Portal talk:Oregon/Good articles

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oregon/Good articles page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

	Oregon portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Discrepancy

Looks like we have a discrepancy re: the # of GAs (164 vs. 165). I removed the Rose Garden arena from the list, as a duplicate of Moda Center. Feel free to add to the list if you find one missing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jsayre64: Thanks for updating the count to 179, but actually we're still at 178. I worked hard to reconcile the list yesterday, but obviously there's still one I can't figure out... I still think reconciling might be much easier if we sort the list by last name (the same way as the category). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ooof, now we're way off: 188 vs. 207. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sort?

Any reason for sorting by first name instead of last name? Any opposition to sorting by last name? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More consistent and easier visually to sort by first name, in my opinion. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find reconciliation is easier sorting by last name since that's how they are sorted in Category:GA-Class Oregon articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jsayre64: This list is getting long. I'm still bothered by sorting by first name, but that aside, I wonder if we want to separate the list at all? Perhaps a subsection for biographies, or...? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: I like the idea of subsections at this point. Logically one of them would be "People" and then, sure, let's sort them by last name. Here's what I'm thinking: People, Arts and Culture, Geography/Places (sorted by Physical and Political/Settlements). Looks like those categories cover the vast majority of these GAs. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way – and I should have realized this before – we can try to track new GAs using this page. The dates listed under the "Quality" column appear to be the exact dates that the articles were promoted to GA status. (I got to that page from WP:ORE/Assessment.) We may find other ways to find new Oregon-related GAs as well. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Have a look at a draft I made here. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jsayre64, Traveling currently, but will take a look when I have more time. Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely opposed, but I'm wondering if less or more in this case because with so many subsections lots of math would be required to reconcile the count. What do you think about a parent section/list with subsections for Geography and geology, People, and Transportation? This way we'd be doing less math and we wouldn't have clunky categories like "Arts, architecture, food and drink, and culture" or "Other"? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes sense, unfortunately, to have sections for only three topics that leave out so many articles. As long as every section is a numbered list, I'm not so concerned about the math. I saw we can use {{Sum}} to keep track of the total count, which has the benefit of letting everyone see, in edit mode, the individual counts of every section. I just found that to be really handy. Check out the draft again to see what I did. If you'd like to split up the "Arts, architecture, food and drink, and culture" or "Other" sections somehow, by all means let me know or give it a shot. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jsayre64, I have another idea. What if we use the same categories used by the GA system? Wikipedia:Good articles has: Agriculture, food, and drink, Art and architecture, Engineering and technology, Geography and places, History, Language and literature, Media and drama, Music, etc. I select a category when I nominate an article for GA status, but I don't know if there's any way to tell which GA category an article is in via an article's talk page... What do you think? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. Let's use as many of those categories as we need. I'll try it tomorrow. And yes, it looks like the GAN template on a GA's talk page always says what category the article is listed under. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jsayre64, I've been busy working on other things, but I have not forgotten about this. I'll try to revisit when I have time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]