Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Athelwulf (talk | contribs) at 21:31, 4 September 2014 (→‎Off topic...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Milwaukie Pastry Kitchen

Was: Need help getting this important Oregon History recognized & included in Wikipedia.

See draft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Milwaukie_Pastry_Kitchen . I hope this is the correct way to request needed help/assistance. My apologies in advance if not. Need help getting this important Oregon History recognized & included in Wikipedia. Owners/Operators recently entered/inducted into the Oregon Historical Society also. So far I have been unsuccessful in getting draft approved. See http://nwlaborpress.org/2014/06/oregon-historical-society-exhibit-features-first-black-owned-bakery/ . Thank you Hurtisjr (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hurtisjr, I've looked over your draft article and I have some suggestions that I'm posting on your talk page. I'm short on time this week, but will be glad to work with you starting next Wednesay, June 25. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Grand'mere Eugene. I appreciate the help and look forward to working with you on June 25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurtisjr (talk • contribs) 03:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could use some additional scrutiny by more experienced editors on the draft--especially on whether the revised draft evidences notability of the subject. See Draft:Milwaukie_Pastry_Kitchen
Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's interesting and notable. Pitching in. Finetooth (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the draft process or why this article was rejected. It's as if articles should be perfect before entering main space. Why not move it to main space? Happy to help out a bit as well, even if just in minor ways like linking, formatting, etc. -Another Believer (Talk) 17:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a speedy-deleted earlier version by Ginsuloft that is posted here: http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Milwaukie_Pastry_Kitchen --It looks like there may not have been any references/citations in that version. It also may have been deleted as a result of the sockpuppet blocking actions against that editor? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was not familiar before just now with any vetting process for new articles. However, WP:Starting an article says that only registered users can create articles. Unregistered users can seek approval for articles they would like to include in the encyclopedia by applying via WP:Articles for creation. It appears to me that the article is in much better shape now than it was originally and would likely become a main-space article if resubmitted. Finetooth (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, Hurtisjr could register and create the article immediately in main space. Finetooth (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Another Believer moved this into mainspace. Nice work everyone! Valfontis (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COTM - Politics of Oregon & Oregon Children's Theatre

A little late again, but like whatevers. Go forth and propagate the articles! Aboutmovies (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on Talk:Pete Sorenson requesting an update, with some potential resources. I have COI... Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Historic Places animated maps

I think I have posted the static versions before, but some newly-created animated maps showing the progression of work related to NRHP articles and photography are pretty interesting, imo.

Percent illustrated (static)
Percent articled (static)
Percent Start+ (static)
Net Quality Rating† (static)

Enjoy! (A fun collaboration could be to create articles for NRHP sites in specific Oregon counties.) ----Another Believer (Talk) 22:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 ballot measures

... have been certified:

I could not find the actual ballot numbers, so I have not yet created stub articles. ----Another Believer (Talk) 03:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers have been assigned. I'd say 88, 90, 91, and 92 are going to be the exciting ones. --Esprqii (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for the stubs, but it's all I have time for at the moment in London!) ----Another Believer (Talk) 12:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Dog Days of COTM - It's hot hot hot

So cool down at the lake, or head to the hospital if you get heat exhaustion. But seriously, lets work on some redlink elimination this month. Aboutmovies (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But please don't create one- or two-sentence stubs simply to turn a redlink blue. That is worse than leaving a redlink alone, in my opinion, because it gives Wikipedia readers the impression that an article exists on the subject, when really it does not. New articles should include at least a few paragraphs, and editors are reminded of the WikiProject Oregon Reference desk, which identifies several free resources for research. SJ Morg (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Mission moved to Methodist Mission with zero discussion, though one was launched on its talkpage

See my comments following the now-closed merge template on Talk:Methodist Mission.Skookum1 (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist and Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Saturday, September 13

For anyone wanting to attend in person or support our efforts remotely, there will be a Feminist and Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon in SE PDX on Saturday, September 13 at the Independent Publishing Resource Center. I did not propose the event, but I will be present to contribute and assist new editors. All are welcome! (And editing feminist/queer art is not required, but this will be the focus of the event.) ----Another Believer (Talk) 17:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon hospital articles

  • Since August COTM was to eliminate red-ink in Category:Hospitals in Oregon, I've notice a lot of new hospital articles…many of them written by Aboutmovies. Since he does a large part of the Wiki-Oregon assessments, most of the new hospital articles are unassessed. I’m willing to do complete assessment/reassessment of everything in Hospitals in Oregon category. Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about hospitals in general to grade them…i.e. need to know required/desirable/nice-to-have elements for generic hospital articles. If someone can point me to a good example of and quality hospital articles (one each) to use as a standard, I’ll assess all the pending articles, and then go back and reassess everything else in Oregon hospitals category to bring all the assessments up-to-date. Examples don’t need to be Oregon hospitals, as long as articles are good yardstick for assessments.--Orygun (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic...

Hi Oregonians, I wanted to leave a quick note here about an issue I think is important to the future of Wikipedia. If you haven't seen it, please take a look at meta:Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, and please add your signature if it resonates for you. Let me know if you have any thoughts or questions. -Pete (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; this caught my eye, and it seems like something I could get behind. But I am very curious what the other side of the story is. Is there a short summary of that anywhere? — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 09:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Athelwulf, good to hear from you. I have a couple links for you below. It's a little tricky to figure out what is the best central message to convey WMF's position, because it has been distributed in a lot of different places -- part of the problem that got us here, IMO. So there may be better links than these -- but this should at least get you started:
I will try, knowing full well that my own opinion will show through, to sum up the WMF's position:
  1. The Media Viewer software is a clear improvement, in spite of acknowledged flaws; it's good enough to be live, and some bugs should be identified and worked out.
  2. The move to deploying MV was announced with sufficient notice, and with sufficient opportunities for, and attention given to, community critique.
  3. Once deployed, MV immediately (or at least, within a few weeks) had the status of being part of the "core software," so changing its default status constitutes "breaking the core software" by definition. (Or, perhaps, the state of the default status changing back and forth in an edit war constituted breakage that they did not trust the German Wikipedia to resolve on its own.)
  4. It is the Wikimedia Foundation's responsibility to protect the core software from damage.
  5. The superprotect feature was necessary in order to protect Wikipedia from its own admins and their disagreements.
  6. Specifically, regarding the statement from Lila and Erik above, WMF seems to believe that enforcing its will through social means, rather than technical means, represents a significant concession.
I think that is a fair summary. (I invite Erik Moeller (WMF) to either endorse or correct it, if he has the time.) Assuming it is, I agree only with #4 -- I believe the rest are erroneous, and I'd be happy to explain why if you'd like. -Pete (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that really helps. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 21:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to contribute to Wikivoyage

Come one, come all, to Wikivoyage, the new(ish) travel guide that anyone can edit, and sister project of the Wikimedia Foundation. There's some good content for Oregon and its regions and cities, particularly Portland, but there's always room for growth and improvement. (I've been adding to Klamath Falls myself.) I'd love to see some WikiProject Oregon folks come around and work their magic. Be sure to check out the "Welcome, Wikipedians" page to orient yourself to the differences between the two projects. Hope I see you there. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 08:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cascadia!

New from Vice:

--Another Believer (Talk) 03:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon&oldid=624209861"