Talk:Oregon State Capitol

Wings (not the band)
$12.5 million for the entire project: "A Capitol "Wings" project, completed in 1977, at a cost of $12.5 million, added further space for legislative offices, hearing rooms, support services, a first floor galleria, and underground parking." (from the leg website) Katr67 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Improvement notes and refs

 * Miller Consulting Engineers did the earthquake repair--site has image of scaffolding inside rotunda while murals were removed (!) and replaced. Either use as ref and/or get permission to use image? Katr67 22:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Salem History dot Net found the bit about ashlar here, may be more tidbits that can be added. Katr67 23:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Salem's second tallest building Katr67 02:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * University of Oregon - John E. Jaqua Law Library This PDF clarifies the records lost in the fire of 1935 and was published 02/27/2008 after the bulk of this article was researched and written. Article should reflect there are "few legislative history materials predating 1926." Darryl.P.Pike 00:34, 22 Jan 2018 (UTC)

Improvement
Hey, it's not like Aboutmovies or I own this article. If someone thinks s/he can improve it, be my guest. Katr67 06:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm? What's that in response to?


 * For future reference: the Featured Article Candidate discussion. (why isn't this liked in the infobox??) -Pete 06:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically the complete inability to get any other wikiproject's input (or ours for that matter) on this article, the lack of response at the FA candidacy when I asked for a reevaluation, and yes, your last-minute suggestions, which prompted me to want to say sofixit. Sorry, it's just after working so hard on this, and then to finally hear some suggestions, well, it rubbed me the wrong way. I really do invite you to take a stab at improving the article--obviously the intro looks fine to me, but after looking at it in detail for several months, I'm a poor judge of how comprehensive it is. I'm taking a break from it, but I'll come back and do a ruthless copy edit on it at some point. I promise this isn't sour grapes because the article wasn't promoted--if the article stinks (other than the minor grammar quibbles that can easily be taken care of--and were, as far as I can tell), I wish someone had told us something constructive sooner. It's certainly improved a lot since February, and for that we should get a collective Huzzah! I still feel like we somehow did or said something wrong to invite such an underwhelming response. Or maybe our state's most famous bowling trophy just doesn't excite people as much as I think it ought. ::shrug:: Katr67 07:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, that I get it now. First, I'd like to apologize for the "last-minuteness" of my replies. I actually was compiling those in a text file on my computer, and got sidetracked last week…I wanted to look over the entire article and post my perceptions all in one chunk, but got sidetracked. Second, "sofixit" as I understand it is not directly applicable to FA's, which are intended to promote a discussion of the substantial aspects of the article…I'm happy to make the changes I suggested, and probably will, but I thought it was kind of a party foul in a FA to make a significant change instead of bringing it up for discussion. Sorry to not be more help…I definitely appreciate the quality the article has attained over time, and found the history very interesting. I've just been really busy off-wiki, and it kind of got away from me. -Pete 07:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Pete, since you have not edited the article, do you think it is at least A quality so we can change the current rating? Aboutmovies 17:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Pete, you mean this article wasn't on the top of your lifetime priority list? I'm shocked! God forbid anyone should be sidetracked by something more interesting or important in real life. :P I'm not sure it's a party foul to make changes during an FA or not, but I don't think so. I know I made several during the New Carissa's FA, but admittedly none were significant in terms of restructuring. Anyway, yeah, some fresh eyes on this would be good. Cheers, Katr67 19:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, late again. Sure, I'd call this A-class. Does that make it A-class? I thought it had to be GA first. I'll switch the rating and see what happens. -Pete 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't need to go through GA as there is no formal A review process. Some projects have an A review process, but WPOR is not one of them. FYI on your FA review comment about the headers, they are that way to match the Michigan cap FA. Aboutmovies 20:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Names of flora
Making the names of the flora lowercase creates redirects and seems to go against the MOS. What's the consensus on this? Katr67 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this wikiproject uses initial caps:
 * WikiProject Birds
 * This uses mixed case for scientific names, and lowercase for common
 * Naming conventions (flora) linked from WikiProject Plants
 * I thought we were supposed to use initial capitals. —EncMstr 00:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The MOS says, "Common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in lower case—for example, "oak" or "lion". It also says, "Official common names of birds are normally capitalised." Many exceptions exist, and it is hard to remember them all. For example, Japanese maple and Poland China swine do not quite fit the general rule. Finetooth 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for now I support linking to whichever version eliminates the redirects. If the article titles need to be changed, that's probably not our problem. Katr67 16:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Moon
Our planet's Moon is a proper noun--what is the reason for making it lowercase? Katr67 21:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The MOS says that "Sun, earth, and moon are proper nouns in an astronomical context, but not elsewhere." It could be argued that this is an astronomical context. I have reverted to Moon. Finetooth 16:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's simpler to check a word's usage in context. In the Moon article, it says "Unlike the moons of other planets, the moon of the Earth has no proper English name other than "the Moon" (capitalized)." Note moon is lower case in the generic usage. Katr67 17:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Art Deco
Architectural styles are also capitalized. Katr67 23:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't found a style guide that agrees with you on this. The MOS doesn't seem to say one way or the other. However, the MOS lists several external style guides that might be consulted. I've checked two of them, The Chicago Manual of Style and the Guardian on-line guide at . The Chicago Manual says that names of cultural movements are usually lower-cased and gives "baroque," "cubism," "op art," and "theater of the absurd," among others, as examples. The Guardian says, "lc: art deco, art nouveau, cubism, dadaism, expressionism, gothic, impressionism, pop art, surrealism etc but Bauhaus, Modern (in the sense of Modern British, to distinguish it from "modern art"), pre-Raphaelite, Romantic (to differentiate between a romantic painting and a Romantic painting)." The two manuals don't agree about everything, by the way. Chicago says "Gothic," but the Guardian says "gothic." (Such is life.) Still, they do seem to agree about art deco. Finetooth 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When I edit Wikipedia, I don't worry about outside style guides so much unless I can't find the answer here. Again, it's easier to go direct--within Wikipedia, Art Deco and other styles are capitalized. If those article titles need to be changed, again, that needs to be taken up with the editors of those articles. In any case, I (and I believe the GA/FA standards) dislike redirects and the link should be piped if you insist on having it lowercase. BTW, I'm not trying to belittle your contributions--you're obviously a pro and you've done a great job cleaning up and tightening the syntax of this article (I tend to have more of a live and let live policy about that), but it seems to me you need to bend a little and make sure your edits are following in-house style (which, in the nature of the wiki, are sometimes a little nebulous), especially when it comes to wikilinks, which are one of the most important parts of Wikipedia. Katr67 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the redirect tip and the syntax compliment. It's true that I have not thought about redirects until this very moment, though I have used pipes without realizing they were redirects. I need to read about redirects to see what's going on with them and how they might affect Wikipedia style. Can you aim me in the direction of a document that clearly explains the redirects? Meanwhile, I'll change Art Deco back to caps. I have two other things to bring up; one is small, and the other is slightly bigger. The names "Justus F. Krumbein and Gilbert" appear in the "Second capitol" section and look suspicious to me, but I don't have the source material to check. Is Gilbert missing his last name, perhaps? The slightly bigger concern is that the references that are web citations don't include the author (if known), the publisher (if known), or the access date. Wouldn't it be useful to include these details? Finetooth 19:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Me again, four hours later. I get it. I really didn't know what you meant by a problem with redirects, but now I see how it works. As you said, a pipe can solve the problem. Unwanted redirects are visible on the preview. I had not noticed that before, and no one else had mentioned these redirects to me. I went back to the list of flora and found one remaining unwanted redirect, for blue spruce, and fixed it with a Blue Spruce to blue spruce pipe. I'll have to go back to some other pages I've worked on to see if I've left any more of these redirects lying around. Thank you, Katr67, for bringing this to my attention. Finetooth 03:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your hard work and for taking the trouble to understand what I was on about regarding the redirs. You'll have to ask Aboutmovies about "Justus F. Krumbein and Gilbert"; that's from his research (it might be right by 1893 standards though). And yeah, some of the refs are still a little sloppy, but I expect many of the web sources don't have authors. I'll see about checking them and adding dates and publishers. Katr67 18:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see my input was needed. The architect I believe is missing the first name, but none was given. If I recall, the firm was Krumbein & Gilbert and I found the first name for Justus elsewhere. As to the refs, it looks like that is in progress. Aboutmovies 03:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article
This is a very thorough piece of work which meets the GA criteria. Well done! Johnfos 09:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article looks good, but one minor issue is that several of the inline citations contain only a URL link, and not full citation info (author, title, publication, date of publication, date URL was retrieved, etc). It is preferable that full citation information be included, so that if the link becomes a 404 not found, it is not rendered useless. Dr. Cash 01:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, we're working on it. Thanks for taking a look. Do you see any glaring FA obstacles, if you feel like giving an off-the-cuff impression? Katr67 02:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A new round of copyediting quibbles
I can't stay away even with a self-reinforcing wikibreak. So I see an instance of "capitol" was changed to "Capitol" but I believe a previous copyedit made all stand-alone references to capitol lowercase. Although I normally despise the use of capitalization to show Great Metaphorical Significance, I think it might be OK in this instance? (Only when referring specifically to the current capitol). I won't flip out (see above) if we go with lowercase, but I will if it's not consistent. Thoughts? Katr67 20:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture gallery
Per my comments in May when the gallery was removed before, I prefer no photo gallery. I just don't think they look good. Aboutmovies 22:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * AM, sorry -- I didn't recall that there was previously a gallery, sorry to take the article backward. I'll rearrange the photos. My main interest was getting a couple more photos on the page -- it seemed mildly sparse, and the photos of the legislative chambers seem significant. Any problem with finding a home for them, in a non-gallery layout? -Pete 23:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. One or two of those are I'm sure copyvio. The ones from the Oregon Blue Book I doubt were relaseable by an editor, mainly the Senate Chamber pic. And a copyvio picture like that is quick fail at GA, and probably at FA too. Were there any others you wanted to work in? Aboutmovies 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Side note, the only "major" work I think left is to standardize the refs, at least I can see since the copy editor review. Aboutmovies 00:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's what's in commons. Mostly alternate views of the building. If the Celilo mural license is accurate, that would be a good addition. I could go take some more pictures if the weather works out. What do you want? More statues, murals, the Oregon shrubbery, the bell, the "dirt fountain" (Breyman Bros fountain)? Katr67 02:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are some others that I had uploaded before, some used to be in the article. Aboutmovies 03:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Gallery now deleted as most file names have changed with move to commons, see instead. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The copyvio point is a good one, I hadn't noticed that. Your pics are good, it would be nice someday to get photos with crisper edges so the many names are easier to read, and the image is clearer -- but that will have to wait I suppose! Some of the others above could be included, but I don't think any of them are needed. Thanks for replacing the BB images. Good work. -Pete 01:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert
Is the Gilbert part of "Justus F. Krumbein and Gilbert, architects," OK, or is Gilbert missing something? Finetooth 01:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

State seal on floor
User:Wikilost recently added the following text to the article, which AboutMovies and I reverted:

The seal itself depicts an eagle superimposed over images depicting the history of Oregon. The eagle is similar to the one in the United States seal, (an eagle holding arrows in one claw and an olive branch in the other) with the notable difference being that the eagle's head is tilted toward the arrows, signifying, apparently, Oregon's preference for war.

I see a couple different problems with this text. First, if any of it is to be included, the bare facts must be cited: in other words, a reliable source stating that the seal is on the floor, or perhaps a photo of the floor of the capitol. Second, the interpretation looks to me like original research; it's interesting, but not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Maybe if there's a scholarly article making that claim, it might be worth noting that the interpretation has been made; but it can't be presented as fact or speculation. -Pete (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also reverted it. I think it qualifies as at the least. There is no "need" to cite a source stating that the seal is on the floor as this is not contentious, per WP:CITE and WP:V ("Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." - This statement is a simple matter of fact, a common practice, and easy for anyone to verify personally; why would it be reasonably challenged?). The interpretation absolutely needs to be cited, though. That's the issue with this edit. VigilancePrime (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, on second thought you're right. Not so essential to cite the uncontroversial fact. -Pete (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've heard a similar story before, but not about Oregon, about the Seal of the President of the United States. Snopes has a note about a false urban legend about the eagle on the presidential seal being changed during wartime to face the arrows. That may be where this original misconception is coming from with this seal. Certainly not worth commenting on in this article. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Intriguing. Thanks for pointing that out! -Pete (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, this article is not the place for this "trivia/info" anyway, it would belong on the Seal of Oregon article if it were true/backed up by RS. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a resident of Oregon and had the privilege of taking the tour at the capitol a few years back while serving as a page. The tour guide pointed out the eagle and noted that it's head was turned towards the arrows because it supposedly was created during World War II. The creator must have been under the impression that the "urban legend" noted above was actually true and the tour guide also expressed his belief that tradition of turning the eagle's head is a real one.  That being said, I support the earlier revisers on this section and agree that the oddity is not worth mentioning. Zephyr12 (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Intriguinger and intriguinger. Thanks Zephyr! -Pete (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I worked at the capitol and had a friend involved with the page program and he gave me the impression some of the tour guides, uh, embellished things a bit. :) Katr67 (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Diagram/Map
We need some sort of diagram or map showing where everything is located.Bobbyb30q (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Art Deco?
The article states that Oregon's is the only Art Deco capitol. ("It is the only Art Deco style state capitol.")

However, the article for the Louisiana State Capitol cites it as an Art Deco building (in the side bar table to the right of the article with fast facts of the LA building, the architectural style is given as Art Deco).

Sorry, I don't know how to properly post this, but just wanted to bring it to someone's attention.


 * Perfect place to post, just don't forget to sign with ~ . Looks like you're right, though there is a cited source in the article saying Oregon's is the only one. AM? Got cite? Do the editors at the Oregonian need to be beaten again? Katr67 (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Odd the source does say its the only one, but Louisiana State Capitol says it is Art Deco, as does the North Dakota State Capitol, plus a picture of the Nebraska State Capitol is on the Art Deco page (its article says moderne). So I'm not sure how to word it at this point. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By my original research, I'd say LA is Art Deco and ND and NE are moderne, but obviously it's a fine line. The LA capitol, at least the main entrance part, is eerily similar to Oregon's. I was thinking we could rewrite it to say "one of two (3, 4)", but we'll need a source. I bet there are more than a few The Big Exhaustive Picture Book of All 50 State Capitols (written by an actual architect) we could take a look at... Perhaps the "only" bit should be commented out for now. Katr67 (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is getting sureal. I'm searching for a strong source, and people do think NE is art deco, in fact an article in the Lincoln paper says the architect Bertram Goodhue helped the transition to Art Deco, with a source of Wikipedia! Lots of mentions of NE and ND as art deco. I could not find anything with a set number, but this thesis at UoO might. Plus the guy also helped write a book on UoO's architecture so he may have a better understanding of architecture. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though it has been nearly a decade this topic has sat dormant I have some information to challenge the designation all-together. The NRHP application (7-1) places it under Modernistic Style. The page for this style states that it encompasses several different styles of architecture, one of them being PWA Moderne. I am unaware of when the style was identified or named and may not have been used or conceptualized when each of these works were produced. All of the example photos of this style bear striking resemblance to the current capitol, it was known to be used frequently during the exact time frame of construction (also in the application), and often favored for federal institutions. This very article states the percentage of federal funds going into the project and this style shows that influence. Coincidentally, the Public Works Administration is cited as the federal agency contributing to the project and happens to also be what PWA stands for in the style's name itself for obvious and cite-able reasons. The lengthy application for historic status is a very complete document and a meticulously researched history of the building. It must be of the most reliable on information having been a federally produced, reviewed, and approved document intended to stand the test and scrutiny of time. Therefore:
 * I propose to remove - Art Deco - entirely and replace the term with - Modernistic style of PWA Moderne

Please provide input. - PS : The application is, in all reality what this article dreams to be and I feel more of the article needs written from and expanded by its information as further discussion. Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Second capitol's footprint?
Where exactly did the second capitol sit, the one that burned in the 1930s? Was it the same place, facing north, as the current building? --98.232.182.66 (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Source on 2nd
Might have some info to mine. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Found a useful image
From the Centennial History of Oregon:



Would be great to fix 'er up and incorporate it. -Pete (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for not forsaking us Oregonians, Pete! I'm no good at the fixeruppering, who is our resident photoshopper these days? I'm too tired to check but are all those buildings mentioned in the article? I know the Holman Building is. And, for updating purposes, I've heard rumors about everyone having to move out again for a seismic retrofit... Valfontis (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * How could I forsake Oregon when the news is so juicy? I jest..but it's probably too soon, too soon. Anyway, here is a better version of that image (now on Commons). It could be split up into separate images if desired...and see here for info on which is which. No, I haven't yet matched them to the article...it could be there is useful info in the neighboring text, too. I'll be back if nobody gets to this first... -Pete (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Oregon State Capitol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121015117/http://www.leg.state.or.us/html_tour/tour_text.htm to http://www.leg.state.or.us/html_tour/tour_text.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028070139/http://www.leg.state.or.us/capinfo/foundation/walkoftheflags_dedication.htm to http://www.leg.state.or.us/capinfo/foundation/walkoftheflags_dedication.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820215837/http://www.leg.state.or.us/restoration/ to http://www.leg.state.or.us/restoration/
 * Added tag to http://www.ovma.us/Veterans%20Memorials.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090727004026/http://www.grandronde.org/news/Content.aspx?id=6962 to http://www.grandronde.org/news/Content.aspx?id=6962

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oregon State Capitol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928044013/http://gesswhoto.com/statehouse.html to http://gesswhoto.com/statehouse.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Dome? What dome?
I see a rotunda. Where's the dome? Where's the hemi-sphere? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Removing the dome category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Riot?
Why is this not included? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nearman#2020_Oregon_Capitol_riot 38.73.253.217 (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point, thank you for the note. You're welcome to add something yourself. I'll do a quick addition, it'll take a little effort to do something more nuanced. Please feel free to edit what I add. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 38.73.253.217 (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently collecting sources at Talk:Oregon State Capitol breach. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * niIIIIIce38.73.253.217 (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Source-text integrity concerns
I've noticed that not all of the sources cited fully support the content they are backing, which is especially concerning as this is listed as a featured article.
 * Although the Supreme Court had moved to the Oregon Supreme Court Building in 1914, - not in cited source
 * On April 25, 1935, at 6:43 pm, a custodial engineer called the Salem Fire Department to report smoke - not in cited source
 * ground story was of native Oregon sandstone from the Umpqua region. close paraphrasing issues when compared to the source
 * From 1853 to 1965 it was a Salem city park. - source does not associate a 1853 date with this park

I'm concerned that based on these issues from a small sample, that source-text integrity lapses like this are more widespread in the article. I also wonder if some of the text needs checked for currency; for instance, the article implies the Waite Fountain is the original one from 1907-ish; but it appears to have been replaced by a structure of different design. Listing at WP:FARGIVEN; a featured article review is likely necessary unless the sources can be checked and fixed/replaced. Hog Farm Talk 02:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)