Talk:Oregon State Capitol/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Let's make this pretty

Take a look at featured article Michigan State Capitol. Gosh but that's a good looking article. (And, a similar history of having a succession of capitol buildings.) I want to this article to improve to that level. I can work on the writing, but I'm no expert on images. If anyone knows how and wants to put the work into acquiring the proper permissions to include photos of the earlier capitol buildings, especially some of those dramatic photos of the the 1935 fire, that would help a lot.

Note to self: besides some of the pieces of the columns from the 1935 capitol residing on the capitol grounds and at the history museum, there are still a couple in Mill Creek behind the Safeway. Since this is "original research", need to find a reliable source that concurs with this info. Katr67 17:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bricks from burned capitol and WPA labor used to add to TB hospital: [1] Katr67 18:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Further expansion: I'm thinking we need to find some info on the first capitol and get that section to at least one good paragraph. Then the second capitol could use a first paragraph covering its construction, design, costs, measurements. Then for the third capitol one more paragraph on the wings addtion that expands on the costs (dates, size, what exactly was added). Then under the "today" part add a paragraph or two on the grounds such as the statues, pillars, fountains, etc. Then we could probably work most of the pictures from the gallery into the article and leave it with a max of four. That's my thoughts at least. Aboutmovies 23:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll see if I can get around to adding some stuff too. Some of the more notable things on the grounds are the circuit rider statue, the Jason Lee statue, and the moon tree. Info on the wings should include who they are named after: The senate wing is the Jason Boe wing.[2] Maybe a bit on the mysterious smoldering carpet in the elevators in the old part of the building? Oh and speaking of carpet, we should talk about the specially designed house and senate carpets, and the capitol names. (These get referred to every so often during floor debate...) Want to try for good article status on this one? Katr67 17:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that this is still listed as a "stub" article, I think it is more like a "B" article...definitely no less than a start; any objections to changing it? Also a question/thought, I'm thinking it would be better to have the photos currently in the article spread throughout the article rather than in a gallery section; possibly even creating additional sections for the house and senate chambers, the pioneer and other things there are pictures of. Theophilus75 17:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
B bold, my friend! Sounds good to me… -Pete 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to change the rating. As to the pictures, see above. I'd personally like to wait on removing the gallery until the article is further expanded so the pictures don't dominate the text. Aboutmovies 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My picture plan: After the 2nd capitol section is expanded move the picture of the columns to it for a before an after. Once the 3rd capitol is further expanded move the entrance picture there. Once the current section is expanded move one of the chambers to it. Once we make the Capitol grounds section (or subsection of capitol today) move the relief sculpture and flags pictures there. Then expand the See also to include links to other Wikipedia pictures and move the close up of the Pioneer to that section. The other two pictures would then be in the See also section. I'm open to other suggestions, these are just my thoughts. Aboutmovies 18:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Updates

The wings are going to be closed soon for renovations. Katr67 18:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image

The following image was posted to the See also section

[[File:Oregon state capital building pioneer on top.jpeg|thumb|upright|The gold [[Oregon Pioneer (statue)|Oregon Pioneer]]]]

[[:File:Oregon state capital building pioneer on top.jpeg|thumb|upright|The gold Oregon Pioneer]]

But the display copy was: File:OregON sucks!!!!!! on top.jpeg The gold Oregon Pioneer

This makes no sense, also the see also section is not the right place to display images. Dbiel (Talk) 00:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately when someone reverted my deletion of the image, it now, at least, displays correctly. Dbiel (Talk) 01:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism for the "suck part" but please note for the placement part that the article has made it through both GA and FA reviews. There is nothing wrong with an image being displayed at the bottom like it is. This helps to space out the images and prevent them from bunching up into each other and from dominating the text. Pictures are useful and helpful, but also optional and secondary to the text and should not dominate an article. Further, the manual of style does not say they cannot be there, as it is silent on location. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional information. I would never have deleted it on the placement issue alone. It was the way it was being displayed that was the problem. After some more research, it seems to have been a cache issue as checking the historical copies, they display correctly. Very strange. Dbiel (Talk) 01:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for trying to get rid of the vandalism. Unfortunately, this will likely not be the only vandalism that occurs, as the main page article attracts a lot of vandals. With the cache issue, I know I have that problem too with Wikipedia. Odd Aboutmovies (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Layout fix needed

I'm crap at layout. Can someone fix the white space after the "Third Capitol" heading? Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any white space after that heading. May be a browser-specific issue? — Zaui (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm running Explorer on a PC. Too bad EncMstr is on WikiBreak... Katr67 (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not there in Firefox. I checked using Explorer and saw it. I'll see if I can fix it. — Zaui (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's because the photo placed in the previous section was bumping into the next section - creating the white space. I moved the photo, but IE locked up on me so I can't look right now to see if it's fixed. — Zaui (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It's fixed. Thanks bunches! Katr67 (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome, <Airplane!>and don't call me Bunches.</Airplane!> — Zaui (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Grounds features

See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon § Oregon_State_Capitol_vs._State_Capitol_State_Park

These are mentioned in the article, but not sure if any of them deserve standalone articles:

---Another Believer (Talk) 15:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oregon_State_Capitol/Archive_1&oldid=1077507185"