Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Montana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Montana (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

I have commenced the project assessment categories which will help us "rate" all project related articles based on their quality. Project members can first examine articles related to the scope of this project and then proceed to the article talk page and "rate" the article. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Montana/Assessment for guidance as to how to rate articles. This is an informal, no need for hurry mission for the project, so anyone interested can do this as they have the time and/or inclination. There is also a link to the assessment guide under the "assessment" heading from the main project page as well. Basically, the way to rate the article is to hit the edit this page at the top of each article's talkpage. Edit the {{WikiProject Montana}} template by adjusting to:

{{WikiProject Montana|class=FA}} For Featured articles if they have been rated already

{{|WikiProject Montana|class=A}} For A class articles

{{WikiProject Montana|class=GA}} For Good articles if they have been rated already

{{WikiProject Montana|class=B}} For B class articles

{{WikiProject Montana|class=Start}} For Start level articles

{{WikiProject Montana|class=Stub}} For Stubs

{{WikiProject Montana|class=NA}} For Non-Articles such as category pages, templates and Project related pages for this project.

If no adjustments are made to the rating, the article is left in the Unassessed category.

For further details and info, don't hestitate to ask me or refer to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Montana/Assessment guide.--MONGO 09:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

When the article is rated, it is automatically placed in a category which reflects that rating:

Contents

Montana discussion from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals[edit]

Description: This project would focus on the creation, expansion, and maintainace of articles related to the state of Montana.

Temporary project page:
User:/WikiProject Montana

User: Badbilltucker

Interested Wikipedians:

  1. Geologyguy
  2. --MONGO 07:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. ---EcoRover 20:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Ltvine 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

Yellowstone National Park[edit]

Yellowstone National Park has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --MONGO 04:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Montana[edit]

I've started work on the portal above. It's still only the beginnings, but it's a start. John Carter 01:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected Areas of Montana Navbox[edit]

I setup a Navbox for protected areas, based in large part on that used for Washington State. Because there seems to be some overlap in the subject area covered by 'protected area' (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas) and a 'heritage' listing or sites (see Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Historic districts), I included reference to Heritage Registers similar to what the folks over at WikiProject California did at the bottom of their navbox. Please take a look and give your feedback here. I'd like to post it to the templates section of our WikiProject and start adding it to the relevant articles. Thanks. -- Ltvine | Talk 04:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Montana[edit]

I'd like to do something about the Montana template. Specifically with regard to the listing of 'Largest Cities'. I've been working on the larger cities' {{Template:Infobox Settlement}} and have noticed that the listing in the infobox has a few problems. First, I can't discern where the cut-off was for the list originally. Using 2000 Census figures the smallest place on the list is Glendive at a population of 4,729. The next smallest place was Polson at a population of 4,041. So the cut-off, in terms of size, wasn't 4,000. Second, there is a total of eighteen places listed so it isn't a round number of, say, 20 places. Second, since the 2000 Census, demographic shifts have changed the rankings. Using 2006 U.S. Census estimates, Polson, Columbia Falls, and Hamilton are now larger than Glendive, the smallest included community in 2000. Finally, Evergreen, Montana isn't actually an incorporated city or town but a census designated place. It does however rank up there when it comes large places in Montana with 6,215 people at the 2000 Census.

So put shortly, I'd like to clarify the list and maybe be more inclusive and do what some other states have done like Minnesota and include a list of 'Larger Cities' and one for 'Smaller Cities' with the parameters for population clearly stated. Any thoughts?

I'll cross post this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates to get input from those who aren't likely to see it here, so please check there for any comments. Thanks. -- Ltvine | Talk 05:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Free use L. Ron Hubbard photo?[edit]

There seems to be a great deal of difficulty in obtaining any photo of the above subject that the Church of Scientology hasn't gotten a copyright on. I'm thinking that one of the few sources which might be available might be from any schools he might have attended. Considering the subject lived in Kalispell and Helena, and also have him meeting with a Blackfoot medicine man, I'm hoping there might be a few photos out there, even if they are of him as a teenager or younger. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. John Carter 19:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

National Historic Landmarks in Montana[edit]

There are 22 NHLs in Montana and each deserves a photo and a good article. I am editing the List of National Historic Landmarks in Montana and adding what i can. Help, comments appreciated. doncram 06:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bob Marshall (wilderness activist) up for Peer Review[edit]

Bob Marshall (wilderness activist), which falls under this WikiProject, has recently been promoted to Good Article status. As the principle contributor, I'm looking for detailed feedback for how to improve it for a future nomination at WP:FAC. If wonderful, selfless reviewers and interested parties could take part in the Peer Review, listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bob Marshall (wilderness activist)/archive1, I would be very grateful. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 20:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Montana class battleship recently cleared FAC and has earned its bronze star. Thought you all should know about it, seeing as how the class bears your state's name. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme[edit]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup[edit]

Currently, 2158 articles are assigned to this project, of which 301, or 13.9%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for WikiProject Montana[edit]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard good article reassessment[edit]

L. Ron Hubbard has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Cirt (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Added article on Governor Potts[edit]

Please have a look at Benjamin F. Potts. Feel free to add any pertinent information about his governship. Thanks!! 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Montana articles needing geographic coordinates[edit]

50 articles in Category:Montana articles missing geocoordinate data do not have geographic coordinates. Coords are useful for making the article appear on Google Maps & many other mapping services; and they allow our users to click through to see the article subject location on a map. There's a short guide to on how to add geocodes to articles ... it really is very easy to do. I hope you'll take some time to ensure that Montana is as well represented as it can be on wikipedia by fixing up the listed articles. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Knocked off about 1/3 of them so far--Mike Cline (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Reached the half-way point - just 61 to go--Mike Cline (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
2/3rds down - tough ones to go--Mike Cline (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move notification[edit]

I have requested the move of Empire Builder to Empire Builder (Amtrak). Reasons given at the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yellowstone Task Force at Wyoming Project[edit]

For all you Montana project members who are interested in Yellowstone subjects, a Wikipedia:WikiProject Wyoming/Yellowstone task force has been added to the WikiProject Wyoming to try and beef up Yellowstone subjects. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group[edit]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:52, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation[edit]

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 06:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference for Montana place names[edit]

As I was looking for references for Dagmar, Montana, I found a useful book: Montana place names from Alzada to Zortman  • Details at Library of CongressLimited preview at Google Books. If you are creating or expanding an article about a place in Montana, you may want to add any relevant details that you can find in the book. If you are located in Montana, your local public library may have a copy. – Eastmain (talkcontribs) 02:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Template Montana[edit]

In attempting to create and update a number of mountain range articles with the Infobox:Geobox template, I came up against a serious inconsistency in the Montana template section: Regions. The regions do not correspond (as far I can tell) to any official regional designations nor is their sourcing to support them as Montana regional designations. In fact, one of the regions listed is a County article--Big Horn, County--not a regional article at all. I propose to alter this section of the template if there are no objections to align with the major regions outlined here: Montana Regions. Changing the template will be the easy part, but there will be a need for some redirects to existing articles until it can all be sorted out. This will greatly simplify adding appropriate regions to Montana articles with infoboxes.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer you not to go there. For one thing, the five tourism "regions" are primarily advertising-based and do not align with actual geographic consistency nor local understanding of our own geography, I think it best to leave the template alone for now. The issue of the naming of geographic regions in Montana is inherently inconsistent and frequently debated. It's a hot potato. For one thing, even we argue over where "eastern Montana" begins-- anywhere from the Continental Divide to Billings, depending on who you talk to! The definition of "southwestern" Montana varies from the obvious geographic southwestern section of the state to the more commonly used definition of the area encompassing Gallatin, Madison and Beaverhead counties. It is possible that the state NRIS system has something, but given the hot button nature of this debate, its best to let sleeping dogs lie. Montanabw(talk) 16:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I was unaware that this was such a hot button issue as you mention. Can you provide some links to those discussions. I don't disagree with you if it has been that contenious, but some more consistency with actual sourced definitions would be nice. I'll do some more research to see what I can find.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, hot button is maybe an exaggeration, but the five regions thing is just a department of Tourism promotional breakdown than anything. I mean, no one actually living here says, "I live in Gold West Country" or "I live in Russell Country." The geographically logical layout is basically east and west of the divide, and then on the east, a rough breakdown between those areas drained by the Missouri and those drained by the Yellowstone. But then, for example, we have regional understandings that one hears every night on the local news and weather: The Flathead, the Bitterroot, the Hi-Line, the Golden Triangle, etc... But then, even Montana Public Radio can't decide if Helena is in Southwest Montana (where they said it was until a year or two ago) or Central Montana (where they say it is now). As I note below on the history piece, I'd kind of like to see what other states do and see if there is a good model. Montanabw(talk) 04:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Re History of Montana article issues[edit]

This article sadly does not do Montana History justice. Although the lead says it is the history of the state of Montana, it is not. It is 75% pre-territorial history, 15% territorial history (which huge gaps), and less than 10% state history. I believe there two appproaches to solving this: I favor approach #1: Craft three articles entitled: History of pre-territorial Montana, History of Montana Territory and History of Montana (state). The second approach would be a significant rewrite and restructure to balance the information among the three periods. This might seem easier, but considering 120+ years of robust Montana state history, the article would get very long. Any objections to 1st approach?

Sort of an objection to the particular split proposed, but in concept I agree the existing article needs work. However, I also think there IS a need for a general history overview. I mean, there is History of England which covers several THOUSAND years! LOL! I tend to dislike breaking up articles into lots of little ones, and the Montana history article isn't all that long, actually, it's just disorganize and not well done. My suggestion is first to redo the structure (maybe borrow the chapter structure of the major history books, think in terms of 7 or 8 sections),move what's there to the right spot, then expand the stuff that needs to be expanded, correct inaccuracies that need to be corrected, move stuff that is mishmashed into a logical order, and THEN see if there is need to spin off certain excessively long sections into their own articles, leaving behind a summary paragraph with a {{Main}} link. Really, territorial history only lasted 25 years, so I think that it isn't necessary -- and is a bit artificial -- to do a completely separate article, particularly because so many things overlap territorial status and statehood. (Mining, for example) I do think is that some of the Indian war stuff could be moved into articles on each of the nations, and sections like Louis Riel & the Metis, beyond a sentence or two, probably need to be a whole separate article (if there isn't one already). I also think there is some wisdom to look for any other state's history articles that are at GA or FA status and see how other they are handled. Montanabw(talk) 04:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
All that said, I can do some wordsmithing and fact-checking, There is also a need for newer references, particularly more use of Malone (I have Malone, several other books and access to more; I do happen to live here) but someone else may need to lead the heavy lifting. While it can be edited "live," another idea is to use a Sandbox off of someone's talk page, invite everyone interested to go there, and then to fix the article either plop the old one in to do basic cleanup, or create a whole new article and replace the old article wholesale. Montanabw(talk) 04:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

List of United States federal courthouses in Montana[edit]

This list is largely complete, but has bits and pieces of information missing, and needs images filled in - any help in completing it would be much appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Montana articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Montana articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates[edit]

I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{WikiProject United States}}. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

US Collaboration reactivated & Portal:United States starting next[edit]

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) 19:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with WikiProject United States[edit]

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) 19:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding "Popular pages" to U.S.-related projects[edit]

A very interesting tool of the Wikimedia Toolserver is called WikiProject Popular pages lists. These lists are similar to project-related article lists like U. S. article lists used for generating assessment statistics. The Popular pages lists include the rank, total views, average daily views, quality and importance ratings for the listed articles. Here is the full list of projects using popular pages lists. An FAQ also is available at User:Mr.Z-man/Popular pages FAQ.

I recently added links to lists of popular pages as shown below to the U.S. Portal - WikiProjects box and the nominations sections for each of the selected articles boxes.


Portal:United States/Projects/Popular pages


Because this project was not included, I am bringing up the popular pages tool here. This tool makes it very easy to track three of four balancing dimensions when selecting articles for showcasing at a portal - quality, importance and popularity. When tracking the fourth dimension, topic, the related article lists tool (such as for U.S. article lists tool) also might be useful by filtering on categories of interest.

If you do decide to use this tool, feel free to update Portal:United States/Projects/Popular pages as well.

Regards, RichardF (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal candidate: United States[edit]

Portal:United States is a current featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. -- RichardF (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Need help with move[edit]

Can someone please help move Standard format for neighborhood article titles? I tried to undo the redirect from Ramsay, Montana and tried a page move but I must be doing something wrong. Thanks! Tbennert (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Done: Ramsey, Montana --Mike Cline (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

High density of geotagged entries for Montana[edit]

Perhaps someone from this WikiProject would like to comment on this blog posting by researchers who compared the density of Google Maps placemarks and geotagged Wikipedia articles in all US states, and found that Montana had a very high density of the latter. "We suspect it has to do with someone (or perhaps some automated bots) who were/are extremely dedicated to documenting EVERYTHING in Montana". (Also going to be mentioned in this week's Signpost.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Gratifingly, I suspect User:Mongo and myself are the culprits here. Our lists of places in Montana (rivers, lakes, mountains, mountain ranges, cemeterys, tunnels, waterfalls, rapids, etc.) are loaded with geolocations. I suspect 1000s if all the entries were tallied up. Additionally, many of the Montana expedition related articles have geolocations associated with many points along the route of the expedition. From my point of view, Montana is setting the example in WP. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the illuminating comment, going to quote it in the Signpost if you don't object. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
No objection. If you want a good idea of what's been created on Montana subjects in the last couple of years, see these lists: [1], [2] --Mike Cline (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Heh...geotagging...we may overload Google Earth yet...now to turn all redlined links into blue ones....Mike you are too generous as my Montana articles are mostly stubs and almost entirely concentrated on the Glacier National Park zone...looks like I better get busy expanding my coverage.--MONGO 02:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You guys rock! If you get busted, let me know and I'll vouch for ya! Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Article development[edit]

I've noticed that most of our county articles could use some additional information. I am starting to work through alphabetically adding some History, Geographic features, Economy and links to home pages. If anyone would like to assist, Our Facts Your Future has lots of statistical information and the fliers are in the public domain.

I also plan on working through National Register of Historic Places listings in Montana, starting in the south eastern part of the state. If anyone is travelling and is willing to take some pictures that would be fabulous! Even funner would be to add or update articles for the counties you like :)

Now for a rules question. Is it acceptable to invite people I know who work at the Chamber of Commerces or Historical/Preservation Societies to either become an editor, or share information with me so it can be added? I know it's bad to invite people just to take your side in a discussion, but I want to make sure it would be okay in this circumstance. Other than making sure they understand how Wikipedia works (not for advertisement, anyone can change content, sourcing information) are there any precautions you might give me? Thanks for all the help! --Tbennert (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Experts on any subject are always welcome and desirable. The best advice i can give is to teach them the five pillars and about sources. If they wish to become active editors, remind them that there is a large community of editors out there willing to hep them. Mike Cline (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I mostly agree, but will add a couple of cautions: They need to footnote information to reliable sources and be VERY careful to avoid verbatim copying of copyrighted material. In other words, no cut and paste from the travel brochure. I think it's best to have folks provide existing WP editors with the info and we add it, unless they have an actual interest in learning the rules, which can be a little bit of a learning curve for the casual user. Montanabw(talk) 06:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Pics[edit]

Check my contribs list for today (july 5) here on Commons, I just uploaded a batch of photos of the Elkhorns and Big Belts, including some with Canyon Ferry Reservoir in them. May be of use to you geography article writers. Hope they help! Montanabw(talk) 23:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Montana[edit]

It was recently suggested that this project be included in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there have been some recent discussions on the talk page and some updates to the main project page. Before any action is taken I want to ensure that the members of the project concur with this action. I will contact each of the active members of the project and ask them to comment as well. Please feel free to contact me if there are any comments or questions. --Kumioko (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Support or 'support' as in take over? Some of my first articles lost their WP:Idaho tag and became WP:US with a subtag for Idaho, towit: [3]. To me this looks more like taking over than supporting. So I object. PumpkinSky talk 01:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to takeover at all and if the project doesn't want it then that's fine with me. Its true that we replaced the WikiProject banner with US/Id but that was to do a couple things:

  1. It allows the article to be covered by both projects,
  2. It allows the projects supported by US to use the same parameters (needs image, photo, references, etc) without modifying multiple banners
  3. It reduces the number of banners on the article
  4. Makes it easier for the bots running against US articles an easier time of finding the articles

Other than the banner though very little will change as far as the project structure. I would like to enable article alerts but that's about all. --Kumioko (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter anyway. If people want to work on MT articles, they will and won't care which WP it is part of. Each state should have it's own WP. PumpkinSky talk 01:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
And they will continue to have their own projects and at the same time the articles will also be associated to WPUS ensuring that the articles are being reviewed, maintained and improved from more than one project and in more than one way. This just allows us to maintain one banner instead of 1 (actually 23+ so far). Again though I understand and am fine if this project doesn't want too. --Kumioko (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Making it part of WP:US won't bring more people to the articles. It seems your only interest is in getting rid of state tags and making more US tags, and doing alerts; just like you did with Idaho. But I'm only one voice. PumpkinSky talk 02:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Well since were on the topic what do you think needs to happen for the project? Do you think its active and has enough members to manage the project items, maintain and improve the articles, etc. There are editors working on articles your absolutely right, no debate on that. But how is the project itself functioning? Is it active? Is it inactive? I honestly don't know that's why I left the message. Someone sent me an EMAIL with a list of projects there were a lot of projects on it) and I am contacting the projects and notifying the members of the project to see what they want to do.
Up till now I have been focusing my efforts on the WPUS projects infrastructure. Were almost done with that and then I will be focusing on recruiting members to the supported projects (not just to WPUS), articles improvement drives (including working with several related projects like Military history, NRHP, GLAM and others. we have the newsletter, monthly collaboraton, the portals, etc. I have also been working offline to get more content into Commons through various government sources and a variety of other things. Many relate to things outside WPUS and are more specific to the state projects (images of Historic places, people, etc).
If you have any suggestion as to how to help this project or any of them please let me know and I will do whatever I can to make that happen. I do have limited time though and cannot reasonably watch 100+ projects (there are 209 US related projects that I know of and probably some I don't). Some are active (Like USroads, California, New York, Wisconsin, Oregon and others) and some are basically defunct and a writ-eoff (several of the cities, WP US politicians, WP US States, etc). There are about 100 though that have nearly no project activity and those are the ones we are focusing on. Of that we have 24 currently in a supported status under US. That means we only have to edit one banner, all the supported projects use standardized parameters, all the associated articles appear on the article alerts (I still need to set it up on some of the projects but thats on the to do list). Etc, etc, etc. Again this isn't a takeover though. If the project members say they want to be left alone then that's fine and I will try and support as best as I can when asked. --Kumioko (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My sense would be to oppose. 1) Montana is a low-population state. The project is generally supported by people from Montana. Low participation rates should be expected, but that is due to the state's population and not the level of support for the WikiProject (which, I would argue, is as high, percentage-wise, as for any other state or nation). 2) My experience with WikiProject United States subsuming WikiProject Washington, D.C. is that no improvement in article creation, article maintenance, or sub-project participation occurred. Rather, what did happen is that newbies looking for a WikiProject Washington, D.C. didn't find one and (rightly or wrongly) felt discouraged from participating in building more D.C.-based articles. I agree that my assessment is based on anecdotal and personal evidence; if there are real numbers about article creation, maintenance, newbie participation after subsumption, etc., I'd love to see them. (Idea: Could the Wikipedia Foundation sponsor such research? And not just for the project I've mentioned, but for a random sample of inactive projects which got subsumed under other projects.) 3) There seems to be activity in article creation, DYK submission, and other areas. But not so much in project maintenance. I'm not sure that lack of project maintenance is reason for subsuming the project.

I have no magic bullet for building this project's activity. This is a Wikipedia-wide problem. Some projects have very large editor populations to draw on (e.g., "everyone in the United States" or "everyone who likes Pokemon"), and so even when newbie bad experiences, editor burnout, attacks on editors, etc. happen and drive down participation, the WikiProject continues to function because there were so many people involved to begin with. But these trends impact smaller projects much more. My sense is that instead of subsuming projects, we might wait a while to see what the Wikipedia Foundation's research says, what the ongoing discussions about solutions bring out, and how dashboard and other changes might help. (I, for example, am unaware of any Wikipedia outreach to college or high school students, college faculty, or state historical societies in Montana. There's so much outreach in D.C. that you can't help but trip over a Wikipedia Ambassador. Would expanding the outreach and thus expanding the population of editors solve the problem of burnout/newbie trends for this project. Perhaps.) - Tim1965 (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Having seen how this worked over in WikiProject Old West, I would be inclined to oppose as well. This just feels more like a land-grab than anything else.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Basically on the grounds that I am unsure of what the proposal actually is and what it intends to accomplish. To say the Montana project is in-active is incorrect, we just don't have as many active participants as larger states. We certainly manage to produce a lot of new articles. As for Tim's question above--Montana has two Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors at MSU Bozeman and we are very active in trying to recruit new editors and integrate WP into the faculty and staff of the university. A new WP student club has already been formed for this next term at MSU. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem and no hard feelings. I will strike Montana from the list. --Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Per Intothatdarkness' comment. Seeing WP Old West totally subsumed and downgraded to a mere task force was not the intent I believed when this was proposed (where at the time I was supportive until I saw what actually happened.) While there may be a minor argument for various projects and task forces that cover multiple states being brought under the WPUS umbrella, in this case, I think each state needs their own stand-alone WikiProject status. And WP Montana is far from inactive, just not a lot of people to pull the wagon. But at least four very active editors on the project overall, and many more who work on various articles. I might point out that my other "home," WikiProject Equine, has really only about three major editors and another 3-4 regular editors who work across multiple articles, yet we manage to hold down the Fort on about 2,000 tagged articles in the project. Montanabw(talk) 15:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to sway anyones vote since I consider the matter basically closed but I wanted to add some clarification on the WikiProject DC comment. The DC project is actually a rather bad example of a negative gain. The DC project in fact has a lot of activity but a lot of the DC members have been working on DC related subprojects (many under the umbrella of GLAM like Smithsonian Museum, American Art, Library of Congress, National Archives, etc). They also meet at least monthly to discuss things, have recently started an official Wikichapter and have gotten DC as the host for the 2012 Wikimania. So aside from what the comments might lead the reader to believe the DC project is extremely active and is in fact doing a lot of Wikigood for the entire project way beyond DC. --Kumioko (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
LOL! I have to note that the greater DC metro area has more population than all of Montana, all crammed into an area about the size of our of our counties! (or less, I think we have counties much bigger than several small states!). We're a little "geographically challenged" out here (Mike and I are practically neighbors but live 100 miles apart! LOL!) and most of our members are expats anyway! Montanabw(talk) 20:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok I am going to scratch Montana off the list of Projects wanting support. Please feel free to let me know if you change your mind in the future. --Kumioko (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple suggestions for the project[edit]

Since this project does not wish to be supported by WikiProject United States I'll leave these suggestions here if anyone wants to take them for action.

  1. I found quite a bit of content containing Montana, MT or Mt that isn't tagged for the project yet. I created a page for that here. There are quite a few redirects but there are a lot of articles as well. There may also be a few false positives but I haven't scrubbed it much yet although I did remove a few instances of things like Hannah Montana thinking the project probably didn't care. There are some still on the list as well as some others that probably don't pertain to the project such as Joe Montana.
  2. The project doesn't currently track things like needing infoboxes, references or articles containing comments, etc. This will allow editors interested in that topic area to more easily focus there efforts.
  3. I created a subpage for the project to automate updates of Quality content using JL-bot. All you have to do is place it on the project page and the bot will automatically display the Quality content you want. The subpage can be found here.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments or need help with implementing these items if desired. --Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

New Articles?[edit]

Can the "New Articles" section be winnowed down some? The good news is that lots of new articles have been created in the past year. The bad news is that this section is hogging the page, and could discourage people from scrolling down and reading more about the project. Two suggestions:

  1. That only the most recent 25 new articles be included. (If a person has created a lot of new articles -- say 35 new articles about wildflowers in Montana -- that person could use common sense and include all 35 as well as keep some of the other new articles on the list. After a while, though, the list would revert back to the limit of 25. Let common sense prevail.)
  2. That only new articles created in the past three months be included.
  3. Both criteria above.

What do others think? - Tim1965 (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion Tim. Been meaning to cut the list back somehow. Although going by last three months is a good idea, it would require dating each entry which would be cumbersome. I changed it to a numbered list and last 25 criteria. Will see how it works. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion is that new articles added from here forward be listed with a date, so we know how "new" they are. And I think we could do both date and number: something like "keep the list at about 25 articles or articles created within the last (3 or 6) months, but always keep at least the most recent 5 articles (even if over 3-6 months old) on the list for the benefit of newcomers to see." (once all the landforms are created, the new article count may drop off, it would suck to have NOTHING on the list.) Montanabw(talk) 15:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Gentlemen (and anyone else): I'd propose we split the new lists and new articles into two separate sections, mostly due to Mike's prodigious output, which shames the rest of us. Montanabw(talk) 22:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Two sections is fine. I vote for date stamps which you can do the 5 tildes such as 23:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC), PumpkinSky talk 23:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist deletionists![edit]

Hi gang, would all of you be so kind as to watchlist Mission Mountain Wood Band for awhile. We have a deletionist afoot, and while I really couldn't kick that he wanted to toss Great Northern because it was only Rob Quist's backup band (and so I did a merge), he also dared to PROD tag the Great Ones themselves. I tossed the tag and did a quick hash to improve some refs and kill a few blatent copyright violations (someone cribbed word for word from the UM magazine article in places) but the individual may take removal of the prod tag personally and pull an RfD. As I have now edited that article, making me open to charges of "WP:OWN" and "WP:POV" and "mean, awful Montanabw hurt my widdew fweewings!" and all that crap, I'd appreciate other eyes on it. (Did that just sound cynical? Oh dear...) Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 23:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Shame, Shame are you blantantly canvassing fellow Montanans to watchlist a band that could not possibly be notable from a state with less than a million residents? Montana is the most envied and misunderstood state in the union and we want to keep it that way.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I mean, really! They weren't like on the farm club for Manchester United's youth team for five minutes. There's no way they could be notable...;-)Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking they'd at least exceed the standard of Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. Ya think? Montanabw(talk) 23:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Holter Graham[edit]

It's difficult to know where to put this actor article about Holter Graham. But he has some verrrrrrrrrrrrry interesting Montana history connections. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Map of Little Bighorn River[edit]

I left a note at Talk:Little_Bighorn_River: the map doesn't look right, and if it isn't right, I don't know how to proceed, or have the time. Modal Jig (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

that doesn't look right at all. The Little Bighorn flows north and these rivers are flowing east. The map in Bighorn River does look accurate. Also note the one here lists wiki as a source. See [4] (zoom in). PumpkinSky talk 22:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

First Peoples Buffalo Jump State Park - desperate for a photo[edit]

There's an effort under way to upgrade the article First Peoples Buffalo Jump State Park to GA or even FA status. But the article desperately needs some photos of the area. Does anyone have one they can contribute to WikiCommons? It'd be great to get several (one of the cliff, one of the visitors center, one looking up the hill from below), but I'm not greedy. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In theory, I could swing by the next time I drive up to Great Falls, but I cannot say when that will occur. But it IS possible for me to do this. Pumpkin's yogo sapphire has already been out there for a couple weeks, and I only have to walk a freaking block to get a photo of one of those.  :-P So consider me to have very good intentions, but to also remember what they pave! (LOL!) In the meantime, you might try a search in Flickr and maybe even the BLM, especially if you do a separate search under its old name, alternatiely spelled Ulm Pishkun or Ulm Pishkin. Montanabw(talk) 18:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

New editor, need help on edit of Sapphire Mountains page[edit]

Hi,

I'm brand-new to editing Wikipedia, and just did my 1st edit, on the Sapphire Mtns page. Anyone know how to edit a citation? I cited to the wrong page # in my cite to Howie Wolke's "The Big Outside."

Also, I'd like to know how you create a link to the terms "arctic grayling" and Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness".

Sorry for the newbie idiocy! JohnDavidStutts (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)JohnDavidStutts

If you go to the "Help" link to the left of every page, there will be some basic guidelines. When I finish this I will also put a welcome message on your talk page that will have links to more helpful hints. But to answer your specific questions, you can link any article by using brackets. Doing [[arctic grayling]] gives you arctic grayling all linked. And Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness If the link is blue, that means an article exists. If the link is red, means that no article exists --under that name --but may exist under a different name or different spelling (also a weirdness in WP that sometimes it treats capital letters like a whole different character, but only some of the time) and it's wise to do a search prior to creating a new article, just in case. Citation guidelines (not the clearest how-to article in wikipedia) are explained at WP:CITE, but the simplest thing to do is to copy the syntax markup from a good quality article. Or ask a friendly editor to do it for you the first time, then imitate what they did. Montanabw(talk) 06:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Welcome! We need more Montana-connected people. If you have more questions, just post here. PumpkinSky talk 11:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Blodgett Canyon article[edit]

I added my photo to the Blodgett Canyon article. Do i need to post on this talk page anytime i do an edit? I'm a noob. I didn't edit any text in the article. JohnDavidStutts (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)JohnDavidStutts

Nope...this talkpage is just for project related questions mainly...if you need any assistance, we're always glad to help. Edit away...you'll pick it up as you go along. I found that the best way to see how to do something was to look for a similar detail in another article, open the editing window, copy the part you want, then add it to the article you are working on.--MONGO 05:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion/merger of Pioneer Mountains (Montana) article into East Pioneer Mountains article[edit]

I've created separate articles for the East Pioneer Mountains and West Pioneer Mountains recently, and I propose the deletion/merger of Pioneer Mountains (Montana) article into the East Pioneer Mountains article. Doing so would avoid confusion with the Pioneer Mountains (Idaho) article, and many sources I've consulted treat the East & West Pioneers as distinct ranges and wildlands. The two ranges are quite different in appearance and topography, and are separated by a paved road and river valley. I don't know much about geographical naming protocols, but it seems that whoever named these ranges should have given each a separate name. They are no more one range than the nearby Snowcrest and Gravelly Ranges, which are similar in being bunched together yet separated by road and river valley. JohnDavidStutts (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)JohnDavidStutts

Is this more like east vs west Pennsylvania or more like North vs South Dakota? PumpkinSky talk 03:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
More like one range separated into two chunks by a secondary road. I'm of mixed feelings, I'd lean more toward merging both into the first one. Montanabw(talk) 05:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
From a USGS naming standpoint, East and West Pioneer mountains don't exist. There's only the Pioneer Mountains in USGS geographic names database. They once had an alternate name: Wise River Mountains. I favor one article Pioneer Mountains (Montana) that can certainly discuss the informal distinction between East and West. Additionally, the USGS topo maps do not make a distinction East or West as well. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I think Mike is right, sometimes the USGS goes contrary to local understanding, but in those cases, one can "teach the controversy" and explain how the locals do the split. Outside the area, those of us in the rest of the state DO just say "Pioneers" most of the time unless we happen to hang out there a lot. Montanabw(talk) 19:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem w/merging East & West Pioneers articles into the original article. Its probably best to consolidate & avoid having too many articles. I'll have to look into how to go about doing it. JohnDavidStutts (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)JohnDavidStutts

Pretty much just copy and paste, then learn how to do a "redirect" WP:REDIRECT. We can help if you get tripped up! Montanabw(talk) 23:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I've copy & pasted the info from West & East Pioneers articles unto original article, and edited accordingly. Maybe instead of redirect just delete the West Pioneers and East Pioneers articles? JohnDavidStutts (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)JohnDavidStutts
A Redirect is the proper method here. Someone still may search for East or West Pioneer Mountains. Just replace the current content on the two articles with #REDIRECT [[Pioneer Mountains (Montana)]] and you will have done your job. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Joining the team[edit]

Greetings to all. You may count me in for occasional editing and perhaps, when time allows, new article creation. History is my baliwick, and I'll leave the geography, etc. to others. Unfortunately, a lot of what I know hasn't yet been published, so I can't use it!! Give me some time, however, and we'll get 'er done. I am on the Flathead County Museum Board and am the archivist at the Conrad Museum in Kalispell. Feel free to holler at me if'n ye need anything. Glacierman (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!PumpkinSky talk 22:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Glad you are here. If you have primary source documents that can be scanned and uploaded onto a place like the Museum's web page, that would make them available to us, though do read WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY first. Montanabw(talk) 02:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Russell stuff[edit]

Hi gang, just hit the MacKay Gallery of C.M. Russell Art at the Montana Historical Society and took a bunch of photos with my point and shoot in existing light. The ones that turned out OK enough I am in the process of uploading to commons. See Commons for what's already there plus what I am about to upload. I wish the quality was better, but given that I had no tripod, a point and shoot, and was shooting images by sitting the camera on top of the sculpture cases, zooming in and dealing with slightly off angles, could have been worse! (Actually, the totally hand-held ones WERE worse!) I will -- eventually -- get more and try to do a better job. A few of the more famous paintings must have been out on loan or something, "York" wasn't on display that day, nor a couple others. But got my personal fav, "When the Land Belonged to God," so I'm content for now. If I'm ever in Great Falls with the camera and the time to hit that C.M. Russell museum up there, I'll try to get the major paintings that they have too. Montanabw(talk) 22:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

More on Russell, if someone wants a simple project: The article here, Paintings by Charles Marion Russell is pretty light. Could use expansion, if anyone is a fan of working on illustrated lists. Montanabw(talk) 16:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Change to Mission Mountains article[edit]

Hi all, I changed the photo in the geobox for the Mission Mountains article, i uploaded one of mine. I thought my photo gave a more close-in, clearer view of the range than the old photo. Hope nobody objects. JohnDavidStutts (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)JohnDavidStutts

NICE JOB! much better!PumpkinSky talk 22:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
But you should put free images on Commons. I can help if you don't know how yet.PumpkinSky talk 22:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Do I have to re-upload the photos I've already uploaded or is there a way I just transfer them to Commons? JohnDavidStutts (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)JohndDavidStutts
Go to here and click on Commons helper tool new. You do have to have a copy of it and for the first time make a TUSC account, but it's not hard and it preserves all the original info. I do it all the time. Then I drop a note on Mike Cline's talk page and have him delete the en wiki copy, which let's the commons copy "show through" to en wiki. When on commons all wiki projects can use it, not just en wiki.PumpkinSky talk 17:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Heads up, gang[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Helena_Train_Wreck. Please weigh in. From my view, it was about the biggest disaster in Helena since the 1935 Earthquake, even if no one was killed. However, the article DOES need a lot of work, and I don't have the time to be the person to do it... Montanabw(talk) 00:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There have been much worse and much more notable train wrecks in Montana. On June 17, 1938, a passenger train plunged into Custer Creek off of a trestle that had been damaged by a flash flood, and according to an article in Life magazine, 44 people were killed and three were missing. It was described as the worst American train wreck since 1887. Then, there was the head-on collision between two trains at Young's Point on September 25, 1908 that occurred during a blizzard and killed 21 people. A derailment near Missoula on June 10, 1962 injured 282 people, 63 of whom were hospitalized. Those wrecks are described in Montana disasters: fires, floods, and other catastrophes. I do not think that the Helena incident rises to the benchmark of notability for train wrecks, which I would describe in general as significant loss of life or widespread injuries. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, but see my comments at the article for deletion page. Montanabw(talk) 03:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Montana cities task force[edit]

I was thinking it may be good to organize a task force related to Montana's largest (let's say the top seven) cities to increase collaboration and help improve the articles related to Montana's population centers. I think that it would be difficult to generate enough interest to have a separate task force for each city, but if we had a single organized project that it may help. I may probably create one anyway, but I was hoping for any feedback that may come. Dsetay (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I like what you did, but I wouldn't do an importance criteria on the tagged articles, the importance ranking for WP:Montana overall should be sufficient (I can see the edit war of importance ranking cities -- especially with only 7 major ones). I agree there is no reason to do task forces for individual communities, as there are insufficient editors and population to generate that level of scrutiny (given the whole population of Montana is arguably only about a million -- less than the city of Denver...). Montanabw(talk) 03:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed the importance tag awhile ago, I though. Mainly, because I thought it was a pain. The importance tag now there is simply for the WikiProject Montana. I added that only about a month ago, so many, if not most, articles haven't been assessed. Personally, I don't really want that responsibility and have been leaving them blank wherever I come across it.Dsetay (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Greetings from GLAM-Wiki US[edit]

Invitation to join GLAM-Wiki US
tight

Hello! This WikiProject aligns closely with the work of the GLAM-Wiki initiative (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums), a global community of volunteers who assist cultural institutions with sharing resources with Wikimedia. GLAM-Wiki US is a new community initiative focused on organizing cultural collaborations within the United States. GLAM organizations are diverse and span numerous topics, from libraries and art museums to science centers and historic sites. We currently have a backlog of interested institutions- and we need your help!

1rightarrow.pngAre you interested in helping with current or future GLAM projects? Join→ Online Volunteers

We hope you'll join the growing GLAM-Wiki community in the US. Thank you!
-Lori Phillips (Talk), US Cultural Partnerships Coordinator
For more information visit→ The GLAM:US portal or GLAM-Wiki on Outreach

Danaher[edit]

Hi all. Can someone please create a referenced page on the Danaher river in Montana? Apparently the Danaher Corporation was named after it. See [5] and [6]. Having said that, I have come across the Danaher Creek as well [7], so I don't want to make mistakes. Please create the page if you can find the correct information. Greatly appreciated!Zigzig20s (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the creek and the "river" are one in the same. The "river" part seems to have been added by others, as the company web site you link doesn't call it a river and the majority of outdoor sites (as opposed to business sites) call it a creek as well. I don't know how notable it is outside of being part of a company name, though. Intothatdarkness 17:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It's a creek. Definitely, One of the sources states, "Danaher, a tributary to the south fork of the Flat Head River in western Montana" which is almost correct; it is a tributary of the South Fork of the Flathead, and "Flathead" is one word. My check of my handy official state Highway Map (widely available online via mt.gov web site) shows it as Danaher CREEK, and it arises within the Bob Marshall Wilderness more or less paralleling the "China Wall" geological feature, though a number of miles away. a simple Google search indicates the the access point to that part of the Bob is Seeley Lake, Montana (though as the crow flies, the source is slightly closer to Ovando) and that there is also a mountain and a valley with that name. Hope that helps. Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ammons Scientific[edit]

Hi: would anyone be interested in creating a page for Ammons Scientific, based in Missoula? Ammons is a family owned company that publishes peer-reviewed psychological journals. Two of the journals themselves, Psychological Reports and Perceptual and Motor Skills, have very small pages, as does the company founder, R. B. Ammons, but there is nothing for the company, a 55-year-old Missoula business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.19.210 (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo bleg for Whitefish[edit]

Hello people interested in Montana who possibly also live in Montana. There's an extremely rare locomotive, an EMD NW3, parked at the train station in Whitefish, Montana. You can see from these Flickr results what it looks like. Unfortunately only one of those Flickr results is CC-licensed, and it's not all that great. I'm hoping that someone on this project might be in a position to take a photograph of it, or point me in the direction of someone who could. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Montana articles lacking sources[edit]

Have created a new category Category:Montana articles lacking sources to start identifying Montana articles that need references. As it gets populated, we should begin looking for and adding sources to bring these articles up to snuff. If you know of Montana related articles needing sources, please add this category to the article (it is a hidden category) Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Over at WikiProject Equine, someone, somehow set up a cleanup listing that takes all the tagged articles and does a plug and chug to accomplish the same thing, that way when the tag is removed, the article disappears from the list. I think the bot that did all this crashed for awhile, but is up and running again. However, I'm weak on the techie side of WP, so you might want to look into this and see is we can do it here. Montanabw(talk) 23:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Photos of GFHS[edit]

All right, who wants to go take photos of Great Falls High School? It just got listed on the NRHP. None of the very good images used in the NRHP submission are public domain, sadly. (Unless someone thinks we could contact the NRHP submitters and ask for a release ticket... but I've never done that with WikiCommons.) Some interior shots would be even better. (You can't photograph the steel bison artwork inside, but shots of the Old Gym, main office, industrial arts building, hallways, auditorium, fieldhouse interior and exterior [not on the NRHP, but maybe for the article on GFHS], and stadium and its concessions stands would be awesome. Damnit, I should just go there this summer and ask permission to roam around for two hours!)

I asked some GFHS teachers in fall 2011 if they would ask students to do this as a project. No one would, dangit.

And while you're at it, drop by the original GFHS -- better known as Paris Gibson Square Museum of Art -- and take some photos, too. Interior, too, please! (But don't get the artwork, interior or exterior. It's copyrighted.) - Tim1965 (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Tough to shoot an exterior without getting exterior sculptures (any advice of FOP issues?)! I will be in GF again in June, for sure. I will attempt to at least get an exterior of GFHS if I can. Did you see that someone else uploaded ;File:Civic Center, Great Falls, MT.jpg. Interiors, well, all I can say is that the easy ones are the buildings I have to be in anyway...  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 18:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Contribute to "On this day ..." featured articles box, now on the Montana portal![edit]

We have a new "On this day ..." featured articles box on our portal, at Portal:Montana. It will show a featured article for every day this week, and needs more articles to cover the full year. You can help us fill out the year-round calendar of "On this day ..." articles at: Portal:Montana/On this day. -- Djembayz (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Meetup in Billings[edit]

Hello! I am coordinating a meetup for Wikipedia Day in Billings. It will be January 15th from 6pm to 8pm at the new City Library. Using a page at meta to organize. It is at m:Meetup/Billings/1. Please spread the word to anyone who may be interested. I'll add links to some nonWikipedia promotion once it's finalized. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Great idea--I live in Billings so sign me up. Rjensen (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Nice! I look forward to seeing you :) --Tbennert (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to encourage any non-Wiki folks to attend, they can visit either Billings Public Library or Kaleid. I also have flyers in pdf and jpg format if anyone would like. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! We ended up with 8 people plus Rjensen and me. Went okay and gave everyone my contact info for both on and off-Wiki. Hopefully we will gain a few new editors. --Tbennert (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yay! Good luck! Montanabw(talk) 21:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone want to salvage this?[edit]

This popped up for me on suggestbot. I don't care enough to improve the article, but it is interesting and definitely needs improvement, so throwing to the greater project: Prunus persica x Prunus americana. Montanabw(talk) 03:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This article may provide some leads: Pluot --Mike Cline (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Of note[edit]

Article editing heating up, may become contentious, relevant to this project: Greg Gianforte. Montanabw(talk) 23:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014[edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in the Americas may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

CfD on Category:Chinook Jargon place names[edit]

Category:Chinook Jargon place names has been nominated for deletion/upmerging, with a suggestion that List of Chinook Jargon place names be upmerged. Please add any comments to the CfD.Skookum1 (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)