Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Oregon Portage Railroad

I've created this article about the first railroad in Oregon, the Oregon Portage Railroad. It was on the redlinks list. I think the first railroad in Oregon certainly deserves quite an article, but it's not that much so far. For those interested: feedback on my talk page, images, maps, or expansion would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Jsayre64 (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I did a little bit of tidying, etc. I agree this would be a great article to expand! I added links to Henry Villard and Steamboats of the Columbia River, which both have some relevant info. Good start Jsayre! -Pete (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You're Invited! Come Celebrate Wikipedia's 10th Anniversary!

I believe I sent an invitation to all WikiProject Oregon members, but here is another posting regarding this weekend's anniversary celebration just in case:

<font=3> You're invited to help celebrate Wikipedia's 10th anniversary! Visit this link for details. An informal celebration will take place at the AboutUs office located at 107 SE Washington Street, Suite 520 in Portland on Saturday, January 15, 2011. An Open Space Technology meeting is scheduled from 5pm to 7pm, with a party to follow. Admission is free! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

US Collaboration reactivated & Portal:United States starting next

Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.

The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"Silverton Bobbie"

I wasn't around for the page move discussion, but I believe this should be at Bobbie the Wonder Dog, as per Esprqii. I was just going to move it, but it needs an admin to do so now, I figured we might as well discuss it again. "Silverton Bobbie" is just one author's coinage, I believe. Bobbie the Wonder Dog is the common usage. Google searches: "Silverton Bobbie" (800 hits), "Bobbie the Wonder Dog" (10, 500 hits) and also the title at Oregon Encyclopedia. Feel free to move discussion to article's talk page. (I don't think the move discussion there was adequate.) Valfontis (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Support, as I said before; but I never pass a chance to refer to other non-comma-using animals (NCUA) Fred the Undercover Kitty and Whiplash the Cowboy Monkey. --Esprqii (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got to say- this verges on WP:LAME. What does Aunt Betty think? tedder (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If I recall my Oregon Encyclopedia research correctly, Aunt Betty was a big fan of both gold lame and NCUAs. --Esprqii (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what does she think of NCUCs (Non-Capital-Using Comics)? Valfontis (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That was funny. I think Aunt Betty needs a pet and I know just what to name it. And speaking of Aunt Betty, what is WP:ORE doing to celebrate her 200th or 224th birthday? A party is in order. --Esprqii (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Since this seems uncontroversial, could an admin move the article please? Thanks! I asked Aunt Betty and she said she approved. P.S. I'll bake the cake. What does she like to drink? Valfontis (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done —EncMstr (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Portlandia move?

This might be a case of recentism, but I note that visits to Portlandia, the statue, is spiking big time, no doubt due to the new TV series of the same name. Since it's two clicks from the statue to the dab page to the TV series, would it make more sense to move Portlandia (disambiguation) to Portlandia and then create a separate statue page instead? On January 22, it looks like 1,400 people gave up between seeing the statue and probably finding what they really wanted. --Esprqii (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's definitely recentism. I'm a fan of the TV show ("Portland: where young people go to retire!") but I don't think we should consider a move for at least a year. tedder (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but wanted to put it out there. How about a second hatnote on Portlandia, just to direct the most likely seekers? (Hopefully that's OK with the minor planet fans.) --Esprqii (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree with adding a better hatnote. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I just did it - will that satisfy? --Tesscass (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That looks great, Tesscass. tedder (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, it's spiking because of this NYT article being number four on the most emailed list. Steven Walling 22:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm missing something- is there a link to Portlandia from that article? Or just because it's generally in the zeitgeist? tedder (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A link to the statue appears in the lead as "sculpture of the same name". --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Portlandia should be moved to Portlandia (statue) and then Portlandia (disambiguation) should be moved to Portlandia. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Awww. Cars, man! Why!?! Valfontis (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

call for collaboration/help: geo check Oregon landmarks

With the Wikipedia layer enabled on Google Maps, I began checking our icons. Alas, two out of the first eight had issues: one was not tagged WP:ORE and suffering from general neglect; the other was incorrectly located by 30+ miles (Tawney Hotel and Sovereign Hotel (Oregon)).

There are way too many points for me to check alone: thousands and thousands. Anyone keen on looking for trouble good and clean work should use the link above. Pan to an area of interest, then possibly zoom in to reveal additional Wikipedia icons in detail. Then click on the icon to see the beginning of the article; center click on "Full article" to view and edit as normal. —EncMstr (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If there are really thousands, I wonder if there's a way we could get a bot to check them? Steven Walling 05:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

One idea is to focus on the most "important" pages first. Lists with various sorting options can be made, such as this one. Still a lot of work though. Pfly (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oregon election results as COTW?

The new legislature is now in effect. I updated the tables but it still needs some help. One state senator and about 1/3 of the House members are redlinks. Everybody adopt a legislator and we'll get these pounded out. How about a COTW for updating articles for the latest elections? This would also tie in the request to update mayors above. --Esprqii (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good! I miss the collaborations of the week... --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Are they housetrained? I'll take one or two. Thanks for thinking of the mayors also! Valfontis (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Does this COTW need a little more time? I'm thinking of Oregon Convention Center and Columbia River Gorge as next collaborations. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

We haven't made a ton of progress, but I will probably try and get some more done on this whether you change the official COTW or not. Maybe give it another week or so? --Esprqii (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Can Somebody(tm) make a list of the counties/cities? If so, it would be easier to hit through these. I might be able to throw some code at it to make a list in a day or two if nobody wants to do it by hand. tedder (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I just updated it to Oregon Convention Center and Columbia River Gorge. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with WikiProject United States

People from a variety of WikiProjects have had concerns about the scope of WikiProject United States and its relationship with other WikiProjects. We have created an RFC and invite all interested editors to discuss it at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject United States#Mission statement for WikiProject United States. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Odd coincidence

Although I can't figure out how to rotate it, I thought it would be cool to share this odd coincidence: an Oregon-shaped pizza! Jsayre64 (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Should the olives be re-arranged to represent population centers? Could anchovies (nose to tail if necessary) be added to represent the state's longer rivers? Finetooth (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I rotated this, since it's a vital collaboration to our favorite state. Aunt Betty probably has some feelings on it. tedder (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't think of photoshopping! Sure, go ahead if you can, Finetooth. I don't have photoshopping software. And thanks for the rotation, tedder. :-) Jsayre64 (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I just used GIMP. Often I use Picasa. Both free, but I take a lot of photos, so I have many installed. tedder (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I was teasing. Finetooth (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were a blue state, not a red one? Aboutmovies (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You're probably kidding, too, but then you can't call it a pizza. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

GA nomination of Spruce Production Division

FYI: I nominated our last collaboration, Spruce Production Division, for good article review. Hopefully our hard work has been good enough! --Jsayre64 (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice job! Looks like it will pass to me. Steven Walling 07:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Good prediction; it passed. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well done! Congrats! --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oregon Ducks track and field

Hello, everyone. I have fairly recently created an article that falls within your guys' scope of work. I was wondering if I can get a few eyes on it to bring up my mistakes and omissions. Pete and Esprqii have already graciously looked it over and gave a few suggestions and edits. Being told of a GA nomination backlog and Pete's endorsement, I went ahead and nominated it already for GA. So that gives what...I don't know, a month or so to smooth things out until someone jumps on it for review? Thanks everyone. --Cluskillz (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

2010 Portland car bomb plot

Odd as it sounds, I think expanding this article to Good status would make an excellent addition to the encyclopedia and to WikiProject Oregon's collection. In its current form, the article does not even mention "task force", so there is more to the story than what is shown. I am quite busy these days, but at some point I'd like to research this subject and expand the article. Are there any editors interested in collaborating? --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A modest proposal (Oregon newspaper articles)

Well, my idea about getting folks to help out with the mayors seems to have gone over like a lead balloon, so here's another exciting idea. {{Oregon-newspaper-stub}} is up for deletion, as the threshold for a stub tag is 60 articles and the category only contains 38. I doubt an exception will be made for "our" stub tag, so the modest proposal is to create 22 newspaper stubs and be done with it. You can see the discussion here. I hope everyone is actually out enjoying the Big Blue Room. Valfontis (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in saving a stub template, but I will try to create a few stubs when I get the chance (and by "stubs" I mean "starts"--it can't be that hard to find enough coverage to produce a decent article for a newspaper!). --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

@Valfontis, a lead balloon flies just fine (summary).

Creating more stubs is an interesting solution, but eventually, as Wikipedia is completed all stub templates rightly ought to be deleted. Celebrate the impending success!

Even using List of newspapers in Oregon and creating all the stubs, I don't think there will be enough. How complete is that list? —EncMstr (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

@EnMstr--Ha! Another cliché I can't use. Thanks! @Another Believer. It's harder than it looks, I discovered.

Update: I guess I don't really care about saving the stub template that much, but it would be nice to have a few more articles about newspapers. Enc, I have updated the list at List of newspapers in Oregon (I count 52 redlinks, which, when added to the current 44 newspaper stubs, far surpasses the minimum to justify keeping the stub tag) per the current listing at Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association here and reproduced in this sandbox: User:Valfontis/Newspapers, along with those that are associate members of the ONPA (20 more redlinks!) and a list of newspapers of record for each county. (Note I'm a little confused about the status of the Pamplin-created, possibly web-only publications). I think each county's paper of record should at least have a stub, so I've knocked off 5 of them so far. (As an aside, note that I've also finished updating the mayors on all but 7 counties--go me.) This list is also updated and still includes the names of some recently defunct papers (6 of them!). AM found this resource, but it looks like we will need to find a hardcopy to be useful. Take pity on the dying medium, newspapers are still useful as references forever! Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

@Valfontis -- hooray for mayors! Good on ya. Sorry I've been lame on that.

As a former Pamplin Media Group employee, I'll tell ya -- although I haven't worked there since '04, I'd be *very* surprised if they ever had a web-only pub. They've definitely been more than a little confusing in their messaging on the matter (see this blog post I wrote a while back), but the papers in the Community Newspapers chain are generally longstanding, weekly-to-monthly papers. Good work digging up relevant sources and such. If I can find some time I'll write a stub start or two myself. Not nearly enough encyclopedia-writing for me lately. -Pete (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

337 Fighter Group

Hello, I am very interested in finding information on Robert D. Dunkel, 2nd Lt. of the 337th fighter group. (approx. time period: 1940-1944). My wife of 20 years has moved his trunk (from the military) from our first home to our current house. The Last stamp on the trunk reads as follows: ship from: Fort Wayne, Detroit, Mich....To: Transportation officer, Portland International Airport. 2/Lt. Robert D. Dunkel.. <military service number redacted> ....337 TH Fighter Group Head Quarters. It almost seems he killed in action, but I'm ignorant on this. I was wondering if anyone can inform me on anything. Thank you, Rod Sanders <e-mail redacted> 02/13, 15:40 21:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnsanders321 (talk • contribs)

I don't think anyone here can be of much help, but you might try at the Reference Desk. I have a bit of real world experience in this area, so if I can think of any military history references, I'll list them here. Valfontis (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to the article about the unit: 337th Fighter Group Valfontis (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Laurelhurst Theater

I have tagged this article with the multiple issues tag. Please visit the page to see the issues and comment on the discussion page, or work to cleanup the article. Thank you. 134.29.231.11 (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am biased, but I disagree so I reverted the addition of the tags. Feel free to revert my revert. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked the article over and agree there is a recentism bias towards the current usage of the theater, and that the brands of beer (BTW, we need an article on Ninkasi Brewing Company) served there is pretty much triva. I don't think Another Believer has any COI in this matter however, and was merely using whatever sources he was able to find. A book such as Theatres of Portland has loads of information, and though I don't recall if Laurelhurst is in there, including this history that tedder found, I'm sure it or [and] some other books could be found with references to expand the article beyond the most recent history. Surely an 88-year-old theater has had something written about it. Just the fact that it's old does not make it notable, but after perusing the Arcadia Press book, it's clear that any early 20th century theater that survives to the present and still being used as a theater is rare. It seems, if it is indeed original, the fact that the neon facade still exists is notable as well. I know these aren't things that directly address notability, just suggesting that it looks like we might be able to find some sources that confer notability. Valfontis (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No doubt the article should be expanded, but I was just incorporating information I could find at the time. Feel free to remove the trivial aspects of the article (beer brands). --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Believer, there are better ways to express your disagreement than reverting appropriately placed tags. This discussion is a good way!:) Valfontis, I agree about Ninkasi Brewing. If you check out Talk:Ninkasi you'll see that someone tried to talk about Ninkasi brewing there and failed. I'll look forward to discussing The Laurelhurst at its talk page. 165.234.108.254 (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the tags again per this discussion. Assume good faith on Believer, will ya? And with all due respect, anon 165:

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Valfontis (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Splitting list of Oregon ballot measures article by decade?

Hello. I'm interested in splitting List of Oregon ballot measures out by decade with the main article remaining with a brief summary of the process and links to the decade articles. Basically how it's done at List of California ballot propositions. I see it was discussed back in 2008 at Talk:List_of_Oregon_ballot_measures#Time_to_adjust.3F Is there a consensus on this? TimeClock871 (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Split away! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, though I'm good with creating a new series of articles, but leave the current in place. I've summarized how hard the California presentation is to navigate here, at least for the sort of use I make. Since splitting is suggested so often, there must be some other use I don't understand. For that, please create a new series of articles, presumably with navigation templates, etc. and borrow from the existing, or maybe from a monotable experiment I made. —EncMstr (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the current list and the example provided are both too long. However, I do not think that California's current system is great either. Would it be more appropriate to have larger time intervals than decades so that list isn't broken up into so many pieces? Based on this list and its introduction, I cannot discern any natural breaks (cultural, systemic, procedural, etc). Though, ballot measures were not numbered prior to 1954, so there is some sort of difference between 1902–1953 and 1954–present. Are there any well-established breaks within Oregon's modern history that could act as divisions for the ballot list? Perhaps "List of Oregon ballot measures" should be moved to "Oregon ballot measures"--this article could include a background of Oregon's government and the election process, the history of the ballot measure system, sections for the various time intervals summarizing the measures for that era and having a "Main article" link to the list for that era, etc. Ideally, the "Oregon ballot measures" article would be expanded to good/featured article status with the split lists expanded to FL status. Sorry, just thinking out loud here. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad this is up for discussion again, as I still feel there's a need to do a better job on this. I think there are (at least) two issues getting mixed up a little: (1) whether or not to simplify the table into a list, with less information, like California does -- EncMstr seems to be arguing against this, but I'm not sure that anyone has argued for it. I think when TimeClock referenced California, he means (2) splitting the list into multiple lists by decade.

So, EncMstr -- is that splitting also something you would prefer not to see?

If we do go in the direction of a Ballot measures in Oregon page, I think it would make more sense to instead improve Direct democracy in Oregon, a page Timeclock made a while back, which is a slightly more general topic. (Also, rolling the content of Direct Legislation League in there would probably be worthwhile.) -Pete (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Instead of "splitting" I suggest adjunct articles along with a slight reorganization:

• Oregon ballot measure summary which would contain something like this or that.
• Oregon ballot measures by decade which would mirror California's scheme in a series like List of Oregon ballot measures 2010–2019. Apparently this is frequently expected.
• Oregon ballot measures by topic which would subdivide into Oregon ballot measures about taxation, Oregon ballot measures about law enforcement, Oregon ballot measures about drugs, Oregon ballot measures about land use, Oregon ballot measures about education, Oregon ballot measures about transportation, etc.
• Oregon ballot measures by cost or some such which organizes the most expensive from the least expensive across several components: expenditures by state, county, city, individual, corporation, etc.

Each of the ballot measure articles should have a navigation template which allows direct access to all others. I'm happy to contribute that aspect. —EncMstr (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea. This should help readers find the measure they're looking for. Jsayre64 (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I like EncMstr's proposal a lot too, and think it's exactly the sort of specific proposal that will be helpful in moving us forward. I think it's very good overall; I have only a couple refinements to suggest:

• I'd slightly prefer keeping the name "List of Oregon ballot measures" and making a redirect from Oregon ballot measure summary. But, once we do separate pages by decade, I think User:EncMstr/sandbox2 is probable the better format, as it will allow sorting across decades. That way the two systems will be a little more complementary.
• I think the "by decade" ones should start on the "01" year instead of the "00" -- that way it will line up better with the legislative sessions. So, 2001–10, and 2011–20, etc.
• The "by topic" ones will overlap with several articles already in existence: Controlled substances in Oregon, Land use in Oregon, etc. My preference would be to keep that general approach and naming scheme, so that the "by topic" articles can deal with ballot measures, legislature-enacted laws, and non-legislative issues all in the same place.
• "By cost" is an interesting addition. I wonder if that could just be added as an additional column (or set of columns, for and against) in the overall list?

Again, I really like the scheme in general. And would love to help make that shift. -Pete (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

PortlandWiki Barnraising (non-WP)

How it's going to go down, as soon as we get enough horses

Hi all, hope you don't mind a slightly off-topic announcement related to wikis and Oregon. Some of you already know about PortlandWiki (and even have accounts registered there), the local city wiki that aims to cover all Portland-related content. We have had a slow trickle of participation up until now, so we are holding a "barnraising" event to bring PortlandWiki into view and encourage more participation. We'll be listening to local wiki notables like our very own User:PeteForsyth give their insights on online collaboration, having a real-time, real-life online collaboration, decorating cupcakes, giving away free wiki- and Portland-related swag, and generally having a blast. It's all free and everyone is invited. Let others know too.

• This Saturday, March 5, 2pm-5pm
• Central Library, downtown Portland
• feel free to RSVP on Facebook or check out the details and planning page on PortlandWiki.

-kotra (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hope to see you all Saturday for some wiki wackiness! It would be great to see some WikiProject Oregon folk there. -Pete (talk)

I would be there if I did not have an obligatory work event to attend! :( Have fun, Pete, et al! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can make it. Valfontis (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Neighborly AfD for The Vancouver Voice

Just a heads up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vancouver Voice. I don't care about the outcome much, except in a general way about the death of print media, but since WP:Washington isn't very active and Vancouver for some reason counts as being part of the Portland metropolitan area, well, I thought it might be good to get some more folks to look at this. Valfontis (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This saga is continuing at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/2011 March 12 since I reverted the copyvio blanking. Steven Walling 02:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's just...wow... Valfontis (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Photo credit

Just spotted that project member Jason McHuff's photo was used in a Willamette Week story: [1] Kudos! -Pete (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Go Jason! Though my favorite of his photos is in the "I hate Comic Sans" pool on Flickr. ;) Valfontis (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL :D -Pete (talk)

Neil Goldschmidt

Heads up, those of you who remember the painfully won consensus about the current wording of the article (lots of bankground in the talk page archives) might want to check out the current changes being made. I haven't formed an opinion yet. It might in fact, be time to revisit the wording. Again. The kind of changes being made usually attract editors with an opposite perspective so things might erupt again. Be nice, don't edit war. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow

Willamette Falls, for example

Has anybody noticed the huge collection of old stereoscopic images of Oregon that were uploaded from the NY Public Library? See commons:Category:Stereo cards of Oregon (and be sure to look in the two sub-categories, where most of the images are). -Pete (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow! indeed. What a fantastic addition to commons. —EncMstr (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool! I saw a program on OPB recently about a photographer (of course, I forget his name) that took numerous stereoscopic images of Oregon, mostly surrounding the Columbia River Gorge. These make a great addition to the project! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! I can see several that we can use immediately. Valfontis (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

AB, I wonder if this Oregon Experience episode is what you saw? Watkins is the same guy, maybe we should link that story from some of the images… -Pete (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the guy! Thanks for searching, Pete. I was going to do so once I had a moment. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Tigard mayors

Can someone look into this? tedder (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, see here. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Willamette National Cemetery

I created the category Category:Burials at Willamette National Cemetery and was able to add 17 notable individuals. I am sure there are more to add. I used Retrosheet's list of baseball players that are interred there, as well as Find-A-Grave's list of notable interrments. If the project knows of more, please contribute.Neonblak ^talk - 10:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I work in a related field, I'll find out if some entity maintains a list. Valfontis (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took a while to reply--the person I needed to ask wasn't available. There isn't an official list at the VA website but they do have a search engine if someone was bored and wanted to scan it for names they recognize. I added two I found using a Google search. There are three notable Oregonians at Willamette here. Valfontis (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:ORE Triple Crown?

I had forgotten about this cool award originated by Durova. I know Aboutmovies and Engineer Scotty each have one. AM probably deserves an upgrade to Ultimate Genghis Khan World Conquest Edition, but he doesn't really go in for badges. Several of us probably have earned at least one, actually. Anyway, I saw that there is one for a project. It might be fun to organize a collaboration of the week around that. Heck we already may have earned one. Wouldn't it be awesome to see Biggs Goldman with a crown on his head? We are the Land of the Empire Builders after all... Or maybe it should be a beaver. No, a duck! Valfontis (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A duck, yes! I'm sure at least five of us have DYK credits (no use checking that), but I'm working on the rest at User:Jsayre64/Sandbox. Jsayre64 (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have an "Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown", although none of the ones I used for the award were in relation to Oregon, but I would join in to upgrade my award to the "Alexander the Great Edition Triple Laurel Crown". :)Neonblak ^talk - 09:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Neonblak- what are you, some kind of closet Oregon-hater, with all that non-Oregon work? Kidding of course, I would love to see you on the list. -Pete (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have been slackin' on the Oregon duties, I will trying and find a couple articles and lists to work on soon, getting kind of burned out on baseball at the moment.Neonblak ^talk - 06:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I am working on an article that should qualify, but it probably won't be completed until summer. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have worked in my sandbox and have determined that the project has won the Triple Crown! Should my investigation be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Triple Crown? Jsayre64 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's worthy of that! Good work so far. I think we'll be there pretty quick. -Pete (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Triple Crown

 – Jsayre64 (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Very cool! Maybe we should go for fifteen Triple Crown-ed members to beat all the other projects... ;) LittleMountain5 20:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Fifteen triple-crowns in our midst!! My, you're ambitious. Hope we get there before long, for sure. -Pete (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to join the club! *goes searching for an article to expand and promote to GA status* :) --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are still looking for one, George Henry Williams is only start class (probably needs to be bumped to C class though), but there has to be a ton of sources online. If you check out just his infobox, you can see his importance. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally. Maybe I could trade some DYKs for a FA? tedder (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Oregon triple crown

--->
A MUST HAVE! --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Aww, a beaver. Darn it! :-) Jsayre64 (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Omigod. That's adorable. Being a Duck, I do note that it's an North American Beaver and not Benny Beaver. Valfontis (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Oregon article problems?

An IP said there is a problem with the top of the Oregon state article. Does anyone know what the problem is? This isn't a trick question, but I'm hoping someone can figure it out. I left a message on the IP's talk page, but I'm not confident I'll hear back. tedder (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I can figure out is that the IP thinks the pronunciation is wrong? Even within the state, I recall there was talk about whether it was supposed to be "ORygun" (apologies to User:Orygun) or "OR-gun"... You say tomayto, I say tomahto, etc. Valfontis (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

New article bot

Looks like New Oregon Article Bot isn't working. Anyone know bot doctor?--Orygun (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The bot hasn't run since March 23. Here's the reason: User talk:Alex Bakharev#The_Bot. tedder (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Oregon Trail

I've opened a discussion here about the concern regarding the length of the Oregon Trail article. I had a solution, but I thought we'd need consensus first. Jsayre64 (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

When I first saw this, I thought it meant the 2000 mile trail length was in dispute. The article has grown to be quite long, and Jsayre has proposed splitting off the largest sections: history and route. —EncMstr (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No pun intended. Jsayre64 (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So far I've created the two sub-articles, but then an editor expressed concern. Any additional input would be great. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Laurelhurst Park

Laurelhurst Park is my next big project. If I can get this article to GA status I believe I could wear my ORE Triple Crown badge of honor! Tedder, you did such an amazing job at finding events from The Oregonian archives for the South Park Blocks article--feel free to note any major events for LP if you are available and interested. I just started working on the article, so there remains much research to be conducted. Finetooth, you also seem to have an interest in Oregon's natural wonders and parks, so feel free to keep an eye on the article or offer any advice. Of course, all other project members are welcome to assist. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. Things that came up when several of us were working intensely on Forest Park (Portland, Oregon) were trails (paths); flora; crime and other problems like auto traffic, pollution, and litter; the park's relationship to others in the system; a map, and a wide variety of images to choose from. With Forest Park, we had the advantage of a couple of book-length works on the topic as well as multiple other sources. Wild in the City mentions Laurelhurst Park in just one place (p. 228), noting that kestrels sometimes hang out there. Finetooth (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to the Oregonian archives, especially not the non-FUTON type. tedder (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry for the confusion. I assumed the numerous Oregonian articles you referenced in the South Park Blocks and Director Park articles were due to archive searches. I never seem to come across as many Oregonian articles as you do. I often search for news sources using the Google News Archive. You? (And thanks for the feedback, Finetooth!) --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

GNews is okay, not great. This index is helpful, and when I had access I was using library.pdx.edu along with actual films at PSU and the Multnomah Library branch. The other great way is by finding a decent book covering the subject with footnotes. This article is an example of one that couldn't have been written with FUTON sources. For instance, when it was being moved, I looked through films for about a dozen days before to glean bits of information!

Back to the topic, the MacColl books are decent, Bart King's 'guidebook' is the Readers Digest of Portland architecture, and Carl Abbott's "Greater Portland" isn't bad either. I'll see what I can find. tedder (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the feedback. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I flitted off for a few days to do other things, but I have more thoughts. I posted one of them, about the Laurelhurst Dance Studio, to the article's talk page just now. I don't know what FUTON (above) stands for, but I have access to the Oregonian archives via the Multnomah County Library. I ran a quick check of the historical Oregonian after 1908 just now. The search term "Laurelhurst Park" returns more than 87,000 hits beginning with "Ladd Farm Sold for $2,000,000". I'd be glad to look further, but can you help me narrow the search? Anything in particular that you're looking for? Finetooth (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Perhaps I have bitten off more than I could chew. I am not looking for anything in particular, actually. Tedder had whipped up some awesome "Events" sections for a few parks articles so I was merely seeing if he was interested in contributing to the same for LP (and I was just wondering how he accessed so many Oregonian articles if not for the archives). Of course, my request for collaboration extends to anyone interested. (Glad I am not the only one unfamiliar with the term/acronym FUTON.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey. FUTON is "full text on net". See FUTON bias. To make the "events" section on South Park Blocks, I processed about 2000 articles. No joke- it took a lot of hours. tedder (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Tedder, for the FUTON explanation. The 87,000 hits includes a large number of classified ads, I see, so the number of useful articles is no doubt much smaller. Something like 2,000 sounds more realistic. I'll look again tomorrow and see if I can come up with anything that's clearly useful. I don't know, Another Believer, if you have a Multnomah County Library card. If you do, you can get at this stuff too. Please let me know if you want cookbook instructions for access. Finetooth (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I do have a library card, and I am also on the list for one of the Credo accounts. I have (just recently) started going through the Google News Archives... just busy in "real life" lately. I am definitely interested in working on the article, even if long-term, and hope to also upload more pictures for Commons. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm busy too, distracted by all sorts of things. I couldn't tell from your answer above whether or not you've logged in to the county library site and accessed the older Oregonians. If not, you can get at the FUTONs via [2]. Click on Research in the brown menu bar at the top of the initial page. When the Research page comes up, click on Articles. When the Articles page comes up, scroll down to Newspapers and click on Oregonian Historical Archives. You'll then be prompted to enter your library card number and PIN. Click submit, and you're in. My apologies if all this is redundant information. Finetooth (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

the Rajneeshees in Oregon

The O has a great series about the Rajneeshees in Oregon. We have good coverage here, but the O is giving a good narrative to it. tedder (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Totally. It's a great series. I wish it had even more details than it does. I mentioned this on the Talk:Rajneeshpuram page as well but my comment may have been lost. --Esprqii (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The Eugene article in the news...

The Register-Guard on the Eugene, Oregon article. Steven Walling 05:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that in the paper. I don't think Welch has a valid argument, though. :-) Jsayre64 (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Don't they know Wikipedia is not a travel guide?

My hats (all of them) are off to the fine people who have worked in this article in the past. City articles are a major pain and I have therefore scrupulously avoided them for the most part. Not to give credit to the fishwrap media, but it does seem like there is some room for improvement there. Wondering if this is a candidate for COTW? For example, the history section is kinda skimpy, and the anarchy section does seem a bit weighty. I'm always curious where these things get started, so I see that it mostly stems from an edit from a single-purpose account back in 2007. I'm sure User:Valfontis remembers the edits. Anyway, I wouldn't mind working on the history parts. Ideally that section seems like it should be a separate article, and some others could maybe get there as well. Heck, I might learn something. --Esprqii (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone should talk to the Guard. I'm impressed that they mentioned SOFIXIT at the end. Jsayre, will you want to do it? Steven? tedder (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well so what if the anarchy section is so much longer than the others? It has references. That means there's a lot of information about it. On the other hand, maybe we should cut the guy some slack if he's infamiliar with Wikipedia. Tedder: I'd be willing to, but what exactly should I say? Should I just point at this discussion? Jsayre64 (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The established media have an inherent bias against Wikipedia: Writers and publisher want to be paid, and they have to "work their way up" to earn it. Here, there is little in the way of a paid career, and anyone—pretty much without qualification—can write something which 600 to 1100 people read each day. Professionals don't understand how seeming chaos produces good results when, to their way of thinking, it is iffy for a highly controlled and orderly publishing process to routinely generate anything halfway useful.

On the other hand, there are some good points: there is undue weight on some sections and light coverage of more classic areas like history and economics. The field burning controversy ought to have much more depth, and their sometimes over-the-top environmentalism deserves at least a few sentences. Still, it is what it is. Anyone with good sources can balance the article better. —EncMstr (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the RG writer had it mostly right. About a year ago there was a bunch of crap added which led me to downgrade the article to C class. I also took it off my watchlist, so perhaps it has improved some since then, but probably not a whole lot. As the RG reporter/writer said, the anarchism bit is minor, and to address Jaysre, yes it is cited, but although verifiability is the key to inclusion, we still have WP:NPOV. As in, even if you can cite something, that still doesn't automatically mean it should be included, nor should it have its own section (much like the issue at Arlington, Oregon and their now former hot mayor). Basically, in 25 years are people still going to be talking about it? If not, maybe just a one-sentence mention in the history section. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

JSayre, I'd just say "hi, I edit on Wikipedia, saw your article, and thought I could answer some questions". You aren't required to get approval from the cabal; you've edited enough that you understand the rationale for inclusion and exclusion of things (WP:UNDUE, WP:ADVERT, and especially WP:SOFIXIT). I can help with some questions if you'd like. Most journalists are nice enough people, they are happy when an "expert" comes to them so they don't have to work so hard for a information. tedder (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've emailed the columnist and I told him about this project and the be bold guideline, and I've invited him to join this discussion. --Jsayre64 (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

+1 to tedder comments. Outreach to cultural institutions encouraging people to think about and even edit Wikipedia is of huge value I think. At the very least, I would tell them to come talk to this WikiProject for pointers on how to make Oregon-related articles better... shoot, maybe even an official editathon sponsored by the paper and facilitated by WP:ORE might happen. ;) Steven Walling 04:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

*likes* --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Just saw this. The article about my hometown has always kinda sucked, even all the way back when I was checking out what this Wikipedia thing was all about and saw about two paragraphs, one of which was about anarchism. I just haven't had the energy to untangle the mess. My stated COIs, not having read the Welch article--People love Welch, but I miss Don Bishoff--a much better columnist, IMHO. Personally, I would take Welch with a grain of salt. I have known a few of the city's more notable anarchists. OK, I'll go take a look at the article now and see if I have anything actually useful to contribute. Valfontis (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that this incident appears in this week's edition of The Signpost. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Link to Signpost. Under "Briefly." Took me a while to find it, but we're famous. --Esprqii (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

More direct link tedder (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Even more extreme closeup link. --Esprqii (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Old photo source

Lots of old photos of Portland and all public domain since published pre-1923. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

COTW v. 2.0

Thanks for the newsletter, Aboutmovies. While I too am quite busy in "real life" lately, I am thrilled by the possibility of a COTW resurrection and will try to contribute when possible. I remember when designated COTW's were expanded rapidly and with quality because several members came together with a plan, each contributing what they could. I hope this process can happen again. This summer I would like to propose a second annual photo blitz!, where WP:ORE members step outside and snap photos of nearby parks, landmarks, buildings and other things Oregonian. I have been doing some work at Commons with organizing images of Portland parks--uploads could be added there to increase our photo stash. Another COTW could be the "List of parks in Portland, Oregon", which I am still struggling with as far as how to best organize the list. Let's wait until the weather improves then perhaps tackle one or both of these? Just a thought. In the meantime, I will try to keep a close eye on COTW and other WP:ORE projects when possible and regardless of how involved I am in other Wikipedia tasks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

you can count me in the list as well Aboutmovies movie. I wasn't really around much for the COTW the first time other then the tail end of it but I will make an effort to make edits to as many of the COTW as I can in this go around. By the way I have a good set of pictures from the Albany are as I could for this weeks. I will have to play around with it and figure out all the stuff to upload them but they will be us soon.MathewDill (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Great to hear. For those looking for administrative tasks, here are some that I can think of:

• Keeping the portal up-to-date: When articles reach FA or GA, add them if needed to the selected article/selected biography. There is a bot that keeps track of all featured content so you just add it to your watchlist and update when something new comes along. Also add new DYKs (again, the not helps make this easier, but I have some other details), approve new panoramas and selected pictures, and add/edit the other content on occasion. About 1 hour a month.
• Checking for new Oregon related articles. Yes there is a bot, but it is down right now, and even then it is not 100% inclusive. About 45 minutes a month.
• Running the COTW: Update the template, archive the old items, and send out the SPAM. About 45 minutes per update.
• Awards director: Give out the awards; Big Gold Dude, COTW, and newcomer. This is the wikilove to help encourage and recognize others. I haven't done this in at least a year, but I used to give out a COTW award for each update, one Big Gold Dude and one newcomer award each month. Plus you can throw other barnstars out there too. About 30 minutes a month.
• Article assessments: We have a que of unassessed articles and those people want re-assessed. Even though I have kept this current, I do not assess my own work, so there are some that have been sitting there for awhile. About 15 minutes a month.

That's it for now. Training can be provided, and I am not necessarily trying to off-load all of it, more seeing if anyone else wants to jump in and take on a bit more. If you already do things like this, feel free to list your tasks as well and we can see if some of the newer blood want to get more involved. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Need me an admin

Someone decided to correct the title of Klamath and Salmon River Indian Wars to what seems to be the correct Klamath and Salmon River Indian War. But instead of moving, they started a new article, and then copy and pasted part of the old into the new, and did not give attribution. If an admin could do a history merge, that would be good. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

 Doing.... Will you deposit Template:Uw-c&pmove or a personal version of that on the user talk page?

Done, and thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done on the second try. Forgot the word "river" the first time I moved it. tedder (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I had the same problem moving the old talk page. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think there should be a barn star for even attempting a history merge. I did one once, and there was nothing fun about it. Nice work Tedder! -Pete (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully a histmerge wasn't required- since it was a cut-and-paste, I just reverted the old page (which removes the redirect and shows the full text), deleted the new page, then did the actual move. You are right, histmerges are crazy! tedder (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Phew..I am relieved to know we haven't burned off more of your brain cells than necessary. A valuable Oregon resource (no matter their location…) -Pete (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Need help with mixed up page history

I stupidly moved a generic draft page from my user space to Rogue-Umpqua Scenic Byway, which means old history items un-related to the new page are included. What can be done to remove the old history? --Tesscass (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to delete your userpage, move the article page back to your userspace. This is the one time when "copy and paste" of the content is a good idea, as the entire page history belongs to you, so there's no attribution being lost. tedder (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tedder! I should have known better, but apparently my brain had a short circuit. --Tesscass (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Go ahead and recreate the article by copying/pasting. EC- you are welcome, not a problem. tedder (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Oregon Triple Crown

I, SMasters, am pleased to award this special edition triple crown to WikiProject Oregon and its hardworking members. – SMasters (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Your Majesties, thank you for all your hard work. This award is for the project itself. Copies of the award will be presented to:

• Pete
• Aboutmovies
• Finetooth
• Esprqii
• Little Mountain 5
• Valfontis

Well done! What a grand effort. When more people qualify, you can add them on the nomination page for inclusion. Warm regards – SMasters (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! I have to get an Oregon-related article to GA status so I can place one of these in my trophy case too! :) --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, very cool, thanks to all who pushed this through on my behalf! I'm very honored. Do we have a project trophy case? --Esprqii (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, great job everyone! I don't think we do have a trophy case... we need one. LittleMountain5 22:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to be in such good company. The beaver is a nice touch. Finetooth (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Go us! And thanks to Jsayre who did much of the work to get this going. We could make a trophy case over here. Or maybe just put it on the front page for a while... Valfontis (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Some projects (example) put this on their project page, along with a list of awarded members, in order to encourage other members to contribute quality work to the project. – SMasters (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Very cool! Yes, thanks Jsayre for making this happen..I'm honored to be a part of it! Probably about time I got back to some article-writing… -Pete (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks y'all! It's been somewhat awkward taking care of this without having actually participated in getting myself to qualify. :-) And I agree, Valfontis: go us! Jsayre64 (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose It should be a salmon, not a beaver! (Just kidding. This is awesome.) Steven Walling 05:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The Oregonian - newly released archives

• http://www.oregonlive.com/rajneesh/

Most interesting research by The Oregonian, check it out! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Scroll up to #the Rajneeshees in Oregon tedder (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Unfortunately, the wealth of WP:RS sources contained in the newly released archives has yet to be incorporated adequately. -- Cirt (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

a new source for old photos

I just discovered US National Archives is on Flickr. For instance, check out this search. Many of them are related to the gas crisis of 1973, apparently, but there are some treasures in there. Here are a few showing Trojan under construction (ah, the WPPSS era), here's Broadway in Portland, houseboats on the Willamette, yes, it's okay to discriminate on who can buy gas, salmon fishing near Oregon City, and why you shouldn't carry a gas can in your trunk. Strangely, there are 200+ results for Portland and.. three for LA. tedder (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and bonus points if anyone can identify this neighborhood. tedder (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, not only are there U.S. Nat'l archives, but there are archives from OSU. If you want help getting a mass import from Flickr on either of them, lemmie know. Steven Walling 17:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Steven! I'm not sure the OSU photos have been released wide enough to be used on Wikimedia; they link to this notice, which roughly maps to CC-BY-NC. tedder (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's very odd that they have that, considering that the agreement with publishing in the Flickr Commons is that they are photos where there are zero known copyright restrictions... Steven Walling 21:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Cort and Fatboy

• Cort and Fatboy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Cort and Fatboy Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello there. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and a complete newb as far as WikiProject Oregon goes. Cort and Fatboy is a online radio show that broadcasts on Cascadia FM in Portland. The show has been covered by the Oregonian numerous times, in addition to the AP, Willamette Week and The Portland Mercury. I'm confident that it meets the notability requirements for inclusion on the site. Nonetheless, the show's Wikipedia article has been removed several times by rather pedantic editors who seem to want to nitpick every source to death and can't seem to get past it's rather goofy name. I would appreciate any advice or help you folks might be willing to offer. Thanks! I'd really like to get the article to stick. Hawthornestreetblues (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the frustration, but keep a couple of things in mind. It was deleted after consensus with the community through the process that determines encyclopedic relevance of articles. The reason it was deleted is summed up best at The answer to life, the universe, and everything. tedder (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood but a few of the citations did meet the standards, which is rather frustrating. I could clean the article up and reduce the number of questionable sources but I fear it might be deleted almost immediately, based on the earlier reviews. Hawthornestreetblues (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely understand the frustration. A good way to go is to start the article in your userspace (for instance, User:Hawthornestreetblues/The Cort and Fatboy Show), which gives you time to work on it without worrying about deletion and nitpicking. I do agree Cort and Fatboy are notable or nearly so. You can get feedback here and any of these places before making it a proper article, which will cut down on frustration. tedder (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the advice! Hawthornestreetblues (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Rivers list

At Talk:List of rivers of Oregon#Tables?, I brought up the idea of using tables instead of a bare list. After asking at village pump, this led to the helpful creation of templates for collapsible bullet lists/tables for the tributary listings, which was requested for about two and a half years. I think using the tables for the longer rivers and the collapsible bullet lists for the tributaries is the best solution. I'd be glad to get some more editors' thoughts on this. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone for tennis? :-) Jsayre64 (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Research project by a UofO grad student: take a look?

Hey WPORE folks. There's an interesting research project underway by a University of Oregon grad student. If you could check out the talk page there etc. and throw in your two cents if you have questions or commments, that would be most welcome. Thanks! Steven Walling at work 22:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Oregon's Most Endangered Places 2011

Here's the list from HPL: http://www.historicpreservationleague.org/endangered.php

Added to entries with articles

• Civic Stadium (Eugene)
• Egyptian Theatre (Coos Bay, Oregon)
• Francis Ermatinger House

Added to entries that mention the place

• Baker City Middle School - added to Baker City, Oregon and Ellis F. Lawrence
• Tillamook Life Saving Station - added to Barview, Tillamook County, Oregon
• Petersen Rock Garden & Museum - added to List of museums in Oregon
• Watson-Price Farmstead (barn) - added to National Register of Historic Places listings in Benton County, Oregon

Not added

• Josiah Burnett House, Eagle Creek
• Dr. Pierce's Barn, Cottage Grove
• Kirk Whited Farmstead, Redmond

I haven't done the entries in the last category, adding here in case someone wants to adopt them. tedder (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

need help on ledes

Keller Fountain Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is nearing the end of GA approval. I'm terrible at summarizing (see how many refs I use per sentence!), so I'm hoping someone can flesh out an appropriate lede.

And on a more gruesome and bizarre topic, can someone help out with the lede at Los Angeles fetus disposal scandal? I just created it after many nights of digging, but again I'm horrible at ledes. tedder (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried some edits on Keller. Maybe they're not all in line with GA requirements, but in any case I'd just suggest that it needs a description of not just features of the park/fountain, but summaries of its importance in the big scheme of Portland architecture. Steven Walling 05:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Should be good to go now. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Aboutmovies has solved the specific problem. Here's some general advice. The lede should summarize the main text sections. It serves the same purpose as the abstract of a scientific paper. My rule of thumb is to include in the lede at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything important that does not appear in the main text. In other words, the lede is not the same as an introductory paragraph. Think of it this way: a Wikipedia article really starts with the first main text section. In this case, that would be "History". The lede, ideally written after an article is otherwise finished, simply summarizes the main points and does nothing else. Finetooth (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, great job with the two GAs, Tedder and other project members! --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:ORE alums in the news, like the real news

Q: What does Paul Revere have to do with WikiProject Oregon?
A: Long-time project member and Wikimedia Foundation superstar Steven Walling of course! See here!
Way to go, Steven!
(Next time mention how those ringin' bells could be heard all the way out in Astoria, also, too, you betcha.) --Esprqii (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent presentation Steven! Very good coverage of how Wikipedia actually works.

What were you doing in S.F.? I thought you lived in Vancouver... I recognize the interior of the Wikimedia foundation HQ—Pete took me on the tour last year. —EncMstr (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully Steven can offer more detail, but he currently works for WMF. I had the pleasure of meeting him (briefly) when I visited the Foundation for a project back in September. I will take a look at the above link when I have a moment (aka not at work), but I am sure it's good stuff! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, Steven! Being on NBC News is a pretty big deal. You also did a great job explaining what tends to happen on Wikipedia when news (like what Palin said) comes out. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Well done, Steven! --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! :) Yeah, EncMstr, I'm actually in SF on a year-long fellowship at the Foundation. Steven Walling at work 17:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What to do with Albany Parks & Recreation

Bringing this here per a discussion on the article's talk page. There are several issues here--is it notable? Should it be disambiguated? Merged? I've known this article since 2005 (that's nearly the same age as me in dog years!), so it's kind of like a pet one would feel guilty sending to the pound. Albany doesn't get a lot of WikiLove, but MatthewDill did a lot of work and added some nice images. I'm still not convinced, however, that we should keep this. I'm also too lazy to do the work to do the merge it probably "deserves". I'm not much of a fan of municipal park articles, but I know some of you are. Would you please decide what to do with this? Wishy-washily, Valfontis (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the article should be about the history of AP&R itself. The article could also contain a list of AP&R sites with limited details about the parks. If there is enough material about a park to justify a separate article, then park articles should be created. I don't think the numerous heading make the current version of the article easy to read. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Could it be turned into an illustrated table? With municipal parks in bigger places like Portland and Hillsboro, it's usually possible to find multiple reliable sources (city web site, USGS, newspaper articles, books) for information, and the individual park articles can grow to start class or higher. See, for example, Magnolia Park (Hillsboro, Oregon). But with the Albany parks it may not be possible to find enough sources. The existing entries are all single-source stubs. If the article were turned into a table, the images could go into the right-hand column, and other columns could be "Name", "Address", "Hours", and "Amenities", perhaps. This would save all of MatthewDill's work. Just a suggestion. Finetooth (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps my suggestion was not very clear, but this is what I was thinking as well. I was thinking a list/table similar to the List of parks in Portland, Oregon. The top of the article could be the history of AP&R, followed by a table with the detail you suggested. If there proves to be enough information for a park to have its own article, the entry could have limited detail with the park name linked to the corresponding article (like the Portland list). I am glad contributors such as Finetooth are here to articulate themselves better than I can! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops. It wasn't that you were unclear; it was that while I was composing my comment, you posted yours. I did not see it until just now. We are in agreement, I think. Your suggestion about including a brief history of the parks department is also good; I didn't think of that. Finetooth (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad we are in agreement then! *off topic* This is similar to the problem I am having with the Portland Parks & Recreation article vs. List of parks in Portland, Oregon article. *on topic* --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is quite awkward for this article to be a list of some parks in Albany while Portland Parks & Recreation is a history of the actual parks bureau, or at least it will be sometime. The parks are of course listed at List of parks in Portland, Oregon. That makes sense. So why shouldn't this article be like the Portland one and we move the park listings after we create List of parks in Albany, Oregon? Jsayre64 (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I am going to try to not turn this discussion into one about Portland. List of parks in Albany, Oregon may not be necessary if the majority of the information can fit into a Parks & Recreation article. Currently, the article is not very long, or would not be very long if the information were presented in a table format with a history of the organization above. If the history narrative became too long, then a list of parks might be more appropriate. I am not a fan of List of parks in Portland, Oregon, because it is difficult to define "park"--you have entries like Jamison Square, pools, schools, etc., along with a mixture of PP&R sites and non-PP&R sites. I think it would be better if the Portland Parks & Recreation article contained a narrative of the history of the organization as well as a list of PP&R sites. This could be a table with limited details. If the list is too long, it could be broken up into SW, SE, NW, NE and North Portland sections like the NRHP lists. PP&R "sites" is more inclusive than "parks". I don't know, though, how to list non-PP&R sites. Point being, the current list of parks in Portland seems confusing to me and I would hate for the same to happen to the Albany list. Just my two cents, though. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that if we split off the PP&R sites from the Portland parks list and move them to Portland Parks & Recreation (which, by the way, I think is a good idea), we should also have the AP&R sites listed at Albany Parks & Recreation. We should be consistent with both cities. But if we stopped there, the non-AP&R sites would be stranded. If we created a list of Albany parks, we could list the non-AP&R sites there. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

2010 census data

The 2010 census data for Oregon is now available. The Census website confuses the heck out of me and I can't figure out how to link to the useful data, but here's the press release. Maybe a good COTW to get all counties and cities updated with the latest data? Or is there some censusbot in the works that will do this eventually? BTW, in exciting population news, I see Eugene is extending its lead on Salem as #2 city and Hillsboro pushed past Beavertron for #5. -- Esprqii (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I also was very confused with the census bureau's website. I think I've figured it out, though. Apparently they've set up a new tool for the 2010 data, found here. To get information on a city, click "Geographies" on the left. Then you search a city name, click on what you're looking for among the results, close that small window, and then you can select a category among a whole bunch of different demographic analyses. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And I don't think there's a fixed URL for each city's data, so to cite the census bureau's 2010 data, you have to use {{GR}} #8. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember when the 2000 census data was first released. I was working with GIS and we got our hands on the large and confusing "summary file" datasets. They were very complicated and it took a lot of work to learn how to extract specific information. If these first 2010 census releases are like those, yea, it may be quite confusing. As I understand it, they try to release the results quickly, especially for election redistricting needs, at the expense of ease-of-use. Over time the info will be made more easily accessible, no doubt. I assume there are Wikipedians who are all into the new census info and are working on getting pages updated, but I don't know who they are. Pfly (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The lastest post on this page looks like it might be helpful regarding extracting data: Wikipedia talk:2010 US Census. There is also some discussion about having a bot do some of the work, but I think at this point there will have to be a lot of checking by actual humans. BTW, y'all may have noted that I've already added a bunch of "new" CDPs to Category:Census-designated places in Oregon. (Most of the new CDPs are existing unincorporated communities.) There are some notes about this in my messy sandbox (see section below that one too) if you're interested. Valfontis (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have a good source for all the updates we need. Obviously a tweak to the URL should provide the other cities. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oregon only. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there are some dead links from there. You linked to the M-P cities' data. Here's the index. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Helpful (anon) unsourced updates

Like this one. I hate to revert these for being unsourced like I've always done up to this point, because the numbers really do need to be updated, but at the same time, I usually don't feel like tracking down and citing these myself. Or templating the person who added the info. It's pretty clear when the update is reasonable vs. vandalism. Any ideas about how to approach this until we sort out how to get them all updated properly? Valfontis (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Always a tough call. I'd think inviting them to this discussion might be the best approach? -Pete (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hands Across Hawthorne

Notable enough for an article? See Wikipedia:Notability (events). --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have started an article offline, but I am still having reservations posting the article if it does not meet notability criteria. Following are some links that I have yet to incorporate into the article:

• http://www.katu.com/news/local/122623369.html
• http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2011/05/24/breaking-anti-gay-hate-crime-reported-on-hawthorne-bridge
• http://blogout.justout.com/?p=33508
• http://www.sdgln.com/tags/brad-forkner
• http://www.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/26291521-41/police-portland-forkner-attacked-hands.html.csp
• http://www.oregonherald.com/oregon/local.cfm?id=613
• http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/may/24/2-men-attacked-in-portland-after-holding-hands/
• http://www.portlandonline.com/police/pbnotify.cfm?action=ViewContent&content_id=2230
• http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/28/980187/-Oregonians-to-Respond-to-Attack-on-Gay-Men-for-Holding-Hands-with-Massive-Rally%E2%80%8E-
• http://www.kgw.com/home/Two-men-beaten-on-Eastbank-Esplanade-may-be-bias-crime-122528534.html
• http://instinctmagazine.com/blog/4000-gather-on-portland%E2%80%99s-hawthorne-bridge-in-solidarity-with-hate-crime-victims?directory=100011
• http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=national&sc3=&id=120122
• http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43158527/ns/local_news-portland_or/
• http://www.edgewashington.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=national&sc2=news&sc3=&id=120122

Any thoughts on whether these links (and others) justify a WP article? Or is this just news? --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's probably notable, but perhaps more useful would be including it and past events in LGBT rights in Oregon (which is esp. poor), History of violence against LGBT people in the United States, and maybe creating a Hate crimes in Oregon article off of Hate crimes in the United States. Steven Walling 22:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I went ahead and started an article. My hope is to fully expand this article then also add summaries to the links you suggested. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Mostly expanded. Still a bit more research to do regarding the rally itself. Any thoughts or suggestions? I went ahead and nominated a hook for Main Page DYK inclusion. *hoping to get my first WP Oregon GA credit!* Update: If anyone happens across any pictures taken at the event (free license at Flickr?), please post or upload--I am not familiar with how to do this. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's three of the best I found on Flickr:

• 
• 
• 

There's more here. Hope that helps! LittleMountain5 22:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are Flickr photos with a Creative Commons license. At the moment, there are 137, but it looks like almost all of them are by one photographer. I don't see an ideal photo, but something like this one seems like the right subject. (I would rotate that one to be level and improve the contrast if no better one can be found.)

Instructions for uploading a photo are at WP:IMAGE and on our blog.

As for WP:DYK, we have a lot of collective experience—Aboutmovies being the 15th Dan Grandmaster. Check on the submission several times per day for a few days after you submit it to respond to comments. In contrast to the implied expectations there, it takes 10 or 15 days for it to appear. —EncMstr (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you LM5! Much appreciated. Also, thank you EncMster for the feedback. I am quite familiar with the DYK process and have nominated numerous Oregon-related hooks successfully in the past. I was mostly just providing an update about the status of the article, but I appreciate your assistance nonetheless. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added some of the images posted by LM5 and created a category at Commons for "Hands Across Hawthorne" so that additional images can be added in the future. Posted question on talk page regarding media, if interested. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hands Across Hawthorne! Well, I have a dozen other Good articles and nearly 20 Oregon-related DYKs under my belt, but this marks my first Oregon-related GA which I believe means that I have earned my WP Oregon Triple Crown! Off to check... --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I swear that's the fastest creation-to-GA I've ever seen. Steven Walling 04:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Same here. I bet 10 days is a record. tedder (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I nominated AB for an Oregon Project Triple Crown just now, although perhaps they can be awarded just like Barnstars. Not quite sure. Finetooth (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you have to get approval at WP:CROWN/NOM first, but otherwise I would certainly award AB a barnstar for writing really nice articles really quickly. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup. This morning, operating at maybe 100 watts instead of 40, I think I got it right. The nom is now posted at Wikipedia:Triple Crown/Nominations. Finetooth (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your kind words! Finetooth, I appreciate the nomination--I went ahead and included a note about Oregon-related featured content (List of Oregon state symbols) in case its required for the Triple Crown. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Noting your note, AB, I replaced the non-Oregon item in the nom with the Oregon list and added a link to the supporting FAC archive. I think 100 watts might have been an exaggeration. I should go into politics, maybe. :-) Finetooth (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone a good wordsmith?

Oregon and Northwestern Railroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I created this article today. I checked the character count with this tool and it said 1,158. The minimum for a DYK hook is 1,500. I've used everything on Google Books & Google News, as well as all reliable sources on the web. I don't have access to the Multnomah County Library; does someone want to search The Oregonian archives for more information so this qualifies for DYK? Thanks. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I got two hits on "Malheur Railroad" from the Oregonian index, which runs from 1852-1987:

• "Ontario citizens subscribe bonus to secure Vale-Malheur railroad", 01/29/1906, page 5
• "Malheur Railroad Company suspends business as common carrier", 03/09/1928, page 2

Looks like the second one might help. The UO is working on digitizing some of the older papers, but I think this will require a look at the microfilm. I go no hits on "Oregon and/& Northwestern Railroad" in either the index or the 1987-present archive. I'll see if I can find anything else--kinda weird there's so little info, but FUTON bias, ya know. Valfontis (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Google with "&" and I think you'll find enough stuff. Lemme know if not and I'll see what else my library has. Valfontis (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I've tried it with the ampersand, alright. :-) Me, too… I'm puzzled as to why there's so little information. I tried to find information from some of the sources I used while researching for the Oregon Portage Railroad, but there wasn't too much. I found nothing on Newsbank with my library card, but I think there's one more tool I'll get to in a moment. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Darn it. I didn't find anything. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(Check your e-mail for a ref with a minor mention.) Actually plenty of those train websites can be used as sources--did you find this one? It's got lots of references and links. I've used his pages for references and consider them reliable. You might check in with WP:TRAINS if you're in doubt about reliability.

• Roster is here
• Preserved rolling stock is here
• Great pics to link in els here and here

The train website forums can't be used for refs, but lots of great info for following up on. Railfans are eager to get things right, so I don't think there will be any bad info there. Valfontis (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This search might turn up something useful. Since it was a company-owned logging railroad, it might not be referred to as the ONW, but you can tell from context when they are talking about the same thing. Valfontis (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have access to the older Oregonian articles via the Multnomah County Library. I ran a quick search just now and got eight hits on "Oregon & Northwestern Railroad". Most are not very interesting, but the oldest one, dated June 25, 1929, has a lot of specific detail about the kinds of trees the company intended to log, how many board feet of lumber they expected to produce, and other details not already in the article you've got so far. I could add some stuff tomorrow if you like; I'm a little too fried to do it tonight. Just let me know by posting a reply here. Finetooth (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I added a paragraph of info. from that article you sent me, Valfontis. Yay, it qualifies for DYK now! (I just have to think of a good hook). Finetooth: It would be great to add more information. You can just e-mail me what you found if you don't want to add it yourself. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I nominated the article for DYK. The hook isn't great, but maybe there will be a better one while we keep expanding. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried e-mailing you a link to the article. If that doesn't work, I'll try something else. Finetooth (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Some articles I've stumbled across. Email me if you can't find them.

• o!, 1994: "HISTORIC RAILROAD TUNNEL RULED UNSAFE, SHUT TO PUBLIC"
• o!, 1993: "TROUT CREEK CAMP: A RELIC OF SHAMEFUL PAST"
• WSJ, 1928: "Northwestern Pacific Railroad" (is this the same?)
• Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 1996: "COUNTIES WRAP UP RAILROAD PURCHASE" (talks about an old california-oregon railway)

Obligatory ending comment here. tedder (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot is back, kinda

• User:AlexNewArtBot/OregonSearchResult (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Check out the new page search! I'm really proud of it, and I'm just waiting for the BRFA trial period to end for me to roll it across to all the searches.

I'm especially proud of the recentchanges-friendly sparklines. Look at the history and you'll see what I mean. tedder (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice! --Tesscass (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Amazing how bots can do that. Good luck on the bot approval, tedder! Jsayre64 (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

@Tedder: It is great to have the capability back. Thanks for the hard work. What do the bar graphs mean? —EncMstr (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The bar graph shows approximately how many articles were added on that day. tedder (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so what does 19 results, daily counts: ▉▁▉▁▃▉▆ mean? It doesn't look like there 19 days there. —EncMstr (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not 19 days, it's 19 results in 7 days. How could I word it better? tedder (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I like sparklines. How come I can't see what you're talking about? I see the one in EncMstr's comment above, but what link are you seeing that at? -Pete (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind..I see it, in the "history" link on the first line above. Cool! I'll give it a closer look and let you know if I have feedback. -Pete (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool. They are imperfect (because of italics and font), but sort of nifty. It's amazing how many lines of code I wrote and how long the bot takes to process all searches (I think it takes 15+ hours). tedder (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

15 hours!! Wow. So, I've looked through it, and I don't know if I have specific feedback -- because honestly, I'm still trying to wrap my head around how the information is useful, to who. Don't get me wrong -- I totally understand that the AlexNewArtBot is something that generally made it possible for us to wrap our heads around new Oregon-related content. But I'm having trouble seeing exactly how the sparklines fit in.

I'm actually thinking that the bot in general is something we should write up. It would be great to publish a blog post about what the bot is designed to do, how it supports WP:ORE's activities, what it meant when the bot stopped working, how we might improve on it in the future, etc. I think it also offers some interesting insights into the bot approval process. From what I see, it seems like they do a great job of making sure that bots don't do damage -- but that the question of how useful or important a bot might be is oddly absent from the consideration process. I'm fascinated by the whole process. I doubt this is useful feedback, though,for your informing the bot design -- sorry about that! -Pete (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I see this bot has now been approved. Congrats, Tedder! Got an update about how you plan to use it? -Pete (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

AB blitz (National Register of Historic Places)

Did anyone else notice that 43 new articles appeared in WP:ORE? That is quite a bit more than the average of 3.48 more articles per day over the last 90 days or so. It seems Another Believer has been on a NRHP article-creating blitz! Nice work! —EncMstr (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't distract me, I am on a roll! :p (I understand some people might find stubs frustrating, but I see it more as "planting seeds"!) --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a good way to describe it. And no doubt about it, that's a lot of work. :-) Jsayre64 (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

AB, thanks for getting them started. It was also a good exercise for my NewPageBot. I would love it if someone could identify the entries that it missed. tedder (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I add all articles I created to my profile page. If you compare the last few diffs it should highlight the newly-created articles in ABC order. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Valfontis, for pointing out that the PDF file just very recently updated (June 6, 2011). I will try to update the dates, otherwise they might just have to be corrected as the articles are expanded. Also, much thanks to Aboutmovies for helping with categories, images, assessment, etc. Onward! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Very nice, there's nothing like a stub to make us all feel guilty. I actually know people who live in a couple of those houses. I'll try to get some photos soon. --Esprqii (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Great! It would have taken too much time to include pictures and infoboxes during my blitz, but some of the stubs have images that need to be added, or they should be tagged with the "reqphoto" parameter. Hopefully I will be able to go back through and expand, add images, infoboxes, etc. at a later date, but I am still in blitz mode! More to come... --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

For those who want to expand the text of the NRHP stubs, the Archiplanet site has links to most of the nomination forms for NRHP sites in Portland. Archiplanet isn't a reliable source per WP:RS, but each nom form qualifies as reliable. So, for example, to find the nom form for the Genoa Building, Google "archiplanet genoa building", which returns archiplanet's article about the Genoa Building. The link to the nom form (a PDF file) appears in the lower right-hand corner of the Archiplanet page. Finetooth (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Great suggestion. Some of these would be fun to research and would make great GAs. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to provide links (or translation of acronyms) but I believe the NPS NRIS database has all the Oregon NRHP nom forms online now as well, and perhaps even the SHPO does too, and there is also the SHPO database. (I've got some of these handy dandy things linked from my desk--watch your step in there, it's messy.) Nom forms are nom forms, but it might be better to reference that we got them from an "official" source instead of Archiplanet, which is *gasp* a wiki. Valfontis (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I've been listing the National Park Service as the publisher rather than Archiplanet. That's where the URL goes to rather than to the Archiplanet site. Finetooth (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI: A vast majority of the NRHP sites in SE, SW and NW Portland now have stubs. You will notice several red links on all three pages. These represent entries that I could not find (some are sorted funny on the PDF file), had slightly different titles, may have an existing article by another name, or were entries with initials. I was unsure about MoS preferences for these initials (arbitrary example A.B. Building vs. A. B. Building). Point being, I was plowing through the list of no-brainer entries quickly and decided to address the other sites later. Feel free to start stubs for these redlinked sites if interested. Three sections of the city down, two to go!, though I may take a short break and let WikiProject NRHP catch up. A BIG thanks to those WP:ORE project members that have already started adding images and expanding the stubs. Hopefully many of these NRHP sites will become Good articles in time--they sure are fun to research! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: North Portland is almost finished as well (stubs). --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I still need to tackle the NE Portland list, but I just wanted to thank project members for assisting with assessing, adding images to, and expanding several of the NRHP sites. Some of these sites are pretty freakin' cool! Ones that immediately come to mind are the Monastery of the Precious Blood and the Multnomah Hotel (great history there). Again, thanks for snapping pictures in your area, adding categories, and expanding these stubs. Which will be the first GA? --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)