Seaside Fire and Rescue
- Sheridan Fire District
- Siletz Fire Department
- Silverton Fire District
- Sisters-Camp Sherman Fire District
- Siuslaw Valley Fire and Rescue
- South Lane County Fire and Rescue
- Springfield Department of Fire and Life Safety
- Stayton Fire District
- Sublimity Fire District
- Sunriver Fire Department
- Sutherlin Fire Department
- Sweet Home Fire District
- Tillamook Fire Department
- Toledo Fire Department
- Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue
- Turner Rural Fire District
- Umatilla Rural Fire Protection District
- Umatilla Tribal Fire Department
- Union Emergency Services
- Vernonia Rural Fire
- Warm Springs Tribal Fire Department
- Washington County Fire District #2
- Warrenton Fire Department
- West Side Volunteer Fire Department
- West Valley Fire District
- Westport Fire and Rescue
- Williams Fire Department
- Winston-Dillard Fire District
- Woodburn Fire District
- Wy'East Fire District
- Yamhill Fire Department
- (Not sure why some of these bullets are not displaying properly.) --Another Believer (Talk) 19:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- There were sneaky zero-width spaces before the asterisks in a few of the entries, breaking the formatting. Now fixed. LittleMountain5 20:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I invited WikiProject Fire Service participants to join our cause! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- There were sneaky zero-width spaces before the asterisks in a few of the entries, breaking the formatting. Now fixed. LittleMountain5 20:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI, there is an abandoned? (not sure, Theo has been around much) start to PF&R here. Lemme know if this goes live with the LOD deaths included (not sure it's encyclopedic, not a memorial, etc.), I know someone who is a close family member of one of the fallen firefighters who might like to see it. Valfontis (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it is important that you investigate The Holiday Retirement company for poor and misleading business practices. Your Holiday Retirement article is nothing more than their PR stuff.
Please refer to this New York Times article: Winning Veterans’ Trust, and Profiting From It By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG Published: December 24, 2013
As you may know Ms. Silver-Greenberg is a senior business reporter writing exposes on companies like CITI Bank, J.P. Morgan and the like. This article specifically HOLDAY RETIREMENT company,
There have been numerous Vets exploited to financial ruin.
I can provide you with additional documentation if you want to contact me.
Lee Myers, Leem1932 (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC) <redacted>
- For starters. Please read about What Wikipedia is Not. Valfontis (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
If anyone happens to wander down NW 21st Avenue soon, do try to snap a picture of the restaurant's exterior before the signage is removed. I cannot find any images on Flickr for inclusion. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and possibly assistance with map/coordinates?--Another Believer (Talk) 18:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)- And here I was thinking the restaurant had only been around for 20 years or ago. Some searching in the Oregonian archives reveals advertisements published for Gypsy Restaurant and Lounge as early as 1948. The restaurant's location was described as "next to 21st Avenue Theater", between Northwest Hoyt and Irving Streets. In 1955, the paper reported that $1,000 was stolen from an unlocked safe stored at the Gypsy Restaurant, located at 612 Northwest 21st Avenue. The business relocated (moved across the street?) in 1963.
- Obits published in 1973 and 1987 revealed the names of the owners at the time. I went ahead and included this information in the article, and I am sure there is more diving to do. I am surprised recent articles about the restaurant did not include more historical info, concentrating only on the 20-year run under ownership of Concept Entertainment. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Commons Category:Gypsy Restaurant and Velvet Lounge Visitor7 (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Like Thank you, thank you! --Another Believer (Talk) 14:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Commons Category:Gypsy Restaurant and Velvet Lounge Visitor7 (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
notice of various tribal RMs
There's a large number re Oregon, some involving dab pages; if you don't have them watchlisted please see the new discussions on WP:RM.Skookum1 (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Voter statistics
FYI, can use this to update voter registration numbers in Oregon county articles: http://www.oregonvotes.gov/doc/voterresources/registration/feb14.pdf (such as here where two of the source URLs are dead). Jsayre64 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
You know the one I'm talking about...
… Uncle Sam billboard. Anyone have any pictures? I could only find one on Flickr with a suitable license. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- All I have is a long-cherished postcard from TESC bookstore that features a photo of the day the billboard said "The Evergreen State College: Home of Environmental Terrorists and Homosexuals?" Word has it, it is the school's best-selling postcard so I imagine it is under copyright... I'll check around though. Valfontis (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Voila. Valfontis (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Added. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 04:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Voila. Valfontis (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Time rolls on ... choo choo
Slightly late, but time for the next COTM. This time we have the defunct Oregon and Northwestern Railroad and the super-stubby poet Paulann Petersen (not a comment on her body). Enjoy. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Reminder: Feminist Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at PNCA
- Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Feminist Art, Saturday, April 19, 2014 from 3–6pm at PNCA Fine Art Library, located at 1241 NW Johnson Street
Anybody got time to check out this request to review a proposed draft from a COI editor? At first glance it looks good, and the company has needed a decent article for a long time. I won't have time to get to a more in depth look-see until this weekend. My COI--I once worked for H & D. Did you know you can buy three boxes of truffles for the low low price of $19.99? Valfontis (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi all, I'm the editor who posted the request on the Harry & David Talk page. As Valfontis mentions, I'm looking for editors to review a proposed draft for this article. Just to let you know: I'll be avoiding all direct edits to the article, as my work there is on behalf of Harry and David Holdings Inc., instead I'd like to get feedback from others and hopefully find consensus to move the new draft into place.
- If you have any questions or comments about my draft I hope that you'll leave me a message on the article's Talk page so we can discuss and I can make any necessary changes. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Rhiannon, I will take a look today. Valfontis (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've done my review, and think it is good to go, but I'd like a third opinion. If anyone wants to move the article over, switch the template on the talk page to {{request edit|A}}. Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I found no major issues and moved the draft to mainspace. It's a marked improvement! LittleMountain5 06:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations are in order
In case you hadn't noticed, one of our longtime members, Little Mountain 5, has become an administrator! Congrats LM5! Valfontis (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Congrats! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! I really appreciate the supports I received from a number of you. If anyone ever needs a favor (admin-related or otherwise), feel free to ask! Sincerely, LittleMountain5 06:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, congrats indeed! Long overdue IMO :) -Pete (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Angkor I
Is someone with greater familiarity of image use able to assist at Talk:Angkor I? See the "Infobox" section under the copy edit request, and the section below, regarding use of an image of this copyrighted (assumption) work. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Esprqii. Aboutmovies, might you be able to add coordinates to the article? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would if I knew where it was in the park. Based on the photos I've scene I have an idea, but the Google images/satellite view is older than the installation, so I can't tell for sure. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ohh, ok, that makes sense. Thank you for looking into this. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hopefully when Esprqii takes a few photos he can add the coords based on his real-world observations. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note that you can see the sculpture on Google Street View even though the Earth/Maps is out of date.. Pretty sure it's still at that location. I will verify and try and get the photo tonight. --Esprqii (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh! Thank you. Good timing as I just nominated the article for "Good" status. I had wondered if the coordinates could be added so that they provide a general location for Millennium Plaza Park, but I trusted AM's judgment. Perhaps one day I will figure out how coordinates work myself. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you look at other articles, you'll see the general idea. There are some ways of grabbing them off a Google map and then I'll usually tweak the raw numbers. It's just how precise you want to be. I think (and I think AM agrees) that it's best to get 'em as exact as possible. We could just put the general park coords, but it's nice to have the coordinates be pretty close to exact in case someone wants to use some sort of GPS system to get there. --Esprqii (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh! Thank you. Good timing as I just nominated the article for "Good" status. I had wondered if the coordinates could be added so that they provide a general location for Millennium Plaza Park, but I trusted AM's judgment. Perhaps one day I will figure out how coordinates work myself. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note that you can see the sculpture on Google Street View even though the Earth/Maps is out of date.. Pretty sure it's still at that location. I will verify and try and get the photo tonight. --Esprqii (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hopefully when Esprqii takes a few photos he can add the coords based on his real-world observations. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ohh, ok, that makes sense. Thank you for looking into this. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would if I knew where it was in the park. Based on the photos I've scene I have an idea, but the Google images/satellite view is older than the installation, so I can't tell for sure. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Re: Coords stuff. EncMstr has an excellent tutorial here, not sure how up-to-date it is. I can vouch for the right-click-cut-and-paste-from-the-url Google Maps method--I just tried it and it still works with the new "improved"{{fact}} Google Mpas. Great for individual NRHP listings. Doesn't help if something got moved of course. Valfontis (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Free Maps
This is so cool. Open Access Maps at NYPL. I'm sure this has been mentioned elsewhere on the wiki but I just learned about it on Salon. There are two in the collection of Oregon and one of an early exploration expedition. Valfontis (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
They're still not us
Aunt Betty just told me that there's a story in the Statesman Journal saying how Oregon Encyclopedia is not us. I don't read the local paper, so I'm glad Betty does. Valfontis (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Compliments to Ms. Platt for shoving so much faint praise into a single damnation! That one must've been practiced a lot at the OE board meetings while working to FINALLY get out that Lewis and Clark article. Good to see there was finally enough worthy scholarship available. P.S. Hey User:Peteforsyth, when do we need to renew our redirect? --Esprqii (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh my gosh, that's devious! Jsayre64 (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- When I spoke with a OE rep a while back and mentioned Wikipedia and proposed the idea of collaborating somehow, I pretty much got an eye roll and a scoff. I assumed by her reaction that she must get asked about Wikipedia all the time... or she just hates Wikipedia? Needless to say, I know which project I prefer! (Imo, the Oregon Historical Society’s Digital History Project and Portland State University should be investing in Wikipedia instead.) --Another Believer (Talk) 22:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- According to their website, PSU "ceased direct financial support" in 2012. Apparently, though, PSU still maintains the copyright to everything on the website. Nice of OHS to keep donating all of their work like that. Tdslk (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, they haven't learned much in FIVE years--just in case anyone missed this it still applies today! --Esprqii (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting this, @Valfontis:. I think it reflects a (subtle and minimal) response to our efforts in our 2008-2009 efforts to help them see the value of Wikipedia. (For newer project members, you might be interested in the OPB Think Out Loud broadcast I did along with one of the Oregon Encyclopedia's editors. @Steven Walling: and @Cacophony: also joined me in presenting (privately) to their editorial board, and it was much discussed in this project. -Pete (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to note that Jim Scheppke, who is mentioned in the article (and who's a good guy FWIW) wrote much of the existing Oregon State Library article while still State Librarian. Valfontis (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate that so many nonprofit organizations feel like they compete with Wikipedia. When people decide that information is supposed to be available for free to the public, I wish that they would be happy to make it available to the public even in channels which they cannot control. A strength of Wikipedia is its audience, and a strength of the Oregon Encyclopedia is its expert authorship. I wish that we could trade Wikipedia's accessibility for their expert oversight and reach everyone with the best information right now. I think Wikipedia's quality will improve before they find funds to make their information more accessible and I wish that they would change their minds about partnership. If anyone writes to this organization to ask them for partnership again then please tell them they have friends here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've thought about contacting Mr. Scheppke. He's very active in Salem as an advocate for various causes including promoting local history. Valfontis (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Biggest problem is the overall perception of us as an unruly cabal of teenagers in their parents' basements writing about Star Trek episodes. The reference to "crowd sourced" is also a pretty loaded term, suggesting mob rule, when in fact, the Wikipedia versions of the articles OE deems important are very well-cited and patrolled regularly. I had been adding links to the OE articles as they slowly rolled out but I finally couldn't keep up. I wonder if a bot could handle this? I'd say more, but I have to go change my retainer and finish my Spanish homework. --Esprqii (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I loved the part in the article where they discussed their writers, and wow, a bit like us. Odd how educated people who have an interest in a topic can write about topics even when it may not be their expertise! Aboutmovies (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Biggest problem is the overall perception of us as an unruly cabal of teenagers in their parents' basements writing about Star Trek episodes. The reference to "crowd sourced" is also a pretty loaded term, suggesting mob rule, when in fact, the Wikipedia versions of the articles OE deems important are very well-cited and patrolled regularly. I had been adding links to the OE articles as they slowly rolled out but I finally couldn't keep up. I wonder if a bot could handle this? I'd say more, but I have to go change my retainer and finish my Spanish homework. --Esprqii (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Wrong info in Catlow valley article
Hello,
The elevation value in the chart says 4554 m/14941ft. This is clearly wrong. Thank you!
Stefan Hubanov 2607:FB90:2209:8F20:CB3A:F9AF:CE4E:1CDB (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed. --Esprqii (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing it. I got sidetracked......then I thought I had fixed it. Valfontis (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, you fixed it all right. Thanks for removing that extra space. --Esprqii (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing conversion oversight!--Orygun (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, you fixed it all right. Thanks for removing that extra space. --Esprqii (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing it. I got sidetracked......then I thought I had fixed it. Valfontis (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Photography projects for April: McMinnville and Portland Saturday Market
Interested participants are welcome to contribute to this month's photo campaigns:
If you live in or around McMinnville, any assistance photographing the McMinnville Downtown Historic District's 50+ contributing properties (plus additional non-contributing sites) would be much appreciated. There are currently only 7 images at Wikimedia Commons related to Portland Saturday Market, despite its popularity and cultural significance. Happy photo snapping! --Another Believer (Talk) 02:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Major kudos to User:Visitor7 for photographing essentially an entire historic district in McMinnville, most of which was previously unillustrated. Be sure to check out his great work! --Another Believer (Talk) 01:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Awesome! And I just turned the redlink blue, please choose a photo for the infobox! Valfontis (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. It was a fun day. P.S. I borrowed Valfontis' infobox and categories for Washburne Historic District. Visitor7 (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Funny, I stole mine from Independence Historic District (Independence, Oregon). Have you seen the Everyday Houses brochure about Springfield that the UO historic preservation program put together? (warning huge PDF). It has some stuff about Washburne. Valfontis (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Everyday Houses guide helped me with research on the styles. Now I know the difference between a hip roof, a mill cottage, and a pyramid cottage, but I'm still having trouble differentiating craftsman bungalows and California bungalows. Visitor7 (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- When in doubt, use the word "vernacular". Valfontis (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Everyday Houses guide helped me with research on the styles. Now I know the difference between a hip roof, a mill cottage, and a pyramid cottage, but I'm still having trouble differentiating craftsman bungalows and California bungalows. Visitor7 (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Oregon DYKs
Congrats to all those who have had Oregon-related articles appear on DYK so far in 2014! As SJ Morg pointed out, there have been many more than usual. We're just seven hooks short of tying the total from last year. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
May photo projects
Portland's bike culture and Hollywood neighborhood are the subjects of this month's photo projects. Currently, the Hollywood category at Commons contains only 13 images, 12 of which illustrate Hollywood Theatre.
Feel free to take a picture or two if you have the opportunity! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Now famous for "blah blah blah". If you don't have this on your watchlist please add it for a while, I think. Valfontis (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- If only to watch the fireworks. This one has Aunt Betty written all over it. --Esprqii (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
feeling mostly harmless?
Pioneer Courthouse Square turns 30 this weekend! A couple new details in here in case anyone still has editing privileges on this article. --Esprqii (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Did you finally find a source for the murders? Or the mostly harmlessness? Valfontis (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like some vandals removed the factual information about that from the Oregonian article. --Esprqii (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- ...since I don't anticipate having the attention span to do the expansion and update justice, and hoping someone else will do it...but unprotect maybe? Valfontis (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am good with unprotecting it, though my ability to monitor it is limited this month. —EncMstr (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- ...since I don't anticipate having the attention span to do the expansion and update justice, and hoping someone else will do it...but unprotect maybe? Valfontis (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like some vandals removed the factual information about that from the Oregonian article. --Esprqii (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Better late than never - New COTM
Forgot about this, so since it's a 1/3 of the way through May, just one this time: Help add coordinates to articles tagged as needing them. Compared to other states, we are doing pretty good, but we can do better! Go team! Aboutmovies (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Most of those articles have been marked as needing a coordinate for several years. I spent hours trying to address them back then, but those no-longer-existing forest districts (all have been merged into other forest districts) are very difficult to find sourcing for. The radio stations seem easy at first blush by using the FCC registration link in them, but it isn't very straightforward; I remember resolving one near Tillamook with great difficulty made easier only with the assistance of a Wikpedian who lives down there. A few of the new ones (stadiums, libraries, CSAs) should be quite easy though. —EncMstr (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Some may never get them, but we have already moved from 44 to 29 in less than a week. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
good vs. evil?
There have been a lot of edits recently in the Kevin Mannix article between factions of the occult and Christianity. Check out the edit history if you don't believe me. I think every office Mannix has ever held is eventually going to be listed. Anyone interested in wading into this one? --Esprqii (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'll try to keep an eye on it, but probably can't clean up any issues until this weekend. But can I claim COI and bow out because I once let him into the Oregon State Capitol through a side door? I think I asked him "you're not going to cause any trouble are you?" Valfontis (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Oregon Encyclopedia links
I discovered that The Oregon Encyclopedia recently changed the format of all of its article links, replacing "entry/view" with "articles" in the URLs. I have updated Template:Oregon Encyclopedia, and that action repaired any broken links that used that template. However, any OE links that were added to articles without using the template were broken by OE's change. I don't know how to do an automated search for ones that used the old "entry/view" syntax (perhaps someone here with more technical expertise can), and there may not enough of them to warrant someone's setting up a bot to change them. I've checked several articles in subjects of interest to me, and repaired the broken links, but I'm leaving this message here to suggest that WikiProject Oregon editors check articles in their areas of interest, for this new problem, and fix the broken OE links when necessary. I found two of them in Forest Park, which is a Featured Article. SJ Morg (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing the two in the Forest Park article. I'm pretty sure there are others, but I don't know where. I'll be looking. Finetooth (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- It should be easy enough to do with AWB, or maybe ask a bot owner to do it. (P.S. Welcome back to Oregon, Tedder.) When all the Oregon Secretary of State links went bad, I used AWB, you can also find links using the {{Linksummary}} template as I did when cleaning up the SOS links. Feel free to use that sandbox anybody for cleaning up the OE links. Valfontis (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Done Valfontis (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Valfontis! --Another Believer (Talk) 03:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks from me, too! SJ Morg (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. For future issues of this nature, I totally recommend the find and replace function using AWB. I'm not all that tech-savvy but I find it pretty easy to use, if a little tedious. Some people like a little tedium now and again though. Valfontis (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
May we never forget...
... the E.colo outbreak of May 2014.
_-_1.jpg)
_-_2.jpg)
Oregon list re-directed
- Someone from Wiki-Roads project just re-directed List of National Scenic Byways in Oregon to a national list of byways. Am pretty sure all the Oregon byways are captured on the national list; however, they are listed in alphabetical order so they’re not easy to find if you're just interested in Oregon byways. According to scenic byways end banner, there are 17 other states with their own byways lists and none of them have been re-directed.
- I think having a separate list of Oregon byways is useful. Anyone else have thought on this subject?--Orygun (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- My thoughts are the WP Roads people have ownership issues and think that anything about a road belongs to them and has to be done their way. They are in my opinion the most insular WikiProject, though the Military History folks are not far behind (at least they used to be too, haven't had much interaction with them lately). Aboutmovies (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Orygun, I see the national list is sortable (using the arrows in the headings of the table), so it is possible to sort them by state. Not ideal but better than nothing. You could try asking about this on the Roads talk page, but you might get farther if you wrote some expanded content for the list (the history of scenic byways in Oregon, for example), then it might be possible to make it a stand-alone list again. As far as the other states, in the template, actually, those are for state-designated lists, and we still have one: List of State Scenic Byways in Oregon. As far as I can tell, the only other states that had standalone national byways lists were Colorado and Utah. You'll see the Utah national list was redirected to the state list, so that might be another way to do it. In fact, that might be the best way to do it because I often hear (read) in content arguments: "this article (category, list, etc.) doesn't fit with the scheme for the other 50 states--why should Oregon be the exception?" So if Oregon is the only state with a standalone national byways list, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't stay that way for long. Valfontis (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Didn't see auto-sort feature. That makes it easier to find Oregon byways.--Orygun (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Feedback requested regarding meetup invitation distribution
Requesting feedback from project members. As many of you know, I often help organize wiki meetups and distribute talk page invitations. The problem is, I often have to go to many different pages to send these invites--the WikiProject Oregon members list on the main page, sometimes people from the category "Wikipedians in Oregon", past meetup pages, etc. In order to reduce the need to bounce around, I created the page Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Participants as an opt-in list for meetup invitations. However, the page is hard to find, and I must confess, I still use many other pages for inviting Wikipedians to events. In other words, the page exists but is not being used for its primary purpose.
What do you think about me taking time to add all usernames to the list once, in alphabetical order, as an opt-out list. Essentially, I would add all project members and Wikipedians in Oregon to the list once, then give people the opportunity to remove their name from the list if they do not wish to receive notifications in the future. Does that sound kosher, or are you turned off by the idea of an opt-out list rather than an opt-in list? Given tools exist for mass messaging, it will make talk page invite distribution much quicker than doing it manually. Thoughts? I won't be offended if the concept is off-putting. The list could also be used for things like "COTW" updates or other mass communication opportunities. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- We had a very long discussion about this in the past regarding "active" vs. "inactive" membership in WP:ORE. Some people's feelings were hurt about the designation. I believe the upshot was that Tedder was going to run his bot to see who was active and then we were going to try to do a roll call via an opt-in process. But he got busy. And the economy tanked, everyone moved to California, and we all got busy, or perhaps we grew up and found better things to do with our time. Which doesn't have a lot to do with your question but I thought you might like to know. The way I see it now, I would err on the side of inclusion, aka opt-out. (With a threshold of "X number of messages have piled up so I will stop leaving them".) There are a lot of Wikipedians in Oregon who don't participate in the project but who are active Wikipedians so I like the way you have included them. If you use AWB you could set your list and forget it, just removing people as they opt out. Check with Aboutmovies too, I think he used to do the COTW messages by hand he might have some insight on how make it easier. Valfontis (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and spent some time expanding Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Participants, which can be used for WikiProject Oregon messages, meetup invitations or project updates. The list was constructed from several user categories, and I will add a few more names when I have time to go through the list of WikiProject Oregon sign-up sheet (main page) and individual meetup pages. This is an "opt-out" list, which means names are added but may be removed by individuals. I suppose that in a perfect world there would be separate lists for WikiProject Oregon messages, Portland meetups, meetups in other parts of the state, etc. The page can be moved if having "Portland" in the title is bothersome, but in general I think the list should be seen as a simplified way to distribute talk page messages to a large number of people who either live in Oregon or have an interest in improving Oregon-related content. People should feel free to use the list for meetup invites, for WikiProject Oregon COTW updates, and other projects for the region. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Everybody bust a move, it's time for the new COTM
First, nice job last month. We went from 44 to 24 un-coordededed articles. This time around, both are by request: Hip hop music in the Pacific Northwest and Webtrends. The later has been in the news of late, so we should have some good, fresh sources. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I note that there is a group of students from the University of Washington who have been expanding the hip hop article. I think they may be done for the term but it would be a good chance to do some outreach if you're so inclined. Valfontis (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed, but over the last week+ the above has received a dramatic makeover. It needed one, but not this one. Since I went to a different law school, I try not to get too involved so there can be no COI claims. So if some other editors with no possible COI could take a look and perhaps engage the likely COI editor so we can avoid the article becoming a complete PR piece for the school, it would be appreciated. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- I used to drink with my friends there in the 1980s. They were not law students. I went to many colleges, but not that one. I'll take a look. Valfontis (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Good work, but I'm surprised you left a "nestled" in there. I took care of it. :-) --Finngall talk 23:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Aiiee! Good catch. Someone once suggested the alternate "plunked down hard". I fear I didn't actually read it. I ran out of energy and mostly just drove by and tagged it and pruned out the unsourced sections and copyvio images. Feel free to trim out more. Valfontis (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Good work, but I'm surprised you left a "nestled" in there. I took care of it. :-) --Finngall talk 23:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
School shooting in Troutdale
Please watch and help update Reynolds High School (Troutdale, Oregon). :( Steven Walling • talk 16:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Watchlisted. Shouldn't {{current}} go at the top though? I was looking for it there. Valfontis (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've seen the banner placed in select section before. I don't feel strongly either way. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Someone has created 2014 Reynolds High School shooting by copying text from the school article. A) I'm not sure it needs a separate article. B) If it does, the standalone article has absolutely no context. C) If kept the school article needs a {{main}} template. D) I'm on my way out the door and can't take care of this right now. Valfontis (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Pride
| You are invited! Wiki Loves Pride | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride, a global campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia during the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. The project is being spearheaded by two organizers with roots in the Pacific Northwest. Meetups are being organized in some cities, or you can participate remotely. Wikimedia Commons will also be hosting an LGBT-related photo challenge. In Portland, there are two ways to contribute. One is a photography campaign called "Pride PDX", for pictures related to LGBT culture and history. The Wiki Loves Pride edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, June 21 from noon–4pm at Smith Memorial Student Union, Room 236 at Portland State University. Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and cords. Feel free to showcase your work here!
If you have any questions, please leave a message here. | |
I am co-organizing this campaign. Both organizers have roots in the Pacific Northwest (myself plus Dorothy, who is from Washington and attended Reed College). Any help during the month of June would be much appreciated. Please considering creating an LGBT-related article, even just a stub, or uploading a picture related to LGBT culture or history. I hope to see you at the edit-a-thon on June 21 at PSU. Thanks for your consideration. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Just a quick reminder about tomorrow's wiki meetup. LGBT-related content not required, but welcome. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Vanport City or just Vanport
Here are ten references mentioning "Vanport" and/or "Vanport City":
- http://www.opb.org/news/series/ourtown/our-town-vanport/
- http://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/vanport/
- http://www.oregonlive.com/O/index.ssf/2011/05/railroad_bed_springs_a_leak_an.html
- http://blog.oregonlive.com/writermom/2013/11/post_35.html
- http://www.ccrh.org/comm/slough/primary/housing.htm
- http://portlandraceway.com/?/about/history
- http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/an-act-of-god-or-racism/Content?oid=12286827
- http://www.blackpast.org/aaw/vanport-1942-1948
- http://www.pdx.edu/ourhistory/vanport-city
- http://traveloregon.com/see-do/oregon-heritage/ghost-towns/vanport/
After looking at those webpages and consulting WP:TITLE, I conclude that Vanport City, Oregon should be moved to Vanport, Oregon, and the first sentence should read:
- Vanport, Oregon, also known as Vanport City, was a hastily constructed city of public housing located in Multnomah County, Oregon, United States, between the contemporary Portland city boundary and the Columbia River.
Vanport City, Oregon would become a redirect. 72.244.204.39 (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I did that in 2009. I'm not exactly sure why now...I'm not particularly invested in it, and your argument makes sense. Per my edit summary, my rationale was that per GNIS its official name was "Vanport City". How come we've never bothered to add an infobox, the city one has an "official name" field, that would be another way to do it. If anyone else wants to chime in, and there is consensus, ping me if you'd like me to move it back. I'll give it a few days and if all I hear is crickets I'll go ahead and do it. P.S. That Mercury article was quite good and would be a good source for expansion. This is one of our more neglected articles. Valfontis (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Moving to Vanport, Oregon, sounds good to me. (Moving the article, I mean.) Go for it. The GNIS name seems to be an outlier. I'd be happy to do an infobox after the move if nobody else does it first. Finetooth (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- The ayes have it. Valfontis (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Moving to Vanport, Oregon, sounds good to me. (Moving the article, I mean.) Go for it. The GNIS name seems to be an outlier. I'd be happy to do an infobox after the move if nobody else does it first. Finetooth (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft:LGBT Culture (Eugene, OR)
Today I found sources and started a (very drafty) stub article here: LGBT culture in Eugene, Oregon. I have family visiting from afar next week and will have no time to work on it further until the end of the month, too late for the Wiki loves PRIDE outreach. I'd be delighted if another editor could step in and redraft/revise and submit it! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for starting a draft. I will add your draft to the results page and see if I can make improvements in the near future. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
See also: LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon, which desperately needs work. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Silverado
Inspired by Wiki Loves Pride and recent work on Mary's Club, I created an article for the infamous Silverado. I think I used the disambiguator "nightclub" based on the Satyricon article, but does this seem most appropriate? Would someone searching for this article think to use "nightclub", or would "Portland, Oregon" be a better disambiguator? --Another Believer (Talk) 02:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- The name is probably good enough, especially with the redirects Silverado (Portland, Oregon) and Silverado (Portland, Oregon nightclub). —EncMstr (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, EncMstr! --Another Believer (Talk) 06:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)