Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25

Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar

Check out this newly-promoted featured article. Also, Happy New Year! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sam Adams (again)

Someone is persistently altering a few details about Sam Adam's notable relationship a few years ago. I have reverted his/her edits a few times because it seemed contrary to the consensus many of us established at the time. The latest change is milder than previous edits by the same IP. Would some other editors please have a look? —EncMstr (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly on the matter, but I think the article looks pretty good. I prefer "17 year old" to "young man", as the latter is a bit more ambiguous. With a bit more expanding, this article could probably be promoted to Good status. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with "17-year-old" too, but I tweaked the second change a bit toward neutrality, I hope, and added a supporting citation. Finetooth (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Bottoms (again)

Are we done? I can't remember, but I know we wanted to do a DYK for April Fool's. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that would be fun. I'm not sure about the second section. I think we should remove it. There are a couple that probably qualify, but overall, it seems a bit too WP:OR-y to me. (BTW, I know for a fact that "Bottom School Park" is a typo. I drive past it every day; it should be Bolton School Park. Sort of an embarASSing typo.) --Esprqii (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Google Maps actually says that there are both parks, right next to each other. Are you sure? Jsayre64 (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Google Maps gets its data from GNIS which is somehow quite confused. I suspect somebody typed in the wrong name one day and the rest is history. It's all just part of the Bolton Primary School campus. The place identified as "Bottom School Park" is really just a small garden behind the school. I don't know how you challenge an erroneous entry in the GNIS database but if you figure out the proper government form to submit in triplicate to get it fixed, I'll do it. --Esprqii (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and the thing labeled "Bolton Park" in Google is really Hammerle Park. You won't find Hammerle Park on Google Maps, though GNIS says it has been named that since '93. --Esprqii (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Removed from our list. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
[Insert obligatory John Bolton or Michael Bolton joke here] -Pete (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Moving discussion to talk page. --Esprqii (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh noz, not body parts on April Fool's Day! Something has been said about our mentality ;) -Pete (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

not necessarily old, definitely not dead guys and gals

If anyone feels inspired, the new legislative session is now in effect, and we have a couple dozen Oregon state legislators without Wikipedia articles. The horror! Some of them have even been in the leg for a couple of sessions and gotten no Wikilove. If anyone wants to adopt a legislator, now's your chance!

Have at 'em! --Esprqii (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I know stubs are not preferable, but I can try to at least remove some of the above red text when I have the time. I am working on so many Wikipedia projects at the moment, but always happy to help! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Do whatcha can. It's nice to get the infoboxes in at least. --Esprqii (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

ghost towns and Glencoe

I stumbled across this custom map data overlaid on Google Maps, a comprehensive collection of ghost towns in Oregon, complete with annotations which include classification and references. It is impressively extensive covering every location I know of plus hundreds more.

In the annotation for Glencoe, the author notes:

Is anybody interested in digging into this? —EncMstr (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Glencoe issue was fixed years ago. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia edit-athon: Saturday, February 9, 2013

WIKIPEDIA EDIT-ATHON!
You're invited to the upcoming Wikipedia edit-athon, scheduled for Saturday, February 9 from 2–5pm in Old Town. Sponsored by Wiki Strategies and Prichard Communications, the event will begin with an introduction to Wikipedia, followed by an edit-a-thon focused on Portland's food scene, all things that "Keep Portland Weird", and local startup businesses.
Details and signup here!

Hope to see you there! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget! Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/February 2013. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sybil Plumlee

Notable enough for an article? I think I have expanded the article as much as possible using online references. I imagine the police department might have some additional information, but I am not sure if and when I would make the trek for more detail. So either this article is GAN ready, or it should not exist on Wikipedia. Thoughts? --Another Believer (Talk) 23:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts from a year ago still stand. I reread the sources and though several of them call her "pioneering", they don't really say what for except for being one of the first women officers on the force. The first of course being Lola Baldwin. I'm sure there were others but they didn't live to be 100 and didn't get to tell their story, perhaps. Which is too bad. If she is notable, I'd like to see more info on something she changed, initiated, took a stand on, etc., as to me that is what would make her a "pioneer". It looks to me like she was just doing her job. Again, I think merging this info might be the best bet. Valfontis (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oregon DOT photos

Hey, wow -- am I late to the party? Did y'all know that the Oregon Department of Transportation's Flickr stream is CC BY licensed?? I was planning to go to bed, but maybe I'll embark on an all night uploading party instead
since Wikimedia Commons' upload wizard makes Flickr imports so darn easy. Woohoo!! -Pete (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to mass upload them all? I understand mass uploads are Commons with GLAM collaborations, though it remains a mystery to me how the uploading process takes place. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Pete, these are a great addition to Commons and spare me from having to upload any of my own pix of the big move, but couldn't the files have been given better names when uploaded to Commons? It appears that all of them just kept whatever names they had at ODOT, so we end up with file names like File:Let it slide.jpg, File:Framework.jpg, and File:Ready to roll.jpg, which make no mention of the subject and really are not suitable names for Wikimedia files, because they are way too vague. I don't know anything about multi-file uploads from Flickr (although I've done many individual uploads), so I am guessing that allowing Commons to simply copy the file name from the original source saves a step, but it would have been nice if you had at least added "Sellwood Bridge Jan 2013" or similar to the beginning of each of these file names, if not given them entirely new names (which is what I would have done). I realize that these will all be in the Sellwood Bridge category at Commons, but individual photos will also be in various other categories (e.g. about bridge construction), where the context won't be apparent at all from the file name, and in any case Commons file names should never be this vague if we want them to be easily found in searches and used. I'm not sure whether these file names are excessively vague enough to qualify for renaming under the renaming guidelines at Commons, but I hope they are, because I think most of them should be renamed. Nevertheless, my happiness at seeing these uploaded far outweighs my frustration over the file names. SJ Morg (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
SJ Morg, you're right, I should have been more diligent about that. I tweaked a couple, but didn't spend as much thought on it as I should have -- I was more interested at ogling the photos at the moment. It's actually very easy to change the names during the upload process, I was just being lazy.
I'll go back and rename some of them now.
As for the process -- it's trivially easy, with the upload wizard all you do is click the "Flickr" button and paste in the URL of the set, and you can begin uploading the files in a batch. You have a chance to adjust names etc. ODOT has many more sets, so give it a try for yourself!
AB, the mass uploads that museums and so forth do generally use the Commons API. I've never done it myself. In a case like this, I think set-by-set uploads where relevant will be fine; there are plenty of photos on their site that don't really fit Commons' scope, so being selective is worthwhile. -Pete (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Should we create a checklist of sets to be uploaded? Image uploading is not my area of expertise, but I can try to help as needed. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and requested renaming for the two existing files mentioned above. I do remember noticing the license on ODOT's Flickr photos before, but I never thought there were this many encyclopedic ones. I wish we could use Smallbot or some other bot to mass-upload most of these, like we did before, though I'm not sure if the bot could write suitable file names for all of them. I think I'll ask the bot's master
 Jsayre64 (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 Done-I'm uploading them via Flickr2Commons which makes flickr uploads much easier. You can't do better with the names...unless you do it manually. You can view them at Commons:Category:Media from Oregon Department of Transportation Flickr Photostream. If the images aren't needed, they can be mass-deleted...a lot of the gov photostreams close randomly (bureaucracy probably). Also, please make a list of what you want batch-uploaded...bot ops get to it eventually. I'll also do the BLM Photo Library eventually. Cheers.Smallman12q (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Smallman! --Another Believer (Talk) 04:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I still feel that the Upload Wizard is the best tool for a job like this, specifically because it allows for file renaming at the time of upload. Smallman, I really appreciate you responding to a request like this! But, I wonder if it was the right request to make. Now we have a lot of files on Commons that either should be deleted because they serve no meaningful educational purpose, or renamed, both of which are resource-intensive processes that can be handled much more efficiently with the Upload Wizard at the time of upload. If we come across something like this again, I let's look a little more closely at the various possibilities before doing a batch upload. -Pete (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It occurs to me that maybe people aren't understanding what I mean by "Upload Wizard" -- it's just the main upload tool on Commons. Linked here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard The second prominent button says "add images from Flickr" -- and it allows you to enter the URL of an individual photo, or of a set. If you haven't used it, give it a try on any appropriately licensed photo on Flickr! -Pete (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

-Perhaps I was a bit hasty. I don't see a second flickr button...only "select a media file to share". However, Flickr2Commons (best in chrome/ff) does allow for you to select which files to upload, what to call them, give a description, and provides a thumbnail (but I don't have the patience to sift through them). My concern is that these gov streams/galleries are often fickle and randomly disappear/deleted such as here. A number of the images should be deleted. The problem is that there appears to be a lack of a tool to batch edit files in a category...so I may write something later in the week. My apologies if this causes extra work.

Also, there appears to be a number (78) of gov streams on flickr which should be uploaded.Smallman12q (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Smallman. I think I see what's going on: I have the "reviewer" status on Commons, which probably makes that button visible to me but not others. I bet it links to the Flickr2Commons tool under the hood. Anyway, your point about fickle government streams is well taken; I'm not too worried about what we've done here, just thinking about what we establish as common practice in similar projects in the future. All this analysis helps. -Pete (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edits for Robert B. Pamplin, Jr.

My name is Alvaro, and I work for Robert B. Pamplin, Jr. I have worked to develop an expanded biography for him according to Wikipedia’s policies and standards. My goal is to provide factual, well cited information. I have posted a draft of the article in my sandbox; I would appreciate any feedback or input. -Alvarofontan (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for disclosing your COI. I'll take a look at your article and provide some feedback on its talk page. --Esprqii (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

James DePreist

The article for James DePreist will likely be receiving a lot of traffic in the near future. The article is poorly sourced and probably quite incomplete. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears much of the text comes from his Allmusic (and coincidentally the NEA) biography. Any assistance with sourcing, re-wording, expanding would be much appreciated. DePreist had an international career but had a huge impact here in Oregon. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Final reminder: Portland edit-athon tomorrow!

Final reminder: Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/February 2013. Come join us for this edit-athon, 2-5pm tomrrow (Saturday). Hope to see you there! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You're invited! Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon at the University of Oregon

Saturday, March 9 - Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon at the University of Oregon - You are invited!
Come celebrate Women's History Month at the University of Oregon in Eugene, Oregon, on March 9! This event, facilitated by WikiWoman Sarah Stierch, is hosted by the Fembot, in collaboration with ASOU Women's Center, the Center for the Study of Women in Society, the School of Journalism and Communication, and the UO Libraries.

Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history!

The event is March 9, from 1-4 PM, at the University of Oregon Library.

You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

James B. Norman

A new contributor just got this article through WP:AFC. I think the article could use a couple more sources (which I strongly suspect exist) to bolster its claim to notability. Might be a worthy cause to seek out a little press or book coverage of this guy. -Pete (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Lois M. Leveen

In looking at Lois M. Leveen, I see that 65 of the 81 edits made to the page were by User:Chuckgbarnes (talk/contribs) who has only 9 other WP edits, most of which are directly or indirectly related to this article. These edits have been made in spurts over a 2-year period. The overall article quality seems to be OK, despite the cleanup tag. I'm not sure whether this calls for a friendly comment re WP:SPA. Any ideas? YBG (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it right now, since the user hasn't edited since last August. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the article is iffy -- not sure if the subject clears notability, and if so, the article could express it better. But I agree with Jsayre. There's nothing wrong with being an SPA in itself; I just think of it as something that gets pointed out in content disputes to give context. Working on the article, rather than focusing on the user, seems like the best way to go. -Pete (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I have nominated Music for a Time of War for Good article status. The article has recently received a peer review and a review from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. There remain a few references that need to be incorporated into the article (see talk page), but I think GAN is an appropriate step to take before nominating it for Featured status, once completed. Project members are more than welcome to review the article or add remarks to the talk page. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Round Two. Update: Music for a Time of War was promoted to Good article status; time to roll up the sleeves and focus on the upgrade to Featured article status. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Congrats! -Pete (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done (re: Music for a Time of War good article status). --Another Believer (Talk) 19:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done (re: This England good article status). --Another Believer (Talk) 19:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done (re: Music for a Time of War featured article status). --Another Believer (Talk) 19:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oregon Symphony discography

Feel free to take a look at this list and let me know if you have any thoughts or ideas for improvement (by the way, it's not 100% complete). I've requested assistance from WikiProject Classical music and WikiProject Discographies as well, specifically asking for editors more familiar with the classical music manual of style / naming conventions to review the featured works. Hoping to nominate this list for Featured list status in the near future. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Oregon Symphony discography/archive1. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Good luck! Jsayre64 (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, good work. Congrats on that and your recent GAs! Jsayre64 (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfinished userspace draft: Oregon Wild

Would anyone like to ask User:Name Omitted for permission to work on and move to mainspace this userspace draft or whether he/she plans to continue working on it? I have a slight COI on the subject. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I am just curious, would you be interested in working on the article yourself and just disclosing the COI on its talk page? I did this recently (actually, multiple times) and it worked very well. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe some, but I wouldn't want to do any serious content editing. I've asked the editor if others can work on it. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Response Jsayre64 (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Please, by all means. I ran out of trustworthy sources to work with from Alaska. I would love for someone with local access to finish what I started.Name Omitted (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
News stories that could help with the article: [1], [2]. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Jacksonville Museum

Under the Jacksonville, Oregon, article, there was no place that said that the Jacksonville Museum was opened on July 10, 1950. This information is from one of the history books at the Medford Branch Library of the Jackson County Library Services.

<ref>The Jacksonville Story, by Richard H. Engemann, published 1980, page 41</ref>

63.224.197.10 (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Holly Hertel, Medford Reference Librarian, Jackson County Library Services

I'd be glad to add that information to the article if you can supply information about the source. What I will need to create an inline citation to the source is as follows: author, title, publisher, date of publication, place of publication, page number, and, if available, ISBN. The entire first paragraph of the "Museums and other points of interest" section of the existing article lacks a citation to a reliable source. If the book you mention covers all of the claims in that paragraph, or if you know of a reliable source for all of those claims, I'd be glad to add that to the article as well. Thanks for your interest. Finetooth (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I've added the info presented to the article; hopefully additional information will be forthcoming, perhaps covering the entire paragraph. YBG (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks,YBG. Finetooth (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do when time is available. This is fun. Holly Hertel 3-9-13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.197.10 (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You might like to create an account, which is advantageous in many ways. An explanation and how-to can be found at WP:ACCOUNT. Finetooth (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that, meanwhile, I think all you need to finish the citation for "The Jacksonville STory" is the publisher, which is Southern Oregon Historical Society, and published in 1980. Thanks. Holly Hertel, 03-11-13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.197.10 (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Added reliable source for the rest of the paragraph as well. Finetooth (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Oswego Lake

Are there any Wikipedians among the 1200 or so households that the Lake Oswego Corporation believes have swimming/boating access rights on Oswego Lake? If so, I'd be interested in seeking some assistance with some photos... — Ipoellet (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, well-phrased. Wiki-email me, I might be able to hook you up. --Esprqii (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
My mom has swimming access. What are you looking for? —EncMstr (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Might be interesting to have a photo from one of the few public places from which you can actually see the lake. YBG (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Lighthouses

I propose moving List of lighthouses on the Oregon Coast to List of lighthouses in Oregon, for consistency with other state lists. I doubt the list of lighthouses in Oregon is long enough that it must be divided into separate lists based on region. Perhaps just separate sections here for Oregon Coast, Columbia River, Willamette River, etc.? Table columns might include name, status (decommissioned, active, perhaps years of operation), location, image, description, etc. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the article years ago and wondered vaguely about the coastal specificity. There are a total of five lights mentioned in a see also sort of way: four because they are no longer in existence and Warrior Rock Light because it is inland, on Sauvie Island. The effect of renaming the article would be to include two more, Warrior Rock and Willamette River Light as full-fledged entries. @Valfontis: it looks like you established the name originally. Do you remember why? —EncMstr (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Archimedes Movement

The Archimedes Movement nomination for deletion hasn't gotten a lot of traffic, and was recently relisted. I've been meaning to expand this one for a while, and used the AfD as an excuse to do so. More perspectives on its notability -- and of course, more sources if you know of any that I missed -- would be helpful. -Pete (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

A little while back I began breaking up the large category Category:Sportspeople from Portland, Oregon by sport. For each athlete, this results in replacing two categories with one: for instance, replacing Category:Basketball players from Oregon and Category:Sportspeople from Portland, Oregon but the single, more specific Category:Basketball players from Portland, Oregon.

The categories have been brought up for deletion first at WikiProject Basketball, and now at Categories for discussion. I think this is the first notification of Oregon folks. If you have an opinion, have at it. -Pete (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Portland Incubator Experiment

My latest project (or one of them). Much work remains, but feel free to take a gander at what I have put together thus far. If anyone has time for a copy edit, some assistance would be much appreciated. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Architecture in Portland, Oregon

I am tempted to nominate this template for deletion, but I wanted to bring it up here for discussion before doing so. Does this template serve a purpose? What are the criteria for inclusion? Seems arbitrary to me. I can think of many other buildings not included that are notable. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a navigation template which has many advantages over list articles and categories for finding related information. If it is lacking notable architecture, the solution is not to prod it, but to improve it. Quite a bit can be usefully added to such a template. See {{Protected Areas of Oregon}} for an idea of deep scope. —EncMstr (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
But there are hundreds , if not thousands, of notable buildings in Portland. All buildings on the National Register of Historic Places are considered notable. There is no way to include all of these in a navbox. Perhaps it should be broken up into separate navboxes... Template:Hotels in Portland, Oregon, Template:Museums in Portland, Oregon, Template:Theatre in Portland, Oregon, etc. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Mark Mason (announcer)

Mark Mason is the PA announcer for the Trail Blazers and hosts a radio show in Portland. He's been updating his page for a while as User:Mark1190. I think he's done a pretty fair job (and I've stepped in a couple of times) so I don't think there is a COI issue, but I do think the page is getting a bit crufty, especially with regard to "notable phrases". Any other opinions? --Esprqii (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I may be wrong on the COI issue as I see he recently undid someone's edit. --Esprqii (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Portland metropolitan area

There is currently a requested move at Portland metropolitan area that's relevant to this project.--CĂșchullain t/c 17:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Responded. Thanks for the heads up. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Schwantner: New Morning for the World; Nicolas Flagello: The Passion of Martin Luther King

Seeking non-biased feedback for another article. This one is shorter than Music for a Time of War and This England. I am not quite done, as I still need to spend a bit more time researching the subject and browsing through the liner notes, but this will probably be nominated for GA status in the very near future. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: Now at GAN. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Music for a Time of War

Here we go...! Feel free to offer comments, if interested. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

NRHP articles and photos

Left: Map of the United States including county-level data for percentage of articles created by members of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Data used to create the map is found here. Right: Map of the United States including county-level data for percentage of listings illustrated.

FYI, there are new graphics available showing progress of developing articles for NRHP-listed places, and for obtaining photos, in each U.S. county. See Oregon's status relative to other status in the graphics here. Under discussion, development at wt:NRHP. Is Oregon a bit ahead of the average in both? Graphics give higher emphasis to low-population areas, not enough credit visually for high-density city areas. Cheers, --doncram 20:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in a campaign to increase the number of articles and photographs for sites on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon? Perhaps setting goals for sites or areas to visit, article creation blitzes, contacting Wikipedians (or other known photographers) in select parts of the state, contacting historical societies, etc. It would be great if Wikipedia provided complete and fully-illustrated lists of sites worthy of preservation. Just trying to gauge interest and see if any creative ideas emerge. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Code County or equivalent State # of listings Illustrated % Illustrated Articled % Articled
41001 Baker County Oregon 13 10 76.9% 13 100%
41003 Benton County Oregon 53 51 96.2% 37 69.8%
41005 Clackamas County Oregon 82 63 76.8% 28 34.1%
41007 Clatsop County Oregon 60 40 66.7% 37 61.7%
41009 Columbia County Oregon 12 10 83.3% 4 33.3%
41011 Coos County Oregon 52 19 36.5% 6 11.5%
41013 Crook County Oregon 6 5 83.3% 3 50.0%
41015 Curry County Oregon 44 14 31.8% 9 20.5%
41017 Deschutes County Oregon 40 27 67.5% 31 77.5%
41019 Douglas County Oregon 48 17 35.4% 9 18.8%
41021 Gilliam County Oregon 3 3 100% 1 33.3%
41023 Grant County Oregon 10 6 60.0% 8 80.0%
41025 Harney County Oregon 7 7 100% 7 100%
41027 Hood River County Oregon 38 38 100% 27 71.1%
41029 Jackson County Oregon 150 70 46.7% 24 16%
41031 Jefferson County Oregon 5 4 80.0% 5 100%
41033 Josephine County Oregon 57 15 26.3% 13 22.8%
41035 Klamath County Oregon 28 16 57.1% 16 57.1%
41037 Lake County Oregon 17 9 52.9% 14 82.4%
41039 Lane County Oregon 134 118 88.1% 89 66.4%
41041 Lincoln County Oregon 35 17 48.6% 10 28.6%
41043 Linn County Oregon 69 69 100% 24 34.8%
41045 Malheur County Oregon 17 14 82.4% 10 58.8%
41047 Marion County Oregon 107 82 76.6% 49 45.8%
41049 Morrow County Oregon 5 5 100% 3 60%
41051 Multnomah County Oregon 572 549 96.0% 496 86.7%
41053 Polk County Oregon 28 22 78.6% 9 32.1%
41055 Sherman County Oregon 5 5 100% 4 80%
41057 Tillamook County Oregon 29 7 24.1% 5 17.2%
41059 Umatilla County Oregon 41 40 97.6% 12 29.3%
41061 Union County Oregon 19 19 100% 5 26.3%
41063 Wallowa County Oregon 19 11 57.9% 3 15.8%
41065 Wasco County Oregon 33 32 97.0% 23 69.7%
41067 Washington County Oregon 43 43 100% 36 83.7%
41069 Wheeler County Oregon 1 1 100% 1 100%
41071 Yamhill County Oregon 80 51 63.8% 20 25.0%
Duplicates[1] 11 11 - 10 -
State Total 1,951 1,497 76.7% 1,081 55.4%

The above table displays the total number of NRHP sites by county in Oregon, followed by the numbers and percentages of sites that are illustrated and "articled". I copied the table from the Progress link posted in the image caption above for easier access and updating.

(Note, mostly to self: I copied the table only, and none of the surrounding Oregon-related notes.)

Would anyone be interested in tackling a specific county? Tasks would include creating articles for red links, photographing non-illustrated sites yourself, or searching for free images online. Once completed, this table should be updated -- be sure to update the total counts and percentages for county PLUS the totals for the state at the bottom of the table. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll start by looking for appropriately licensed photos online. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Great! Some of the counties should be easy to complete since they have just a few sites (unless they are very obscure...) --Another Believer (Talk) 04:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, nothing at all on Flickr for the first five counties. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Pink Martini

FYI, representing Oregon's music scene: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Pink Martini/archive1. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

May Day

If interested, you can view pictures in the May 2013 in Oregon gallery at Commons. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Allow Me (Portland, Oregon)

Feel free to copy edit or expand! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Listing of Portland Media Outlets is super outdated and incomplete

Hi, my name is Lisa Loving, I am the news editor at The Skanner News. We have published in Portland since 1975 -- can we get listed on the media page? Thank you very much. 74.92.170.45 (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)LisaLoving

What Listing of Portland media outlets do you mean? Maybe the one inside the Portland article at Portland, Oregon#Media, though that is a summary of Media in Portland, Oregon?
There is no existing article for The Skanner News nor Skanner News. To be considered notable, an article based on Wikipedia's Five Pillars would make inclusion in the second article straightforward. The newspaper section is a summary of List of newspapers in Oregon which has a redlinked entry for The Skanner.
Please note this is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate listing of business wishing to be promoted. —EncMstr (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Right 2 Dream Too

If someone has a moment to help expand this article, even adding a couple sources would likely save this article from deletion. I am busy at the moment but hope to expand ASAP. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, EncMstr! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

BLT cocktail

BLT cocktail is undergoing a deletion discussion about whether to delete the article from Wikipedia.

Please see ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BLT cocktail.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Petersen Rock Garden

Petersen Rock Garden, a must-see-at-least-once attraction in Central Oregon and my latest Wikipedia project! Feel free to join in, if interested. If someone could help with coordinates and one of those pin map thingies, that would be very helpful! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the coordinates, Jsayre64. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, LM5! --Another Believer (Talk) 05:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoyt Hotel

Again with the oversharing, but this time to also promote Portland Xanadu: the Rise and Fall of the Hoyt Hotel, tonight (7pm) at Mission Theater (McMenamins). Sounds interesting. I hope to attend, so I went ahead and also started a Wikipedia article for the featured subject. Perhaps WikiProject Oregon could collaborate more with the Oregon Encyclopedia? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The Oregon Trail (video game) - barnstar offer

A barnstar to whomever gets this article up to WP:GA quality! ;)

It's a neat article that will help draw interest in for further contributors to Oregon history!

Keep us posted at Talk:The Oregon Trail (video game). And/or poke me on my user talk page when this quality improvement drive is successful!

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise or interest. Perhaps submit an invitation to a video games WikiProject? --Another Believer (Talk) 15:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia + Portland State University

Main article: Education Program:Portland State University/PS 331 - Oregon Politics (Spring Quarter)

WikiProject Oregon members, I humbly ask for your support for an upcoming project in collaboration with Portland State University. Phil Keisling, course instructor for PS (Political Science) 331 - Oregon Politics, is interested in having his students write about notable Oregon ballot measures as an extra credit assignment. (The idea being, rather than asking students to write papers that only one person will read, let's provide students with a unique experience, learning how to edit Wikipedia and have their work benefit the encyclopedia.) The class has between 40 and 50 students, but because this is an extra credit assignment, the instructor believes more like 10-15 may participate. I imagine it might also appeal to students who are curious about Wikipedia in general.

I will be giving a presentation to students next week (Tuesday, 5/28). I plan to provide a history and overview of Wikipedia and its mission, provide statistics, explain benefits of the Education Program, discuss the assignment, provide basic training and answer questions. I am happy to provide an e-mail address for students to reach me directly. Ideally, I will have examples of similar quality articles to display and offer content suggestions. My hope is that students will have a unique collaborative experience, learn a bit about Wikipedia and how it works, and hopefully a few will even remain editors after June. I believe this project will mark the first Education Program collaboration in Portland.

The students have been assigned an Oregon ballot measure to write about. Work will be graded based on Wikipedia entries as of June 12 (end of day). I ask that WikiProject Oregon members be patient with new editors, and offer support when possible. Editing Wikipedia can be frustrating in the beginning, so please lend a helping hand and even offer content suggestions on the article's talk page ("What was the significance of the election?", "Do we know voter turnout?", "Long-term impact?", etc.) We might also offer helpful resources. I do not want WikiProject Oregon members to do all the work, but just to be thoughtful and supportive and to possibly help with things like formatting... Any thoughts, suggestions or offers of support are much appreciated! Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  • One more thing. This project is associated with Wikipedia's Education Program, hence the course page linked above. Hopefully students will enroll properly so that their contributions to articles can be easily tracked via banners and watchlists. I have also requested online support from the Education Program itself, but I figured a "heads up" here would also be beneficial. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Great idea! I suggest the presentation begin with the Five Pillars and emphasize WP:NPOV and WP:V with sides of WP:NN, WP:UNDUE, and WP:CITE.
Some of the better ballot measure articles can be used as templates for whatever they write:
Of course, encourage all good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia, and be WP:BOLD. If I see a mistake easily fixed, I will pitch in. —EncMstr (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thanks for collecting these examples - I added them to the course page for reference. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Reminder: We will have some new contributors editing Wikipedia articles for Oregon ballot measures. Please be helpful and encouraging, and feel free to offer technical assistance when possible/interested. I hope this will be a good experience for new editors... perhaps a couple will even stick around! Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: So far, four students have enrolled in the project and have started work on three articles: Oregon Ballot Measure 7 (1940), Oregon Ballot Measure 1 (1962) and Oregon Ballot Measure 44 (1996). Please remember that these are works in progress, but that you are welcome to help improve these articles or even offer suggestions on the article's talk page. The instructor says a few more students may choose to participate. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Oregon's Most Endangered Places

Apologies for my need to share, but history buffs might find this newly-created list interesting: Oregon's Most Endangered Places. Hopefully it will be fully-illustrated in the future. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The 2013 list was announced recently, so I have updated the list accordingly. If anyone knows of links or images to some of these sites, or is nearby and can snap a photograph, any help would be appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon - FA nomination

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon is currently a candidate for consideration for a 2nd time for Featured Article quality status.

The discussion page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Notified this WikiProject as the author of the book is from Portland, Oregon and is a food commentator and columnist for The Oregonian. — Cirt (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Congrats on the FA! --Another Believer (Talk) 14:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia?

Are there any active WP ORE members with an interest in off-wiki Wikimedia activity? My reason for asking is to gauge whether there is any interest in discussing the possibility of a local or regional chapter of WMF. Any feedback would be helpful, here or via e-mail if you prefer. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm very active offline and off site (see my blog for an overview), but my interest in creating a formal chapter is pretty minimal. I am much more interested in organizing at a local level without engaging in the bureaucracy of legal incorporation, tax statuses, Wikimedia approval, etc. If others want to do the lifting I will gladly participate, but I do not find that kind of work especially appealing. I do think the Wikimedia User Groups model is worth exploring, as it doesn't require the same amount of legwork as chapter formation, but could also be a more attainable short-term step in that direction. -Pete (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 Wiknic

I started a page for this year's Wiknic. No details have been set, so feel free to offer suggestions, indicate interest, etc. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Wiknic/2013. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"WIKNIC" 2013!
You're invited to the upcoming "Wiknic", scheduled for Saturday, June 22.
In typical Wikipedia fashion, you can help decide the location. Details and signup here!

--Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: Consensus has determined that the picnic will be held this Saturday, June 22, 2013 from 11am to 4pm at Laurelhurst Park in southeast Portland. See the meetup page for details. Forecasts indicate good weather, but the ground might be wet from the now-until-then rain. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Weather Machine (sculpture)

Being jealous of the coverage of landmarks and public art in Washington, D.C., I've started another article for this kinetic sculpture in PDX. See Weather Machine (sculpture). Should make a nice companion piece, once fully expanded, to Allow Me, which I just nominated for Good status. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: . Nominated for GA status. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 Done. Tempted to go for featured status...? --Another Believer (Talk) 02:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

pssst

Anybody notice today's featured article? -Pete (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What a great article. Well done to all involved! --Another Believer (Talk) 03:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Portland Arts Tax

Definitely deserves an entry. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

One last reminder: Portland Wiknic

Details, signup and directions can be found at the following link:

Hope to see you there! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Darcelle XV

I've never seen Darcelle XV or her show, but I've heard enough to start an article. Notability is easily established (see talk page for additional sources). There might even be enough material to have separate articles for Cole/Darcelle and the Showplace (to be determined). Enjoy and/or feel free to help expand! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Reed College buildings

My latest project. Feel free to assist with expansion or adding photos, if interested! Methinks this should actually be a branch from a more general Campus of Reed College article, which would also incorporate other aspects of the campus such as the history of the land, Reed Canyon and Lake, crossings such as the Blue Bridge and Pedestrian Bridge, Cerf Ampitheatre, artwork, heritage, wildlife, etc. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

+ List of Presidents of Reed College. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks to Visitor7, there are now images for all of the listed buildings! What a huge help to this particular project. My sincere gratitude for your hard work and willingness to help. WikiProject Oregon members (and especially Reedies!), if you have time to check the list for completeness and accuracy, any assistance would be much appreciated. If you have time to put together a summary of a building, or incorporate non-primary sources, that would also be great! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon - TFAR nomination

I've nominated Everything Tastes Better with Bacon at WP:TFAR for consideration for International Bacon Day.

More info at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

— Cirt (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Benson Bubblers

Might someone do me a favor and move the Benson Bubblers article to "Benson Bubbler" (I believe singular article titles are preferable to plural); I am unable to do so. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done -Pete (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Shemanski Fountain

I have requested a copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors and have also nominated this article for Good article status. If you have any thoughts on the article, feel free to respond here or on the article's talk page. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Article says it is in the South Park Blocks near the Schnitz. Might be nice to also include a location description that Shemanski might recognize. Is there anything nearby that was there in the 20's? Also, was Shemanski Jewish, and if so, might that have had something to do with choosing a motif from the Hebrew scriptures? YBG (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I did not come across any 1920s references in my research, or other details about Shemanski. That being said, I think the Oregonian archives available through the site go back to 1987 (?), so there may be earlier sources with additional information. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

--Another Believer (Talk) 19:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Rose Garden (arena)

FYI, the arena will now be known as Moda Center. I see someone has already moved the Wikipedia article accordingly... --Another Believer (Talk)

The move seems premature to me per WP:NAME. It is still going to be best known as the Rose Garden for some time. —EncMstr (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I see your point, but I would argue the article should remain as Moda Center, mostly because the former title contained a disambiguation and people searching for "Rose Garden (arena)" will be redirected to the new title. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I think we have to go with the official naming, as yucky as it is. By the way, we probably need an article on Moda Health, the RG's new corporate naming overlords. I for one... --Esprqii (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for review of portal image nomination

I nominated a new photo to add to the rotation at Portal:Oregon/Selected picture (bottom of the page) 12 days ago, and I'm leaving a note here because it appears that no one is regularly checking that page nowadays. Prior to my edit, no one had edited the page since 2011, and it still has three other nominations that were made at that time. I also noticed that some of the pages for individual "selected pictures" were out of date, so I fixed them; for example, here and here. I don't feel I should approve my own nomination, so I hope someone else will be willing to take a moment to review it (and, I hope, OK it). I've drafted a possible text blurb (subject to editing) for the nominated photo here. Portland has a lot of interesting and historic bridges, but none of the 36 photos rotating through as the selected picture at the Oregon Portal is of a Portland bridge. I'm recommending this one. SJ Morg (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think your picture, and in fact, the other nominated photos, would all be great in rotation. I haven't been involved in the portal photo approval process, though, so I'm inclined to let those who have done so semi-regularly (AM, JSayre) have their shot at it first. If they don't chime in I'll learn something new (horrors!). --Esprqii (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is a great picture. I know nothing about this queue but why not use it? What is this process? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I support too -- I have had some involvement with this in the past, but I think Aboutmovies is the one who did most of the legwork in getting it set up. I'll have a crack at it in the next couple days if nobody else gets there first! This photo has an especially good caption, SJ Morg, and the other photos look good too. (But I wonder about the Chief Kno-Tah statue?) -Pete (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
SJ Morg, I am approving your photo, so here's how to go about adding it as a selected picture (AM, correct me if I'm wrong with any of this): create the page Portal:Oregon/Selected picture/37 using the markup at Portal:Oregon/Selected picture/Layout with your own blurb. Then edit Portal:Oregon, find the text {{Random portal component|max=36|header=''Selected picture'' etc., and update the max to 37. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks, everyone. I've gone ahead and created the page now. I also made the related edits to other pages that should make the new page function correctly. SJ Morg (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep, that's how its done. TO ALL: I think we discussed this sort of thing a few years back, but feel free to nominate more and approve others. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The Quest (Portland, Oregon)

Another work in progress, continuing with the public art trend. You know, that white sculpture with the bulges... Feel free to contribute! If anyone is able to help with coordinates or images (perhaps someone more familiar with copyright or fair use than me), assistance would be much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for adding coordinates, Aboutmovies! --Another Believer (Talk) 01:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I requested a copy edit for this article. I also uploaded two images, one of the front of the building (which shows the sculpture) and another of the plaque. Hoping these images are being used correctly. Nominating for GA status soon. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A survey of Oregon historians

Thought others might be interested in this: I just stumbled on a survey of historians of Oregon published on OregonLive, going back to Frances Fuller Victor and containing lots of names I haven't heard. Might be of interest for expanding any number of articles, not least History of Oregon. -Pete (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Main Page

Wow, two Oregon-related FA Main Page appearances in a row. Yesterday, Everything Tastes Better with Bacon. Today, Willamette River. Well done to all involved! --Another Believer (Talk) 01:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Definitely cool to have two back to back! Jsayre64 (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
In traffic stats, it looks like bacon beat the river. What does that tell us about people's interests? Jsayre64 (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Fountains in Portland, Oregon

If any Portlanders are out and about this month photographing sites for Wiki Takes Portland, please consider visiting one of the unillustrated fountains on this newly-created article. I went with "Fountains in Portland", as opposed to "List of fountains in Portland", thinking it would be an article with details about the history and regulation of fountains plus a list. Similar articles are not consistent: there is Fountains in Paris, but List of fountains in Rome... Fountains in Moscow, but Fountains and ponds of Stockholm. Anyways, there are tables for N, NE, NW, SE and SW PDX. Some of the fountains probably deserve articles. Thanks for any assistance. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks nice. How many fountains do you think you will end up with? It seems to me to be unlikely to end up with all that many, unless you were to list every individual Benson Bubbler and the like. Consequently, it seems to me that it would be much better to have one combined list, rather than dividing it up into the five "quadrants". I recognize that in this issue I tend to be a jointer, not a splitter, and many may disagree with me. I know that editing is simpler if they are in separate sections, but with sortable tabular data, I really like to be able to sort the entire group as a whole. And while in the past, I could never think of a reason to sort by image, when I was looking at the different National Historic Register entries, I wish I could have sorted the list by image to be able to easily see all of the ones needing a picture. Thanks for starting this list. YBG (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Here's an interesting link: http://portlandwaterfountains.blogspot.com/ YBG (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The number of total fountains is yet to be determined, but I do not think there are too many. So far I have included the ones operated by the Water Bureau, but there may be others in private collections, others operated by the Regional Arts & Culture Council or Portland Parks & Recreation, etc. O'Bryant Square comes to mind. I do not plan to add details for Benson Bubblers (there is an existing article for those specifically, but they should be mentioned in the fountains article). --Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
BTW, thanks for the link, though I do not think this can be used as a reliable source. Regarding "quadrants" of the city, personally I would prefer to keep them, at least while the article is still a work in progress. The Water Bureau separates them by section of the city. Once the list is more complete, I'd be open to discussing the best way to display them here. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I have merged the tables into a single, sortable table. Currently, the list contains the 19 fountains maintained by Portland Parks & Recreation. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Gay, not as in happy!

Portland is one of "America's Top 20 Gayest Cities", but I think Wikipedia's coverage of the LGBT community is underdeveloped. I started an article for CC Slaughters. Can you think of other notable LGBT-related subjects worthy of an article? See Category:LGBT in Oregon for existing articles.

Seeking assistance with coverage of the LGBT community in Portland.--Another Believer (Talk) 15:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

These overview articles already exist and could always use improvement:
We also have several openly LGBT elected officials, such as:
These are the articles that come to mind
hope this is helpful! -Pete (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Pete. Something tells me the CC Slaughters and Silverado articles will be more interesting to work on than the Oregon Citizens Alliance article...! --Another Believer (Talk) 04:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

High Desert Museum

Wiki-Oregon teammates
looks like there’s something wrong with format used for some references in High Desert Museum article. I tried to fix problem, but I don’t use that particular footnote format and I couldn’t figure what was causing the error. If any of you have experience with reference formats, might want to take a look at that article.--Orygun (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The parameter 'accessdate' is used to indicate when you viewed a web site, and hence requires a url= parameter. If the reference is for a book or magazine or the like, then it really doesn't matter when you looked at it. If there are multiple editions, there are other parameters to distinguish which one in particular you looked at. At least for the next few months or so, until they start publishing books on electronic paper. If you were actually checking this stuff out on real book, then you can just delete the accessdate= parameter. On the other hand, if you were checking the gray lady on line or OregonLive.com, you need to include the URL through which you accessed it. YBG (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It looks like the offending accessdate= parameters without url's were added by Aboutmovies back on Oct. 16, 2008. I don't know if the problem has been visible since then, or if the WP formatting engine has just gotten smarter (or grumpier). YBG (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've deleted "|accessdate=date" code; and now error message is gone. Hopefully, I didn't delete anything important. Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
No, nothing important. All of the access dates you deleted were the same. I tried but failed to find the Oregonian stuff on OregonLive.com. Had I found them, I would have checked the references again and then put in today's date as the access date. Maybe Aboutmovies can remember whether he accessed the stuff via hard copies or on line. YBG (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The sources would have been online, but behind a paywall via a subscription service. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
That being the case, do you think we should restore the accessdate= parameter with URL=(unknown - behind paywall) or something like that? YBG (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm personally in favor that parameter for all items that were viewed online, but I know that is a minority view on Wikipedia when it comes to newspaper cites - thus the change to the template. Though, this does bring up a bigger problem, in that the change has introduced the problem all over. I believe I saw a bot working on it, but it will take some time for it to go through the millions of articles. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
@YBG: The {{cite}} templates were reimplemented in Lua a few weeks ago. {{Coord}} was the first template I knew of to be redone a few months ago and it has greatly improved page rendering speed, decreased server load, simplified and de-inscrutabilized the template logic, increased the maximum number of templates which can appear on a single page, and—due to the performance improvement—a number of additional checks were added. —EncMstr (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the fascinating info. Good to know that someone is always working on polishing the mirrors while keeping the smoke out of our eyes! YBG (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I edited the article to restore the access dates and put in a bare-bones URL with a comment indicating that the full exact url was unknown. Then I saw that many of these had page numbers on them, so the access was presumably not online, and in that case, the access date in not called for. Consequently, I reverted my edit. Anyway, I did figure out a way to put the access date back in if Aboutmovies can confirm if he accessed them (or some of them) on line. YBG (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they were all accessed online. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll restore them. Of course, it would be best to have the url under which it was originally accessed. Any comments about the way I have indicated the unknown exact url's are more than welcome. YBG (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I would not have the URLs, and they might not have worked anyway. The sources would have been accessed via NewsBank, Westlaw, or Lexis-Nexis, and they may not have had a static URL, which is part of the reason why I did not add a URL. The other reason being that using the service for research to use on Wikipedia arguably would violate the terms of service, so I did not want to leave anything that could trace it back to me. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thousands of photos!

Dalai Lama at U of O
Carnegie Library in Dallas

Hey all -- freely licensed and/or public domain photo collections from:


have all recently been uploaded to Commons! There are some real gems in there. I've put just a couple examples to the right. But these collections need a lot of sorting, categorization, and (especially in the OMD stream) file renaming. I'd like to suggest a little "Collaboration of the Week" to get these processed and sorted through, and find uses for some of them!

They can be found in the categories linked above. When you have categorized them, it would be nice if you could remove the category that identifies them as needing cleanup; for the BLM files, that would be Files uploaded by Russavia (cleanup); in the other cases, it's the category linked above.

If we can get through these, here's a little carrot: I hear there may be an Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife stream to be harvested soon


I'm happy to give more tips if needed, since categorization and file renaming are handled a little differently on Commons. But for the most part, it's a much more forgiving environment than Wikipedia
so even more than usual, when in doubt, BE BOLD! -Pete (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh boy, more mass-uploaded photos. Well, I'll try to get cracking on them soon. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I am working on Wiki Takes Portland and other Commons categorization projects at the moment, but will keep this in mind and try to help! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

"Revisiting Portland's 1912 Homosexual Controversy and Assessing Its Legacy"

For history buffs: “100 Years Ago, But Not So Far Away: Revisiting Portland's 1912 Homosexual Controversy and Assessing Its Legacy”, a presentation and panel discussion starting tonight at 6:30pm at Mission Theater. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool. For reference, this is the Portland vice scandal article. It could use some work...maybe someone will get some good references from the presentation tonight. A couple of tangentially-related political figures who made lots of noise about this controversy were Allen G. Rushlight, who was Portland's plumber-turned-mayor and Walter Lafferty, U.S. Congressman, who had some interesting sex scandals of his own. A couple of my favorite old-dead-guy articles. And I'm sure my top fave, Maurice E. Crumpacker, was involved somehow as he was a Portland lawyer at the time, but I've never made the connection. --Esprqii (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
By the phrase "top fave," I take this to mean you are a Crumpacker Backer? -Pete (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
For 6 1/2 years I've been waiting to be asked. --Esprqii (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Taking Eventualism to the extreme
 👍 Like -Pete (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

New Oregon Articles Bot

Looks like there's something wrong with New Oregon Articles Bot -- it hasn't picked up a new article since 21 August. Anyone know how to fix it? Bot repair is way beyond me.--Orygun (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The link above says "The search is being run manually ..." so maybe it just lacks care and feeding. YBG (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Consumer Cellular updates

I just drafted some updates to the article about my employer, Consumer Cellular, here: User:Dominicartero/sandbox. I hope you’ll discover that I’ve made a sincere effort to source all the information and write in a way that honors Wikipedia’s core values of neutral and factual information. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Dominicartero (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Portland / Wiki Loves Monuments

Main page: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes America/Portland/2013
WIKIPEDIA TAKES PORTLAND 2013!
You're invited to participate in the upcoming "Wikipedia Takes Portland" campaign, to be held during the month of September. The local campaign occurs annually in conjunction with Wikipedia Takes America and Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States. Photographing sites included on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the main focus of Wikipedia Takes Portland. In typical Wikipedia fashion, you can work individually or create a team.
Details and signup here!

Call to action! Many of you are probably familiar with Wikipedia Takes America, the national campaign affiliated with the Wiki Loves Monuments contest. The purpose of the campaign is to photograph sites on the National Register of Historic Places. To participate, simply upload pictures during the month of September (photographs can be taken in September or any time prior). The campaign is a contest, so you may choose to focus on quality over quantity--the choice is yours! Either way, you can contribute to Wikipedia by uploading images of historic sites, preferably for articles without illustration.

I have started a Portland meetup page for discussion and resources related to this year's local campaign. Some cities choose to organize in-person photo hunts. If this is of interest, feel free to propose plans on the meetup page. I encourage you to upload images regardless of in-person activity, and please be sure to share your work! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Check out the project page if you have not seen the gallery, which includes quite a few previously unillustrated sites photographed by User:Visitor7. Well done, V! Project members, if you have the opportunity to upload even just one photo, please do. It's likely a site on the Register is right around the corner from where you live or work. Also, for any residents near Vancouver, please contribute here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes America/2013/Vancouver, Washington. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, major kudos to Visitor7, who just uploaded dozens of images, mostly of the East Portland Grand Avenue Historic District, among other photos (NRHP and non-NRHP) of Portland. I spent a lot of time manually categorizing the images by date (2013 in Portland, Oregon; September 2013 in Oregon), including WLM templates, and adding them to Category:Images from Wikipedia Takes Portland 2013. However, I am pleased to say the total number of NRHP images uploaded this month is approaching 350!... and those are just the ones I have found and added manually. I can no longer keep up with adding the images to the Portland campaign page, but I think this would be far too many images to include on one page anyway. Therefore, I invite you all to browse the collections. Sorry for photo stalking you, Visitor7, but again... congrats for sharing such great work and thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Surge of interest in Mount Hood climbing accidents

Does anyone happen to know why the readership of this article went crazy two days ago? (Usual level of access is 50–200 per day, but it was 22,639 on Friday September 13.) I have looked around a bit to see if there was any recent news of something, but I haven't found anything. —EncMstr (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems a rather unlucky day, maybe there's a connection there. YBG (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
That sure is an enormous jump. Three ideas: maybe there are a lot of rock falls this time of year from melting snow? More likely, I think, the article was linked from some other page that had a big jump in views, although, shockingly, the Mount Hood article's views had no major changes. My third theory is this news piece about South Sister. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow, how interesting. No idea about the reason, though. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

New admin bot

I have submitted an approval request for a new bot to maintain the Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Admin, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Admin2 pages. --Bamyers99 (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Withdrew the request. Transcluded changes provides recent changes. --Bamyers99 (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
That works for me, can we hook up this transclusion to update the Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Admin page, or otherwise incorporate it into the project? --Esprqii (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Watershed Spam? (or valuable E.L.?)

Spam? I don't have time to check into this. I note this person "top posted" the one misplaced link at Hood River, Oregon I checked, so if this isn't spam, it may still need clean up. Valfontis (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor has added a lot of those. I checked two of them and they seem valuable with no promotion or advertising, though I have Adblock Plus enabled so I don't see external site advertising. —EncMstr (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I noticed these yesterday appearing in the "External links" section of a lot of Oregon rivers. The author, Mark Contorno, appears to be making a business, Creek Life, out of potential stream clean-ups. He does not make clear how the money is to be handled in this "crowd-sourcing" enterprise, and his business web site is not yet fully functional. It appears to me that he is using Wikipedia to drum up business. I don't think the links have encyclopedic value, but I haven't meddled with any of them. Finetooth (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The links seem to be an attempt to draw eyeballs to a new Kickstarter-esque business. In fairness, though, I'll post on the IP's talk page to see if the editor wants to come justify the value of the links. Tdslk (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I saw mention of this discussion on the IPs talk page. They had resumed adding the links (in multiple states, not just Oregon) and still had made no effort towards discussion. As a result, I've blocked the IP for a longer period this time; hopefully it will get their attention so they will engage in discussion once the block expires - otherwise, the next block will be extended further to stop the disruption.
As the lins are going into location articles for multiple states, this discussion may need to be taken to WP:ELN or even WP:ANI. Anyone have comments or opinions on an appropriate alternate board to discuss the broader range of these added links? --- Barek (talk ‱ contribs) - 03:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about this issue. First, let me say that it was my fault for not responding faster to these issues. I agree with most of the points the admin's mad above, however I really do beilve that the watershed maps have encyclopedia value - the external links displays the watershed boundaries of that particular river. It gives the user a perspective of the area the river drains to and how each river is actually connected to others. The links are specific to that river's watershed boundary. The site gives users locations of pollution that in most instances are designated for river cleanups. Creeklife is no different than any other Riverkeeper or 'Friends of a River' organization that links to WIkipedia. Creeklife crowdfunded money is directly applied to that river/location or group that is doing the stream clean up - less 10% that is used to keep the site running. Much like the Applegate River Council who's mission statment is : “promote the success of member councils in watershed protection and restoration, encouraging activities that transcend individual watershed boundaries.” Creeklife's goal is the same, except instead of partnering up with other orginizations, Creeklife partners with local citizens of the river. It is important to the public to know the location of their watersheds and where the water they use comes from - and goes to. Also there is no advertising on the website. Creeklifer (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to point out a subtlety, Riverkeep or Friends of a River don't "link to Wikipedia", that is usually considered spamming. Instead, editors without a COI add external links as they see fit. If I had time I probably would have reported this at WikiProject Spam. Proceed with caution... Valfontis (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for talking to us Creeklifer and explaining what you are doing. Although I wish you success in what seems to me to be a worthwhile endeavor, I agree with Valfontis about the conflict of interest. It's true that each Creeklife watershed border map contains information that might be useful to a small number of readers, but the main function of the hundreds of links seems to be advertising for Creeklife itself. Wikipedia editors interested in rivers often create watershed maps for articles, but unlike Creeklife's skeletal maps, they are information-rich and have no other purpose. See the map in the geobox for Colorado River, for example. Finetooth (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand, I thought I had a valid point, but as cool as the creeklife maps are they are not as informative as the other maps. I've been a little to close to the forest to see the trees. I appreciate the time everyone has given to this talk, no more links. [[[Special:Contributions/24.29.224.130|24.29.224.130]] (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)]
Assuming that the above IP address is Creeklifer, thanks for being understanding about this. Like Finetooth, I think that your project could be a worthwhile endeavor, it's just not a good match for Wikipedia. I'm going to start the delinking process now. Tdslk (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure - I am a big fan of Wikipedia and have donated to the projected many times. This talk has re-enforced how good the site is, hopefully Creeklife will become just as helpful to others one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.224.130 (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion

There is a requested move and discussion going on at Talk:Tom_Peterson_(disambiguation)#Requested_move which may be of interest to this WP. In particular, as I mention in my comments, it seems to me that the real purpose of this RM is to demonstrate that Tom Peterson is nothing more than a "local celebrity" and therefore couldn't possibly be a primary topic. I contend that the reasoning and process by which this came to being was perhaps flawed. I'm also concerned that such a discussion may be dominated (and therefore, unduly influenced) by Wiki admin types who may lack familiarity with the matter at hand. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 18:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. It seems to me that if there are other notable TP's, then the main page should be a disambiguation page. I don't see how that is a slight to the local Mr. Peterson -- it just seems like a reasonable way to address the needs of a wide variety of readers, many of whom will be looking for the other guys. -Pete (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Museum Day

FYI, the Smithsonian is promoting Museum Day, which allows free entry for two (after you submit a valid e-mail address and print a ticket) for participating museums:

You can view participating museums here (I found it easier to use the dropdown towards the bottom of the page):

Portland museums: Blue Sky, Oregon History Museum, Oregon Nikkei Legacy Center, Portland Art Museum, World Forestry Center Discovery Museum. There are participating museums across the state, so take a look! Just in case you are interested... --Another Believer (Talk) 16:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That's tomorrow, the 28th BTW! Here is another cool event coming up on October 13 at Fort Hoskins. I will be going. Valfontis (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for clarifying. And then after the Fort Hoskins event you can come edit articles at the Portland Art Museum?! :p --Another Believer (Talk) 20:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Planning WikiProject Open

Everyone: I realize this is not directly related to WikiProject Oregon, but since this project has been fundamental to my evolving understanding of what is possible with a WikiProject, I thought I'd announce it here. I'd be pleased if any of you want to join in this effort! Sorry for the off-topic post, I try to keep stuff like this to a bare minimum :)

Anyway: several of us have been talking about starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Open, which would support the improvement of topics like open educational resources, open access, and free/open source software. Please join us this Thursday for a planning discussion! Or add your ideas to the page or talk page. -Pete (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Takes Portland 2013

A huge thanks to all photographers who participated in this month's Wiki Takes Portland campaign (you can browse uploaded images here at Commons). More than 400 photographs were uploaded, including some of previously unillustrated sites on the National Register of Historic Places and others that are just simply stunning. What a successful campaign! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Congrats, Selena!

Congratulations to Selena Deckelmann for being featured in Willamette Week! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Just an FYI. The artist of this work made an edit to the article, which I reverted based on information presented in a reliable source. I responded on his talk page, and then included an invitation to the upcoming edit-athon at the Portland Art Museum. I don't know all the rules re: people editing articles about their own work, but I just wanted to make project members aware of the interaction. Feel free to drop a note to Pete on his talk page. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

After further investigation, I left off BBC Steel as a funder after re-reading the Oregonian article in the MCL archives. Regarding his edit to the file name, I have requested a rename at Commons and will update the name here once that is possible. I will send a note to Pete directly. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hart Lake article

Wiki-Oregon Teammates: Yesterday, I uploaded new article on Hart Lake. However, it was laid over existing wiki-page that previously redirected Hart Lake queries to Warner Lakes because that article had paragraph on Hart Lake. As a result, the new Hart Lake article didn’t get picked up by the New Oregon Articles Bot. If Aboutmovies or another editor that likes doing assessments has time, I’d appreciate review/assessment of new article. Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks AB!--Orygun (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I made a minor edit to the article, but Aboutmovies assessed its quality. Orygun, have you considered nominating the article for Good status? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Few yrs ago, I tried to nominate Munson Valley Historic District and Rim Village Historic District for status. However, I must have posted nominations in wrong place because I got a curt note back telling me that GA status was determined by a panel. Since I was trying to submit those articles to a GA panel, the note left me unsure how to proceed. At that point, I decided to concentrate on my original Wikipedia goal of writing articles and turning them lose. I understand why GA and/or FA articles need to go through review process, but I’m not sure engaging in that process is worth the time required.--Orygun (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Well, if you believe the article meets GA criteria and you are interested in responding to reviewer's concerns, I'd be happy to nominate the article and help guide it through the process. I'd nominate the article and respond to concerns myself, but I am not familiar with the subject whatsoever. Good article reviews can be very painless, or they can take a bit of time. If you are not interested, I understand. It is just nice to have quality work recognized properly. Or, are other project members interested? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to help revise the article for a GAN, but I won't have the time to do a lot of work. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I cleaned up some nitpicky stuff, and I think the article is close to GA. However, Orygun is right in thinking that seeking a review and responding to reviewer questions and suggestions is time-consuming and can be frustrating. I might be able to help further by making suggestions on the article's talk page, but I don't want to take the lead or get pushy. Finetooth (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I propose a group nomination, perhaps just as WikiProject Oregon, and we can all chip in with tackling the reviewer's concerns? Many hands makes light work. Yes? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I would be fine with that. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Nominated. I will replace my name with WP ORE once the nomination appears on the list of nominations. (Done.) The link below is currently non-existent, but the review will appear once initiated. --Another Believer (Talk)

Cool. Two similar lake articles (also by Orygun) that I have considered for GAN are Suttle Lake and Lake of the Woods. I also like the potential of Wallowa County Courthouse and Whitehorse Ranch, and B&B Complex Fires definitely looks well researched. Good work, Orygun! Jsayre64 (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Great--perhaps we can nominate these for good article status one by one? Let's see how the first one goes! --Another Believer (Talk) 04:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Will be glad to help with upgrade efforts. I still have prep notes and source info on all the articles I’ve written. Regarding B&B Complex Fires...not sure that article can be upgraded. When I originally wrote article, Forest Service still had daily press releases from B&B fire ops center on-line and I linked each footnote to the press release(s) that info came from. However, Forest Service has now pulled those press releases from their web-site so many of the footnote links now only go to Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Region home-page. Bottomline
while info originally came from good/reliable source, because source doc's are no longer available on-line B&B fire article probably isn’t good candidate for GA upgrade.--Orygun (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hart Lake (Oregon)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 00:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this article. I'll begin with some initial comments sometime within the next 24-36 hours after a few readings and confirming some of the citations, etc. Thanks! --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

First comments/observations

Major CFORK questions
  • A lot of the history, ecology and geology focuses more on Warner Valley and is the same material found in the Warner Valley article. About 60-70% of the article content focuses on Warner Valley with the rest discussing Hart Lake. This makes me wonder if this content (per WP:CFORK) is properly split from the Warner Valley article, and subsequently whether there is substantial enough content to establish its own article or whether this material is better served merged back into the Warner Valley article. If this question isn't satisfactorily answered per the WP:CFORK policy, this GA review ends rather quickly.
General comments
  • I don't think the "location" section is appropriate...(1) we are not, as an encyclopaedia, supposed to be writing directions on how to get there. (2) If the information can be recast to reflect its geographic location, it should be integrated into the current "Geography" section. (3) The section is too small to exist on its own per MOS on sections and paragraphs.
  • Further, rename the "Geography" to reflect that it offers both geological and geographic content--they are two distinct disciplines, and the content is not just geographic in nature.
  • I'm thinking "Lake environment" should be moved into a larger geology and geography as well, and separated as a level 3 header for "Hydrology" from the location information and geological information.
  • In "Recreation" - can you provide more information describing the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge, USF&WS's involvement in the region, and what BLM does in managing their holdings. Also describe more about "hunting, fishing, bird watching, boating, and camping" activities--especially on why this area is more attractive/unique/etc.--because there are thousands of places that offer the same activities. Why should the fact this is another location stand out?
Lede
  • A one-paragraph lede does not adequately summarize the content and all aspects of the article, per WP:LEDE. An article this size, from how I would approach it, should have a three-paragraph lede.

More to come, pending responses above. Nominator pinged: @Another Believer:

Observer comments re: WP:CFORK

Comment from uninvolved editor Peteforsyth (talk · contribs)

I have not worked on this article, but have worked on articles about other bodies of water in Oregon, and I'd like to address the WP:CFORK question above. In short, I think this is a very helpful observation, and something that we should consider going forward (perhaps a good discussion topic for WT:ORE); but I don't think it needs to stand in the way of GA for this article. Neither Warner Valley nor Warner Lakes has yet been through a GA review. It seems reasonable to me that this article would include a fair amount of contextual information about the surrounding region. We could then consider whether that material might best be moved to another article per WP:SUMMARY -- and definitely should make those decisions before either of the other articles is put forward for GA. But I'm not sure it's necessary to resolve that decisively before evaluating this article's merits as a GA
is it? -Pete (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

  • @Peteforsyth: - Thank you your comments, I was thinking about asking for a second opinion on the matter after hearing from the nominator. My hesitancy about GA for this article is...is this article about the Warner Valley or about the lake. If it's about the lake, it's heavily unbalanced when 60% of the article is background material--more than a fair amount of contextual information. While I do agree contextual information is necessary, there's a point where I asked with this article "what is this article actually about...and then noticing the considerable overlap with Warner Valley. Whether Warner Valley or Warner Lakes has been through GA is immaterial, since the article itself has to stand or fall on the criteria. But I think CFORK has to be a big obstacle when considering it's eligibility. I'm going to ask for a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Can an article be GA if it violates WP:CFORK. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair point. It will certainly be good to have more views on this. Thanks for the thoughtful response! -Pete (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I think a good article on a lake (or river) needs to include significant material on the environment beyond its shores. In this case, Hart Lake is located in the Warner Valley so many fact regarding geography, history, wildlife, and recreation apply to both. For example, John C. Fremont explored the Warner Valley and camped along the shore of Hart Lake. An article on the Warner Valley that doesn’t discuss its many lakes is incomplete. Likewise, an article on Hart Lake that doesn’t discuss the surrounding geography, land use along the shore, or the land dwelling wildlife that use the lake would be incomplete. These are distinct articles on related topics that fall within WP:CFORK Related articles rule. This is similar to the relationship between the Willamette River and the Willamette Valley. While the article on Willamette River is focused on the river, it covers a wide range of things that overlap with the Willamette Valley 
 e.g. geology, geography, history, cities and town, highways and bridges, farming, etc. In fact, the Willamette River article specifically mentions the Willamette Valley at least a dozen times. I don’t know all the Wiki-rules, but in my opinion a article should cover a topic well enough that readers don’t have to seek out to other articles to complete the story.--Orygun (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • @Orygun:, on principle I agree with you--but how much overlap is too much? Address this specific question: 40% of this article's content is dedicated to discussing the lake...do you see anything wrong with 60% of the article being significantly copied (practically verbatim) from another related article that is general information, not specific to the lake? Criteria 3b requires this article be focused...when 60% of the content is focused on material covered in other articles, this article isn't focused. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that’s probably due to the fact that the articles are both reasonably close in terms of development. What if the Warner Valley article was only a Stub or Start level? In that case, the overlap might only be 5% so the content in question would only exist in this article. Would we delete it then? In any case, my goal is to write good comprehensive level articles and then turn them loose
so I need to back out of this discussion. Someone else nominated this article for and you’re the team's expert on Wiki-fomat/content rules so I’ll let you folks figure out how to improve the article without any more interference.--Orygun (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Rather than trying to fold all of this into the Warner Vally article, it would make sense to me to remove some of the duplicative material and to add a bit more to this article about Hart Lake. Specifically, I think the article would be improved by shortening a couple of list-y places: the long list of lakes in the Warner Valley chain, and the long linked lists of birds and animals. I would suggest re-adding information about the nearest habitation, the distance from Lakeview, and perhaps the distance from Portland. I would mention the name or number of the road(s) at or near Hart Lake (though I would not include complete driving directions). I would add something about the fish in the lake, "best known for its crappie fishery after a couple of good wet winters", according to a fishing guide in my possession. I would add something more about the geology, if I can find it. But I don't want to do any of this if the article is going to be removed or reduced to a short summary in a different article. That idea is quite a strong deterrent to improving the article, IMHO. Could we possibly back away from that? Finetooth (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • @Finetooth:, if you can provide on the article's talk page (with a link to it from here) an outline of what you'd like the revision to look like, and a projected time table, I'd be willing to keep the GA open long enough for you to do it if you'd like and give you a fair shot at it. Provided the other editors agree. Or if you want to recast the article, we can start a new GA review after your ideas are addressed/developed. I haven't decided which course to pursue--I'm still waiting for the nominator to reply (I've pinged him/her), and waiting to sort through opinions that come in during the next few days to get a wider array of ideas. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry to interfere again, but I have articles on Crump and Pelican lakes in the works. Will those be added into the Warner Valley article as well? How about the other Warner Valley lakes (Anderson, Swamp, Mugwump, Flagstaff, Upper Campbell, Lower Campbell, Stone Corral, Turpin, and Bluejoint)? Will info on all these lakes be incorporated into the Warner Valley article too? In addition to Crump and Pelican lakes, I believe Anderson, Flagstaff and the two Campbell lakes are all interesting enough to have their own articles at some point. Merging Hart Lake article into the Warner Valley just doesn’t make sense to me. Even if they have some things in common, Hart Lake and Warner valley are different geographic features and should be addressed separately. Are we going to merge Willamette Valley and Willamette River articles or incorporate Mount Hood into the Cascade Range article?--Orygun (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • If they're going to have 60% of their content be verbatim material from Warner Valley, that doesn't make much sense from this vantage point.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm slow to respond because I was away from my computer until late Saturday evening. I'll take another look when I'm fresh tomorrow and see what I can come up with. Finetooth (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Guess it all depends on whether we want articles to be comprehensive or limit them to unique content only. Because there are so many Stubs and gaps in Wikipedia, I favor comprehensive standalone articles. In this case we have two well-developed articles with common content. Is that so bad? If minimizing overlap is so important, let’s strip out the offending material from the Hart Lake article instead of deleting it. While Hart Lake has a lot in common with the Warner Valley, it is still a large lake worthy of a standalone article
even if it’s only 40% of its current size. I think adding lots of unique lake related info (e.g. geo-location, size, depth, shoreline, water quality, fish populations, etc) for a dozen lakes would water-log the Warner Valley article? Plus, merging things just to avoid overlap is a slippery slope. Should we merge Adel, Oregon and Plush, Oregon articles into Warner Valley. There both small places and everything in/around them applies to the valley as well. How about the Greaser Petroglyph Site and Stone Bridge and the Oregon Central Military Wagon Road? Since they are on the National Register of Historic Places they have separate articles, but there’s probably some common info presented in those articles. There's probably overlap with the Lake County, Oregon article too. In the end, I just don’t think most Wikipedia readers really care if the same info resides in multiple articles.--Orygun (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Orygun: - I don't mind multiple articles--I'm quite an inclusionist. I'm just concerned that you're thinking making articles on 10 lakes with the same content. This is what CFORK desires to avoid. If you don't have enough for the lakes to stand on their own, or not enough to make them substantial enough, you might want to consider focusing on turning the Warner Valley or Warner Lakes article into a more comprehensive overview, worthy of GA and eventually FA status. For instance, there are several rivers in Northwestern NJ, all of them have articles, but not all of them have enough material to warrant a significant expansion beyond smaller articles--where they would overlap would be a brief mention history and geology (emphasis: BRIEF). 60% of content sharing is not brief, and takes the focus of the article away from the lake to the extent that this lake article is mostly about the valley, not the lake. If you want to write an article about the lake, go right ahead but write about the lake. Cutting and pasting large swaths of a related general article does the lake no service. Instead of being outraged and using bad analogues (hey merge the towns into the valley), look at good comparisions--I recently promoted Death of Adolf Hitler to GA. It doesn't significantly overlap the material from the Adolf Hitler or Nazi Germany articles. It keeps its focus on its subject without overwhelming the article in repeating large swaths of context. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's Sunday morning, and I've had time to think a bit more about this and to do a bit more research. I can add some fairly trifling info about fish from the fishing guide, but I've not found much else specific to Hart Lake. I find myself in agreement with both Orygun and ColonelHenry. I agree with Orygun that Hart Lake is notable; that is, Orygun and others have found sufficient reliable sources to create a stand-alone article. I find myself agreeing with ColonelHenry that promoting the article to GA in its present form would be a mistake. I had not noticed or considered the overlap question until ColonelHenry brought it up, but I think it is a valid concern. Perhaps the best course would be for the nominator, User:Another Believer, to withdraw the GA nomination so that ColonelHenry would not be in the awkward position of having to "fail" the article. Then Orygun could make changes as he sees fit, and I could perhaps add my bit about fish, and Pete might have suggestions about the more general WP:CFORK issues, all in due course, without the pressure of a GA timeline. In general, most geographic entities are notable in that multiple reliable sources, such as the United States Geological Survey, have published information about them. I think that therefore most qualify for stand-alone articles, but I also think that most of those articles will never be broad enough in coverage to meet the GA criteria. That doesn't mean that they can't be close to perfect "B", "C", or "start" articles. Maybe that's what we are looking at in this case. Finetooth (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Teammates: I've review article to see what might come out. Here’s my recommendations:

  • Eliminate second para in Geography section that list other lakes
  • Reduce species of mammals mention by name, limiting list to just 3 that are closely tied to the water
  • Delete the middle of the last para in the Ecology section that lists birds not directly associated with the lake; would prefer leaving birds of prey, but that list could come out too if necessary
History section comments and recommendations:
  • Recommend keeping 2 sentences on native American use; think it’s important and applies equally to the valley and lake
  • Similarly, recommend text on Fremont expedition be retained. Fremont explored the valley and camp by the lake, naming both (through his names didn’t stick to either feature). Worth noting, Fremont info only applies to Warner Valley and Hart Lake, not Crump or any of the other lakes
  • Eliminate text on Capt Warner and Col Drew
  • Reduce text related to Stone Bridge by half
  • Remaining history info applies direct to the lake and none of it is covered in valley article

This doesn’t eliminate all the common material, but it takes out quite a bit of it.--Orygun (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't mind making those changes, I'd say "go for it". After that, I could add the fish info, citing the 10th edition of Fishing in Oregon, if you like. However, the more I look at what you already have about fish, the less useful the fishing guide appears as a source of additional info. Finetooth (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 Done I've cut the text sections outlined above. I can further reduce the number of named bird species mentioned in the text if necessary.--Orygun (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth, Finetooth, Orygun, and Another Believer: - I think that the CFORK issues have been addressed sufficiently. Excellent work.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Image check

  • File:Hart Lake (Lake County, Oregon scenic images) (lakDA0132).jpg - OK
  • File:Northern Hart Lake (Lake County, Oregon scenic images) (lakDA0090).jpg - OK
  • File:Hart Lake Area (Lake County, Oregon scenic images) (lakDA0084).jpg - OK
  • File:Warner Wetlands Interpretive Site, Lake County, Oregon.jpg - OK

All images appear to comply with image use policy and are properly tagged. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions going forward

  • As you've mentioned doing other lakes and geographic features in the Warner Valley/Warner Lakes area...consider creating a category for the valley.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Review and criteria analysis

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Article's prose is clear and concise, no evidence or indication of copyvio issues, no obvious spelling and grammar issues.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Article complies with the criteria 1b MOS requirements.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    Article present a suitable reference section that complies with MOS and citation guidelines.
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    Article is sufficiently sourced and employs appropriate inline citations.
    C. No original research:
    No evidence or indication of original research.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Article sufficiently addresses the major aspects of the subject.
    B. Focused:
    Article's content is focused and complies with WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Article appears neutral as there is no evidence or indication of a bias or POV.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Article's history is stable and there is no evidence or indication of content disputes that led to disruptive editwarring
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Article presents four images which are suitably tagged with fair use rationales per the image use policy.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Images are relevant to the article's subject and are suitably captioned per WP:CAPTION.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Promoted to GA.
Thank you ColonelHenry for taking the time and trouble to review this. Having done many reviews, mostly peer reviews, I know how exacting and possibly thankless they can be. Thank you Orygun for sticking with it and agreeing to make a considerable number of changes that might have initially rankled. (I've been there too.) And thanks to Pete, AB, and Jsayre64 for your input and wise counsel. This turned out to be an interesting and successful collaboration. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, many thanks to ColonelHenry and all involved. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
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.
  1. ^ The following sites span multiple counties:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon/Archive_21&oldid=1136048874"