Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Redesign of main page? and other updates

Everybody...as the last person who did a major overhaul of our project's main page, I have to say...I did a TERRIBLE job! The whole collapsing-sections thing is really irritating, now that I have to use it all the time.

I think some kind of redesign is in order...but we keep track of so much stuff in this project, it's tough to know the best way to present it. I think maybe one of our newer members would do a better job, coming from a fresher perspective. Anyone have any ideas?

In other news, Cacophony, VanTucky and I are planning to make a presentation to the Oregon Encyclopedia folks in the first week of April. I haven't been so good about posting updates here, but if you want to be involved or kept up to date, please let me know, or just keep an eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Oregon Encyclopedia. And I have to say, I'm very impressed by all the activity in the last week, such as The Register-Guard, Oregon Coast, Johnson Creek (Willamette River), Columbia River, the GA approval of Asa Lovejoy…and lots more. I'd have to say this has been the most exciting week in my memory of WP:ORE. Keep up the great work, all! -Pete (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's not that bad. :) However, I ♥ the greeting card on the front page, but I think it's time has come and gone. Perhaps we need a subpage for projectwide awards, like the shiny new R-G DYK. I have to admit I only look at the front page to use the recent changes link, which thankfully I talked you out of collapsing. If things were uncollapsed I might use the front page more. We need more subpages of course. Could we do the redesign more like the portal? Since the front page is both an introduction to the project for newcomers, and a toolbox for us, there should be some way to design it to be appealing visually and have one-click access to the stuff everybody uses, like the aforementioned page watch stuff. Sorry I'm crap at layout, but I'm full of suggestions about colors. Oh and speaking of that, if anybody here is also interested in Washington, someone started Portal:Washington and it needs some help.

Good luck with the presentation! Team WP:ORE rocks, y'all. Katr67 (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree: the current layout is pretty useful. My only issue is that somehow I keep choosing the wrong "unhide" link to expand a section. Clearly that couldn't be my fault.... :-) —EncMstr 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For starters, how about a separate "Templates" subpage (link it in the nav template at the top) that would combine the Wiki Ad, the templates section, and the navigation section? Then also move the DYK list to its own page, move the GAs to columns, and then re-add the actual featured content listing? Aboutmovies (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

All good suggestions. Katr makes a good point about the page's "dual purpose," for newcomers and for ongoing collaboration. I wonder if a 2-column layout would address that best? Left column more newbie-oriented, right column more full of the boring stuff that we need easy access to. And yeah, move more stuff like DYKs onto sub-pages. -Pete (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the move of the DYKs to their own page; how about making it reverse-chronological so we see the most recent ones on top? I'll do the dirty work if people agree it's an OK idea. --Esprqii (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a preference either way: both make a certain sense. If the reversal is chosen, use the unix/linux tac command to make it a clean job. —EncMstr 22:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the reversal idea. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

me too, as long as it doesn't mess up some purpose I'm not aware of. -Pete (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reversing sounds good to me. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a pretty cool project page i just found: Wikipedia:WikiProject Boston Red Sox -Pete (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a fit of inspiration, and moved a bunch of stuff from the main page, that was about the project itself rather than the work we do, to a new sub-page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/About us. I think that is a step in the right direction, if not a total solution...any objections? -Pete (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A request

Can the text in the To-do section be larger? (Maybe its just my browser, but I can't read them.) If that's not feasible for the overall design, can a "View" link be added to it so we can go to the page easier? I have no idea how its done. --Tesscass (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to do something about that. Until it gets fixed, though, you may not be aware that the same "to do" list is transcluded on Portal:Oregon, where it's much easier to read! (Also, feel free to make your own design changes too -- I'm just chipping away because nobody else seems too motivated on this, but I'd welcome any assistance.) -Pete (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh thanks! I keep forgetting about the portal page. --Tesscass (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Oregon performers and performing

To place Portland Opera and Oregon Symphony in an appropriate listing of articles, I looked at List of artists and art institutions in Portland, Oregon, but it didn't seem quite right, so I asked (on the talk page), and one editor agrees. Likewise, Music of Oregon seems to be focused on music composed in Oregon, so a symphony playing mostly international composers seems unlikely to fit. Anyway, it's in list of symphony orchestras in the United States. So, then, is there an appropriate list? Should the scope of the artists list be expanded? Ideas? —EncMstr 04:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why they shouldn't go in the Art institutions list. Just because it's currently only visual artists, does not mean it should stay that way. These are exactly the sorts of articles I'd expect to find in such a list. -Pete (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the art and artists listing being limited to visual arts, so I think the symphony and opera should go with the Music of Oregon which is currently focused on music composed in Oregon because it is a big huge freakin' mess! :) I'll look around for some state that has a better "music of" page. Probably Minnesota--they're overachievers over there. ;) Meantime, check out the catchall Category:Oregon culture and Dance in Oregon for more arts-type stuff. Katr67 (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I was right: Music of Minnesota, a featured article. Granted they have Prince, the Jayhawks, the Replacements and Hüsker Dü, but some of our bands are cool too... Katr67 (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

New Live Folks (finally)

Well, we finally have a bunch of stub articles on Democrats in the Oregon State Legislature, thanks to this list: List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements#Oregon. The editor who created the articles seems to be focusing only on Obama, so it seems only fair that we create the Republican articles too. They're not dead, so it should be pretty easy to do! Katr67 (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy Botmas!

Don't ask how I noticed this, but April 5 is the one-year anniversary of the User:AlexNewArtBot/OregonSearchResult list, which really kicked off the massive WPOR tagging and assessment of the last year! It's been a great year for WPOR, and in that spirit, good luck to all our Oregon Encyclopedia ambassadors next week! --Esprqii (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Good catch -- happy belated Botmas to you too! Thanks for the well-wishes. User:VanTucky, User:Cacophony and I will be talking with the OE editors Friday morning. I'm starting a blog, and my first post is about this; that's where I'll post a report afterwards, too. Check it out: ournewmind.wordpress.com -Pete (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Duly added to Google Reader. Yay! Katr67 (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"no free image" again

Other WikiProjects besides us have objected to the rapid proliferation of the "No free image…" images (see above for discussion.) Right now there's a !vote on whether those behind the project should temporarily suspend adding the images to articles, pending a more thorough discussion. That discussion is here -- jump in if you have an opinon! -Pete (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

New template: Natives of the PNW

Feedback requested on Template:Native peoples of the Pacific Northwest. It's intended to complement Oregon history templates, but to cover the entire PNW; I don't see much reason to use European-imposed boundaries in discussing the natives who lived here for millennia before.

I'm not as well-versed in the history as I'd like to be, so I need help. One thing would be, who are the most notable people to include? There are many more in the subcategories of Category:Native American people of the Pacific Northwest. Also, should there be a section on conflicts with Oregon settlers -- Modoc War, Cayuse War, etc.? How best can we fill in with history from parts north, which I don't know even as well as I know the Oregon stuff? -Pete (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And I just added "Native American tribes in Oregon" as a subcategory to "Native American people of the Pacific Northwest. --Tesscass (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a pretty good map here, although it doesn't cover BC, and this may be a useful book next time you're headed down to the library. Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the library, and it has 29 copies of the possibly useful book. I reserved one. Thanks for the tip. Finetooth (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest a redlink to 1855 Treaties, 1855 Indian Treaties, Native American Treaties in the Northwest, or a similar title. (See [1].) Those treaties have had a lasting impact on tribal issues on the Northwest, and they still form the basis for lawsuits about, for example, salmon issues on the Columbia-Snake system. I've been meaning to write the article someday... Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh..check the latest, great minds think alike ;) Though, maybe my redlink is not the best, I thought the Yakama were the ones with the treaty, but from what you say it sounds like there were a bunch with different tribes in that year?

Anyway thanks to you both -- I've been tinkering with it, I think the only big question is, who are the 5–10 most noteworthy Natives of the region. I think I'll start using it in articles, maybe that will attract a little attention and improvement. -Pete (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yikes!!!. Sorry just set off my cross-cultural pollination alarm bells/whatzits. Please see Template talk:Coast Salish for starters and Template talk:Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast (just went and looked at that one; there's a more complete one somewhere, more extensive lik the Coast Salish and kwakwaka'wakw ones; we didnt' get to Template talk:Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Plateau; I may not have those linsk right, if so I'll get 'em back; there's also {{Kwakwaka'wakw}} and will be others....uh, basic point to make, it's not good cultural etiquette to lay things out in terms of how the settler culture has seen or imposed things; with Coast Salish and again with Interior Salish when we get there, the border is a fiction; likewise the Oregon-Washington border, and irrelevant to their worldview; I suggest you ask User:OldManRivers and User:Murderbike, a Skwxwu7mesh and I believe a Nooksack, respectively, who are regular and dedicated contributors and "template elves" (I'm not an elf, I'm a troll...); don't reinvent the wheel, and make sure you ask the people riding the carriage if they want it fixed or not. It's great to have indigenous editors contributing to making Wiki reflective of their perspectives and input, and we've "had it out" over the presentation of all sides, not a "correct" side...in the case of the templates the issues are complex, the tribes and languages are many, and there's no way I would advise a division by state; or even thinking it boils doing to language group, as you seem to have done; Oregon presents a different problem because by the usual tersm, and in OldManRivers' indigenous-person estimation, the Northwest Coast culture stops around the Chinook Country, and also of course at the mountains; it was a different world south of the Columbia, to be sure, and inland from there of course; but the similarities inland with what was farther north are strong, so {{Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Plateau}} takes in the Wasco and Wishram and Yakama....I'm not sure about the more coastal Kalapuya and other groups; what template to put them on; but I suggest you get OMR's (OldManRivers' acronym I use) and maybe Murderbike's, and also find an aboriginal Wiki editor in Oregon somewhere, maybe at Grand Ronde or Warm Springs or the native ed program at Ashland, for advice/guidance. Sorry for the bombast, just too aware of and fairly experienced with intercultural sensitivities.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The other BIG issue with a region-wide tempalte is sheer size; and how to group it all; it's massive....Skookum1 (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"How to group it all" - that's the political part, y'see; and who can't be left out (anybody). Aside from that it occurred to me to suggest you ask for input at hte Indigenous peoples' WikiProject; most participants there are from other parts of the US and Canada but there may be templates out there to act as models; though few areas are as complex (only California is more ethnically complex, indigenously-speaking, with north-of-the-42nd parallel being as artificial for that milieu as the 49th Parallel is for the interior and Coast Salish and Nuu-chah-nulth/Makah and Ktunaxa; it's simpler for single-nation tempaltes like {{Navajo Nation}} vs an area/polyculture as complex as the PacNW's.Skookum1 (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Very tricky to do this right. Deciding which 5-10 tribes would be most "noteworthy" for the template seems problematic to me. And Skookum's points are very important. The "Pacific Northwest" is a geographically vague term and has different meanings for different people. I like the idea of separate groupings for the coastal tribes and the tribes of the Columbia Plateau. And yet the 49th Parallel is also important. We can't just ignore it as an artificial barrier, as it radically affected the experience of these tribes during the late 19th and 20th centuries. Today the tribes are dealing with two different political entities and their modern histories have been shaped accordingly. We should definitely be working on this in collaboration with the indigenous peoples' Wikiproject. I have a feeling this may be a long discussion... maybe we should move to the template talk page, so as not to overwhelm WP:ORE?Northwesterner1 (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay -- let's move to the template talk. Sounds like there's a lot of stuff I haven't found out there. I'm happy to simply abort mission if that's the case. I just found Template:Oregon Native History, which I had thought existed, but was unable to locate this morning for some reason...the only reason I got into all this to begin with.

Uh, which template talk, i.e. on which template?? Oh yeah I saw the Oregon Native History template a while back too....might have left something on the talkpage, can't remember; was a bit sorta concerned as some things on it clearly didn't have, er, "indigenous approval" (not that I approve of such things, it's just sensitivities weren't observed, though not violated either....). Anyway have a reply to previous; the template originally under dfisussion I presume is where this shoudl continue on at but even though that template might not itself survive; OMR prefers teh wording {{Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast}} over "Native"; I think it's pretty standard in some circles, although usage varies adcross the indigenous Wikiproject...I'm going to go to Template talk:Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast because it's already pretty complete...needs section collapsing and gussying up some htough.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination?

Now that it's kept, I'm thinking Sho Dozono is looking pretty darn good. What say ye to a GA nomination? VanTucky 19:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless anyone has any real objections, I'm gonna go for it. Please do chime if the article is held for improvements. VanTucky 20:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have some concerns about a potential conflict of interest; see Talk:Sho Dozono.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

List of museums in Oregon

Hello, I've sandboxed out some changes I'd like to make to the List of museums in Oregon page. My mock up is still in progress but can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WNW3/Sandbox Thoughts? WNW3 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks great to me! The icons on the existing page, in my opinion, have no place in an encyclopedia article. -Pete (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Only suggestion I would make is to move Portland out of the Clackamas and Washington county sections. Yes, Portland does bleed into those counties, but the museums listed are squarely in Multnomah. Looks good! --Esprqii (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, what about Salem? Polk or Marion? WNW3 (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Marion. Katr67 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Icons? What icons? I don't see any.

It's a great start. My suggestion would be to format it as a wikitable, such as at List of Oregon covered bridges so one has a choice of how to group the entries: city, county, name, type, etc. The present format is great if one knows what county and city to look in, but other organizations might be desirable. —EncMstr 20:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See List of museums in Oregon. Katr67 (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yep, agree with Esprqii per my comments here. Thanks for tracking down the other museums. You might also check Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Culture, for suggestions. I'm not sure some of the historic sites, like Astoria Column are museums per se. What is our definition of "museum"? Katr67 (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the definition per the doc: "defined for this context as institutions (including nonprofit organizations, government entities, and private businesses) that collect and care for objects of cultural, artistic, scientific, or historical interest and make their collections or related exhibits available for public viewing." I agree that the Column is in the grey area. It is an object of historical interest though and the top of the hill does have a few different "exhibits". It has the concrete canoe, the memorial to the birth of cable TV, the brass map, the gift shop and the column itself. WNW3 (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need to break it down by county, I think many counties do not have any museums that would be notable. Maybe by city in alpha order and only list cities with museums? Or perhaps by region (Willamette Valley, Central/Eastern/Southern Oregon & Oregon Coast)? Aboutmovies (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated...there are a lot of museums in Oregon! WNW3 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

update on Oregon Encyclopedia collaboration

Last Friday, Cacophony, VanTucky and I did a presentation for the three editors-in-chief of the Oregon Encyclopedia. They were interested in our wiki ways, but skeptical on some points. Check out my full writeup on my new blog, here: Our New Mind (and please leave any comments there, too!) -Pete (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oregon Heritage Conference

The conference is happening in Eugene May 4-6 and I'm thinking of attending all or part of it--looks like it will have lots of great history geek stuff. If anyone else is interested in going let me know and maybe we can meet. I promise to try to not be too boring about the stuff I know about Eugene, and I'd probably skip the awards dinner to go drink beer with friends. Ignore the goofy track and field theme as necessary. Katr67 (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oregon Tillicum items

Plase see List of potential Tillicum related topics and, if you can, flesh out any of the Oregon redlinks if they're worth the bother (Tillicum Beach probably, Tillicum Mine maybe, Tillicum Motor Inn and Tillicum Rsetaurant, probably not, but ?? (the restaurant/bar sounds like it had been an historic roadhouse for stagecoahes, so y'never know). Once they're blue-linked pls transfer them to Tillicum.....I haven't placed the WP templates on the list article (yet); if you think they should be there (BC/OR/WA mostly) please oblige. For why/how this came about see Talk:Tillicum. And those of you who haven't seen it, please visit List of Chinook Jargon placenames and bluelink anything there that you can. Thanks.Skookum1 (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oregon Revised Statutes copyright violations

Passing this along knowing the risk of Pete's and Aboutmovie's heads exploding. The state is sending cease and desist orders to people posting Oregon Revised Statutes claiming copyright violations.boingboing.net Awotter (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, they may be party right. Looking at the blog post, at the end they talk about a mirror site. If that is the case, there may be a copyright violation. You cannot copyright the underlying law (case law says the laws, both fed and state, is public domain due to notice and due process concerns if I recall), but there is also the "selection and arrangement" element of copyright law. For instance the phone company cannot copyright your names and addresses (nothing original and its simply a fact so nothing creative) but they can copyright the layout of their phone book. This is very thin protection, especially when the order is dictated (i.e. the ORS are in numerical order) but it is copyright protection. So, Justia should be free to have their own site with the ORS, but they can't just mirror it, since unlike federal work, Oregon does not release its work product as public domain. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this has already been discussed. If you take a look at the cease and desist letter, it is not the actual law that is copyrighted, it is the the formatting: tables, annotations, line numbers, etc. and certain text such as notes and leadlines. Also, Justia is claiming its own copyright on the pages themselves. Reading through the comments, someone said Oregon contracts with a third party for the publication of ORS (I assume they're talking about Thomson West?): "outsourcing their official duties", but that's not true. All the publication decisions are made in-house, it is only the printing that is contracted out (to the lowest bidder, as mandated by law). Let me know if you have any other questions, I have contacts I can ask for more clarification if they're not too busy. In a nutshell, you can still quote ORS and cite ORS section and chapter numbers in a Wikipedia article. Is there any other way this cease and desist order would affect the writing of the encyclopedia that we should know about? Katr67 (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for taking note of this, Awotter. I've put up a blog post about this, if anybody wants to discuss not-so-WP-related aspects, feel free to discuss over there! -Pete (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pete's continuing to blog about this. To watch the hearing, which starts at 10:30 today, see http://www.oregonchannel.org/rams.htm and click on hearing room A. Hi Pete! Katr67 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Was flipping through the car radio stations, and heard this issue mentioned on the local news on KXL...then they started to talk about a website and I was sure they were going to mention Pete but they talked about Justia.com instead. Since KXL repeats the same two minutes of news all day long, I'm sure you can catch it again at noon. Or 1. Or whenever. --Esprqii (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oregon National Guard was split

There was no discussion before the split to Oregon Army National Guard, Oregon Air National Guard and Oregon National Guard , I'm not that up to speed on how those are supposed to be accomplished, but at least one of the talk pages is now just a re-direct and I don't know how to reverse or correct it, any ideas?.Awotter (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. It was User:VigilancePrime who combined the formerly separate pages in August, also without discussion: diff. AM wondered if that was a good idea, but we didn't really follow up on it. And User:Ktr101 (no relation) seems to specialize in National Guard articles, so we should involve both of them in the discussion. I didn't check to see if all this was accomplished using cut-and-paste moves, but we may need to involve an admin to straighten out the page histories. Katr67 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I took care of the talk page re-directs, so each has its own talk page again. But I'm thinking the Oregon National Guard (a one sentence stub) could probably be merged into Oregon Military Department as a section, as I don't think we need both. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What about the page histories would you change? —EncMstr (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I just suspect they might be messed up from being split, combined and resplit. I believe sometimes it's necessary to kind of splice histories back together. (I worked on an article that needed that, but I can't recall which one it is now.) It's probably not a big deal, but I'll try to get around to looking into it. I assume you're offering your admin services if needed? If so, thanks! Katr67 (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I did comment before that I don't think the ONG page(s) and the Oregon Military department pages should be merged because they are two separate entities, especially in time of war when the ONG would be federalized. I do think the ONG article itself could be expanded, but I don't think that at this time either the Army Guard article or the Air Guard article are polished enough to have been separated. Awotter (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks for fixing the talk pages, I should mention that I remembered this topic was discussed but forgot that another editor merged the two with no discussion previously and that it was subsequently suggested they be separated again, so I apologized to User:Ktr101 who was just being BOLD.Awotter (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oregon Portal: keeping it fresh

So, we've had a great run of new good articles lately. But lots of them haven't been added to Portal:Oregon. It's a pretty easy task, usually all you need to do is modify the article's lead section into a blurb for the Portal's main page.

Here's a list of non-biographical articles that need blurbs written up:

• Barlow Road
• Crater Lake (maybe should replace Crater Lake National Park, which is only B class)
• Hanford Site
• Johnson Creek (Willamette River)
• The Register-Guard

For the "biographies" section, a blurb for Paul Allen (emphasizing his Oregon connection, i.e. the Rose Garden and the Trail Blazers) would be a good addition.

Anyone interested in sprucing up our Featured Portal should feel welcome to write up blurbs for these articles! -Pete (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will take a look at these soon (unless someone else gets to it). Cirt (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added some, along with the new GA for Tongue. The R-G does not have a free picture to use, so I'd suggest we wait until someone can snap a picture of something like their "vending machine" (or whatever its called) or their headquarters. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Protected Areas of Oregon‎

There is a discussion about how this widely used template should be organized (type or region?). Please see the talk page. Katr67 (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted the template to its previous state, but more input would be welcome. Note that I'm almost finished with an overhaul to the related List of Oregon state parks, which will also include a rationale on the talk page for the changes made. And kudos to EncMstr for getting that list up and running--it's been a huge amount of work to merely update it! Katr67 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted back because you removed a lot of parks. --NE2 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I won't revert again but I sure wish you were better at collaboration. We haven't even agreed they all are parks. I understand your eagerness to straighten out the whole mess, but I have to say the template looks terrible right now. Once I finish the State Parks list, would you mind terribly if I restore the list to its previous state and update the list according to List of Oregon state parks? Or would it be better for me to step away from all this now and unwatchlist it? Katr67 (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you are working on your own list. To avoid duplication of effort, would you allow me to finish the nearly completed list that I am working on? If I don't come through with this in the next 12 hours, go ahead and do whatever you want and I'll wash my hands of the matter. Katr67 (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really working on a list, just compiling data on sources. Go ahead and work on your list, but make sure it's not missing parks. --NE2 06:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ja wohl! Katr67 (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

C'mon guys - I'm hesitant to step into your grudge match, and I suspect you're scaring other people off, too. The contents of the template should definitely match the contents of List of Oregon state parks, once that list reaches some level of stability. The issue being that the template ought to be verifiable and supported by reliable sources just like the rest of Wikipedia, but it's only in articles, such as the list, that the necessary citations can be fully disclosed. Katr67 is doing a good job of polishing EncMstr's format for the list. Once Katr67 is done with that, if NE2 wants to add listings, and those additions are verifiable and supported, then by all means do so - that's what the "anybody can edit" ethic is all about. But because there is such a diversity of sources on exactly what parks there are and aren't (NE2's user subpage provides a striking illustration of that fact), I would strongly recommend that each and every listing be individually supported by a footnoted citation.
As for the reverts and re-reverts of the template, I'd suggest you both take a breather of several weeks from that piece. (And, no, several weeks is not the absolute eternity that so many Wikipedians think.) If when you come back, the template is not organized the way you like and you still feel strongly about it, then make your case on the talk page before jumping right in again and making the change. You know my opinion on the matter, but I have no desire to get further mixed up in this dispute, so I won't run to set it up the way I want either. Ipoellet (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The template was reverted precisely once by each of us. I reverted because consensus seemed to point to the version you had developed. And nobody besides you commented before I got exasperated and snarky about what I perceived as a bit of [WP:OWN]] either. I tried to get the discussion centralized and I posted here to point to the existing discussion and there were no takers. That's natural, there are plenty of things posted here to which no one responds. Now that a couple more people are involved in the discussion I feel better and I'll not pursue this further. As far as sourcing the list, I think I explained the source of all my inclusions on the talk page, but get in touch if any of them are unclear. Katr67 (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture request

I'm thinking that for now, an actual portrait of Sho Dozono is out of reach (I made a request to their Flickr account and heard narry a word). But there are "sho for mayor" signs all over the place in portland. Would someone perhaps be willing to snap a picture of one to put in the article? I would, but I don't own a camera... VanTucky 21:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I drove around today with exactly this intent. I saw dozens and dozens of his signs, but there is no photo on them—just text. —EncMstr (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible mentorship opportunity

Has anyone else noticed some odd userpages created by new contributors who make a list of articles to which they could contribute? Did you think, like I did, "Why don't they make the changes instead of just talking about it?" Well, wonder no more, because it appears that there is a school of education class at the UO that is encouraging students to do this. Here's the assignment. I encouraged the professor to check out the school projects wikipage, but in the meantime, if you notice any odd editing patterns in Oregon-related subjects, it might be folks from this class. If they're learning to be educators, we should try to be as helpful and welcoming as possible. Who knows, maybe they or their future students will be come active Wikipedia users. Katr67 (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it still active? Did you see the class assignment that lead to a FA and some GA's? Pretty cool. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was cool. And yes, the Oregon class is still active--I welcomed a couple folks today who appear to be in that class. One of them wrote a one-sentence stub on Leaburg, Oregon that was going to get deleted, so of course I had to flesh it out a bit. I would never have gotten around to doing that without the incentive, so it's all good. Katr67 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Zoos/Wildlife areas in Oregon?

So, I see we have lists of arboreta, aquaria, botanical gardens, historic landmarks, houses, forts, museums, nature centers and observatories in Oregon...but I'm not seeing a list of Zoos (or whatever the correct term would be.) Since Aquariums only has one entry and I can think of several animal observation places (Oregon Zoo, Hart's Reptile World, Wildlife safari, Cascades Raptor Center and that Great Cats place down by Cave Junction) should one be created? Or do they fall in one of the other categories? WNW3 (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Also [2]. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See Lists of Oregon-related topics. There are entries for aquaria and zoos. The latter has eight entries. If you're so inclined, please add any Oregon-related lists not already included. —EncMstr (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean lists or categories? I don't think we necessarily need a List of zoos in Oregon since we have Category:Zoos in Oregon. Katr67 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Catagory I think, maybe? This is the one I saw and wondered why we didn't have a similar one for zoos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aquaria_in_Oregon WNW3 (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Aquaria category: Personally I think most of the time its nutty to split categories so finely, but apparently the trend is to break things down by state even if the category will only include one article and is unlikely to be populated (though we do really need an article on the Mark O. Hatfield Marine Science Center). YMMV

Re: Zoo-type places. I've made note of a few wildlife rescue organizations around the state. There is an Arctic wolf place in Tidewater, and another wolf place in Williams ([3]), I'm not sure these are notable or if they count as zoos. Then there are places like Willamette Wildlife (Rescue and) Rehabilitation, of which Cascades Raptor Center is an offshoot, which isn't a zoo, exactly, though they do have animals that are viewable by the public and that they use for outreach activities. (they are located at Morse Ranch Park, so perhaps they could just be mentioned there). There is a least a dozen similar organizations all over the state. Katr67 (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I created a stub for Hatfield Marine Science Center. It needs lots of info that I don't know much about. --Tesscass (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks, I'm sure it will get expanded soon. Katr67 (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

David B. Frohnmayer

Several peculiar series of edits have occurred on David B. Frohnmayer. Two days ago some reasonably well sourced, but potentially controversial actions were added. Today, it looks like some of his history was removed. Neither editor has explained what they're doing. Would someone more familiar with this take a look and see if WP:NPOV has decreased? —EncMstr (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that both editors have agendas, but that the first editor is adding cited controversial but neutrally worded info while the second is removing that info and seemingly harmless cited stuff besides. (I don't think where he lives or what his wife's name is violates BLP, though I believe the house he lives in is part of one of the controversies). I don't see why all the info with citations can't be in the article unless someone explains why not on the article's talk page. Katr67 (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

External links for Portland neighborhoods

• portlandoctopus.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

has been added to a few PDX articles lately, in a spammish manner, I might add (putting it as the top link in the section, and originating from Selliken Systems LLC, which appears to be company that makes these maps as tools for realtors). I'm hesitant to rv it as linkspam, because I don't see how

• portlandneighborhood.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

is much better. There are a dozen of these kinds of websites. We had a similar discussion about this a while back. Should we come up with some sort of project-wide guideline for this, similar to the "notable people" guideline? I believe by the WP:EL guidelines technically all these sites don't belong as they are all more or less "commercial", but on the other hand they are WP:USEFUL. But if we've got one site listed, everyone else will want to add their site too, and we need a good answer for why they can't. Ideas? (the above templates are a tool from WP:WPSPAM, feel free to change them if they're distracting, but they'll show you which articles include the links.) Katr67 (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the only relevant external links are that for the neighborhood, and the one for its neighborhood coalition (e.g. http://southeastuplift.org ). All the rest go beyond our mission as an encyclopedia. A good catch, and I'm happy to help out with this. -Pete (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

FA Johnson Creek

Johnson Creek (Willamette River) just made it to featured article status! Nice work folks! Especially to Finetooth (talk · contribs). —EncMstr (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to thank everybody who helped with this. The team efforts make better articles than would be possible by one person working alone. Finetooth (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes great work everyone! I got to see the place itself yesterday on the Springwater Trail. A worthy subject for sure. Maybe we need Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Creeks??? Katr67 (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, great work. Katr, at first I thought a subproject was a bit silly, but as I think back, a fair number of local creeks historically show up in the news:

• Dairy Creek (Tualatin River) near Hillsboro, floods frequently
• Burlingame Creek (Beaver Creek) (not sure about that name) which goes through Gresham Country Club, causes an awful lot of flooding trouble for being such a tiny creek
• Kelley Creek (Johnson Creek): lots of salmon habitat restoration and money spent (according to PGE bill inserts)
• Fanno Creek has advanced considerably from inspiration by Johnson Creek
• Surely Sullivan Gulch had a creek at one time, though the railroad probably "culverted" it
• There is that little creek behind an office building on Barbur Blvd which flooded after a thunderstorm....

—EncMstr (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention Tryon Creek (currently a redirect to the state park)...heck, everyone in Oregon's got a crick somewhere nearby (if not running under your house during the winter)... --Esprqii (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but awareness of the watershed you live in is a pretty hip subject right now. Though its not our job to "promote" the awareness of watersheds, per se, having a great collection of watershed articles can't be a bad thing. 19:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Then there's that little one, I think its called the Willamette River or something or such, that could really use some work too. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not tongue-in-creek? --Esprqii (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. AM, rivers are sooo, like, 1962... Katr67 (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for information from an old map of Multnomah County

I have looked long and hard online for a suitable map and have failed. For the history of the Historic Columbia River Highway, I need information on what roads existed between west of the Sandy River and Chanticleer Point before the HCRH was built in 1914. I believe this would include modern Stark Street, Woodard Road, and Bell Road. If anyone in the area can find such a map and pass the information on to me, it would be very much appreciated. --NE2 12:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in exploring the county's archives, which I think are somewhere up on Columbia Blvd. Not sure how accessible they are to the public, but I'd like to find out. So, no immediate assistance from me, but definitely a shared long-term interest...I'll definitely report back here if/when I find anything out. Good luck, sounds like a worthy quest! -Pete (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's probably a good chance that a local library will have something. --NE2 23:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I just found a 1911 road map, meaning I don't really need this anymore. It would still be useful but it is nowhere near as important now. --NE2 17:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Southern Oregon History

I'm new to Wikipedia and was attempting to add articles related to a series of documentaries produced by Southern Oregon Public Television. These documentaries are related to the history of southern Oregon and are available to be watched online. I think that they add considerably to an understanding of local southern Oregon history, but I'm not familiar enough with the way Wikipedia handles and reviews articles.

My attempt to place one of the documentaries into Wikipedia -- The Camp White Story: Southern Oregon Goes to War -- has resulted in a maddening series of bot responses calling the article everything from a copyright infringement to an advertisement. I would much appreciate the input of people like you who are knowledgeable of Wikipedia and dedicated to getting Oregon information into it.

Should these documentaries be created in Wikipedia as stand-alone articles, incorporated into existing articles as reference information, or do they not have a place in Wikipedia at all?

(Just so you know, I handle the SOPTV website.)

ptvGuy (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You probably want Wikipedia:Notability (films). Personally I don't see how a documentary would be notable unless there's something special about it. --NE2 23:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the current proposal for a merge is probably best, especially because the actual article about Camp White is so short. --NE2 01:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this. I'm not a bot. :) See the page history for who did what to The Camp White Story: Southern Oregon Goes to War--that way you can always ask individual editors why they changed or tagged the article. I'm glad you brought this up on the project page though--it's often good to get several opinions. So that documentary looks great (I'm looking forward to watching it--I didn't realize it was available online) but per my tags on the article, I think it should be merged to Camp White, and the way it is currently written, the article seems to be promoting your undoubtedly fine work, which by Wikipedia standards is likely not notable on its own. You can read up at What Wikipedia is Not for more information. The best way to have links to these documentaries added to Wikipedia would be to use them as citations in existing articles, or judiciously included in the external links sections of existing articles. Because you have a declared conflict of interest, it's probably a good idea to mention the links you want to add on the articles' talk pages and see if other folks think they should be included. (If it seems strange that Wikipedia is hesitant to include good helpful information in the form of links from groups that have great stores of information, check out this related discussion about libraries and archives linking to their collections: User:Beetstra/Archivists.) I hope this helps. Katr67 (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, adding external links is likely the leading third rail of Wikipedia: Few things stir up so many editors into a frenzy as adding the same external link to a bunch of articles. Perhaps because that it is usually someone commercially promoting something they have an interest in. —EncMstr (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Experienced editor needed at Hatfield Marine Science Center

Resolved

A new user added some info there, which is great. But the bottom part of the article isn't displaying any more. Please help. --Tesscass (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. — Scientizzle 01:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

<ref/> should have been </ref>. I removed the two full paragraphs the new user added, since they were copied from elsewhere. --NE2 01:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Admin

Show's over, nothing to see here, move along

I'm going to change Template:WikiProject Oregon category and Template:WikiProject Oregon template so that they include those cats and tls in Category:WikiProject Oregon as well as their subcategories. EncMstr, who maintains the WP:ORE/Admin page said this is OK with him. This will allow those of us who track changes on WP:ORE articles to also see changes to the cats and tls. If for some reason this is a bad idea, let me know. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, it probably won't affect you! :) Katr67 (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC) On a related note, I'm thinking we may as well set up Template:WikiProject Oregon to have Cat class and Tl class "articles" and eliminate the other two templates all together. Same caveats as above. (Maybe go for broke and add Dab class and Image class parameters as well? Though the use of project tags on dab pages is discouraged and most images are now on Commons). Katr67 (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC) OK you template code-wiz guys (do we have any gals?), you know who you are. I see that Template:WikiProject Oregon (TL:WPORE) already supports the template- and cat-class parameters from seeing Template talk:WikiProject Oregon Welcome. So I want to do away with Template:WikiProject Oregon template and Template:WikiProject Oregon category, but I'd like to have TL:WPORE support adding pages to Category:WikiProject Oregon templates and Category:WikiProject Oregon categories when appropriate. TL:WPORE also already supports Dab-class and Image-class pages--can we have it add them to Category:Oregon disambiguation pages and Category:Oregon images (or maybe to Category:Images of Oregon though perhaps they should be separate)? Then, for extra fancy goodness, if the page isn't actually an article, I'd like the tl to change "article" to "page" in "This article is part of WikiProject Oregon". I've seen other tls that do this, let me know if you'd like me to find the examples. Then the pièce de résistance--have everything that's not an article have the default text change from "This article has been rated as Foo-Class on the quality scale" to "This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale". Still with me? I tried and failed to figure this out, so it's time for actual programmers to take over. Feel free to improve upon/standardize my suggestions. Good luck! P.S. I'll run AWB to change out all the tls once TL:ORE has been updated. P.P.S. TL:WPORE already supports the use of "attention", so I'm adding this to the usage notes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Project banner. The rest of the usage notes will need to be updated as needed. Katr67 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC) I've created Category:Oregon articles needing attention for articles that have "yes" in the attention parameter. I wanted to put it in the "To do" box but it seems kinda cluttered. Feel free to add this to the front page where you think it makes sense. (note the things currently in there are for testing purposes--have fun with it if you want) Katr67 (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC) AM has beat me to one of these changes already... Katr67 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC) The images go to Category:WikiProject Oregon images. The "article" part is currently a default for everything using the template. I'll see about working in the DAB part now. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC) DAB is done, I removed the default inclusion of every page with the template into the "Category:WikiProject Oregon articles" as I think this is sort of a relic from pre-class/importance time, but let me know if there are any objections or it was needed for something. As to the complex parser functions to get it to say page or article, I simplified the wording to avoid the issue, let me know if it works.Aboutmovies (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Category:WikiProject Oregon articles is useful for updating the Admin list. If there's another place to find all the articles in not-too-many piles, I can use that instead. —EncMstr (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Do you only want articles in the cat, or templates/images and the rest of the things we have now added? I re-worked it so when an article receives a "classification" rating it adds it to Category:WikiProject Oregon articles and the FA/FL/Stub cat. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Depends on what you want on the recent changes list. I rather like Katr67's recent addition of everything: it's easy to spot changes in everything affecting the project. (In the template, the comma between categories isn't needed, and makes chicken scratches on, for example Talk:Exploding whale.) —EncMstr (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Then we can go back to the include on all, but lets change the name to cat to say Category:WikiProject Oregon pages or maybe items? Aboutmovies (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Works for me. Pages seems more apt. —EncMstr (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC) (unindent) Everything=good. "Pages"=doubleplusgood. Katr67 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Done, everything will slowly appear in Category:WikiProject Oregon pages, which is a sub of Category:WikiProject Oregon. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC) It looks as if the category repopulation is completed. Category:WikiProject Oregon articles now has only templates and categories. Should those be moved too? —EncMstr (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC) It will correct itself when Katr uses AWB to convert the other templates to the single {{WikiProject Oregon}}. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC) BTW, I've finished switching over 315 of the 630 categories that were using the old {{WikiProject Oregon category}}. Katr67 (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks guys! Soooo, anyone willing to tackle my "This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale" request so we don't have to add "NA" to all the non-article pages? Let me know if you need me to find an example. Katr67 (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC) I'm looking into it now. Some inspiration just struck. —EncMstr (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC) I made several modifications to {{WikiProject Oregon}}: It reacts to the namespace the {{WikiProject Oregon}} tag is in. It will bitch if it's not in a talk space (Category talk, Template talk, Wikipedia talk, plain old "talk", etc). It ignores importance and class parameters for non-article pages (that is, anything other than plain "talk:" space). If the parameters to main article-space usage are wrong (importance=kindof), it will complain big and brightly—and offer some help. Same for the class parameter. If any parameter is messed up, or the template is placed in an inappropriate namespace, the page is added to category:Oregon articles needing attention. Those are the highlights. There are undoubtedly some cases I didn't think through, but I suspect those are now fairly trivial to tweak. —EncMstr (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (undent) Wow, I missed all the fun! Looks good, but how come the "This is a XXX page" is appearing on two lines? Shouldn't these types of lines:<br/> |Category talk={{!}} rowspan="2" align="center" {{!}} This is a ''Category'' page.<br/> use "colspan=2" rather than rowspan? I wasn't bold because I'm jumping in late and maybe there is a reason that didn't work and I missed it. --Esprqii (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC) OK, I tweaked it slightly...the wrapping was only occurring on my laptop when I had a low screen resolution selected so maybe that's why no one else noticed it. This looks good on it now. Also, I moved the COTWs back to the bottom. Y'all can change it back if ya hate it, but please Katr, don't flame me again. --Esprqii (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC) I've been flaming everybody. Give me one one good reason why I should spare you. :-| Katr67 (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Category:WikiProject Oregon templates and Category:WikiProject Oregon disambiguation pages are now empty and virtually empty, was this by design? Aboutmovies (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Did I do that? Not by design. Have we actually started populating those yet? --Esprqii (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC) I'm awake again. Esprqii, thanks for fixing my blunders: At 03:00, rowspan looks just like colspan and vice versa. (Yawn) Disambiguation rated pages were an oversight. Easily fixed. I believe abandoning the articles category was by design (of Katr67 & AboutMovies); all tagged pages are now in the pages category. I misunderstood the template category; I'll go fix it immediately. —EncMstr (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (moving from above) Nice, thanks for sorting all that out, especially the wrong parameter help stuff. Though I was rather fond of the colored boxes that appeared and the link to our ratings scale evn on non-article pages. See: Category talk:Colonization of the Americas, especially Norway, France, the Netherlands and China. Also, instead of having it ignore the class and importance ratings for non-article pages, is there any way to have them sort into Category:WikiProject Oregon disambiguation pages, etc. and have them also show up in Category:WikiProject Oregon pages? This is where keeping Category:WikiProject Oregon articles would be handy. In other words, can we have it sort each type of page into its own category and dump the whole mess into the pages category for our admin recent changes function? Katr67 (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC) On the coloration, ooh, yes, I agree, that looks nice. That should be (relatively) easy to do. Why would you want non-article pages to go into the disamb category? Couldn't there be a non-article category, or am I missing something? --Esprqii (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC) "disambiguation pages, etc." This is what is set up now, the names can be changed if it helps the parameters work. Each of these has its own colored box: Category:Portal-Class Oregon articles (should be "pages"?) Category:Non-article Oregon pages Category:List-Class Oregon articles (these three are the standard way normal projects sort their stuff) Then we have: Category:WikiProject Oregon categories Category:WikiProject Oregon templates Category:WikiProject Oregon images Category:WikiProject Oregon disambiguation pages (if we switch them to the "normal" way, would it make the colored boxes thing work?) Then there are: Category:WikiProject Oregon pages Category:WikiProject Oregon articles Katr67 (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Dab and Templates categories should now be populated, though the job queue is moderately busy. What purpose does a rating serve for a category, etc.? My thought was that suppressing rating and classes was cleaner. —EncMstr (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC) I think Katr was just suggesting having "Category" or "Template" appear with a colored box similar to the ratings system, not actually rated, for consistency's sake. It does look nicer. --Esprqii (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Arbitrary section break {{WikiProject Norway}}Remove "tl|" in edit mode and show preview to see the example Like this? Colored box, no rating, but with a link to the rating system. And have it sort into Category:WikiProject Oregon categories. Katr67 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC) It is no longer necessary to add class=category, etc. to {{WikiProject Oregon}} in non-article namespaces. The template figures that out on its own. That is, {{WikiProject Oregon}} is all that is needed. The business of displaying "here is where the assessment goes, but it is ignored for this type" seems silly. Isn't less more? —EncMstr (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC) So let's improve on those wily Norwegians by just doing the colored box and losing the explanatory text. Then we don't need the sentence that says "This is a XXX page." --Esprqii (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC) I think this could be much simpler. Since the colored box thing is built into the standard WikiProject banner, can't we just change the existing categories (see above), which are an artifact of the former three-banner system, to the "normal" way it's done? I like the colored boxes for the at-a-glance-ness of it. The current configuration looks a bit sparse. And pointing out our exciting assessment and rating system and providing links to it might get people interested in the process? Katr67 (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Sheesh! The "This is an XXX page" was for debugging. I forgot to take it out.... Okay, it appears there is stronger support for placement of colorful decorations than my lone desire to simplify—at least appearances. ...I almost hate to ask, what colors and text should it show? —EncMstr (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (unindent)Re: XXX page. Ohhhh. That makes sense EncMstr. So here is the first example I could find with a complex colored thingy scheme: Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Assessment#Instructions. Like I said, it's all built in. I'll link to the diff so you can see how it worked before your updates... Katr67 (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC) OK, here is the old version after AM's changes but before EncMstr's Template:WikiProject Oregon/Temp. At Template talk:WikiProject Oregon/Temp, you can see an example and test the parameters like a sandbox. This is the temp page I set up and had deleted when I was trying to figure this out--you admin types can see my experiments, not sure that would help. Katr67 (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC) All project-level non-article colored box thingies then fit into the Wikipedia-wide rating system, for example: Category:Disambig-Class articles. Katr67 (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC) I think these look good, but can we make the pretty colored boxes all the same width? The category and disambiguation ones look a bit wider. We probably have to make the left column a bit wider. I can't see how to do that, but maybe I'll fiddle with it. --Esprqii (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC) I get it, the width is set by whoever made the boxes and everybody had a different idea. Oh well, no biggie, you don't see them all in one place anywhere under normal circumstances. --Esprqii (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC) The categories themselves would go into the Wikipedia-wide ratings, not something the template would do, right? —EncMstr (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Yes. When the category is set up we just need to put it into the project-wide category (like so). Katr67 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC) While we're combining, can we (like the WPBIO template) add a req=photo option to replace {{reqphoto|in=Oregon}} and add the requests to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Oregon? Aboutmovies (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Yes! That was something I wanted to do at the outset. I was thinking regional granularity ({{WikiProject Oregon|reqphoto=central}} Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Central Oregon), so if one knows they'll be in Central Oregon, a more-relevant list can be obtained for the region. (Even counties would do it for me. :-) Not sure what to do with things like biographies and ballot measures: I guess toss them into the default category. —EncMstr (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Sounds good. Maybe on the main req-Oregon page a breakdown of what counties make up each, and since its not mainspace we don't need RS to decide. Plus a breakdown on the individual regions a list of what counties for that region. And speaking of images, the template is not adding images tagged to Category:WikiProject Oregon images. I just added some, and its not adding the cat to the image's talk page at the bottom like it should (which I believe would be independent of any que issues). Aboutmovies (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Also, on both images and portal, we probably should have a way to add ratings for the "Featured" ones. Maybe Portal/image for the class, then Featured for the importance rating? Then they would need cats such as Category:Featured Oregon images. I know we only have one portal right now, but I hope to make more (Portland, Oregon History, Oregon Politics, Oregon State University to name a few ideas), and hopefully they can reach featured status at some point. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Okay, I'll work on these late tonight, if no one beats me to it. —EncMstr (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC) WPOR template update I added the reqphoto= parameter, and added the pretty class boxes for categories, templates, portal, and some others. The photo request parameter takes either Yes which means there is no geography associated, or a general area of the state. I divided the state into twenty areas sensible to me as a drive-around photographer. It's better explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Project banner, but associates in the obvious way with these proposed subcategories: Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests Proposed Subcategories: Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Portland area Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Salem area Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Eugene area Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Willamette Valley Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Bend area Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Pendleton area Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Burns area Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in John Day area Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Northern Coast area Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Central Coast area Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Southern Coast area Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Southern Oregon area Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Northern Cascades area Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Central Cascades area Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Southern Cascades area Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Central Oregon area Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Columbia Gorge area Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in North Central Oregon Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Northeastern Oregon Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Southeastern Oregon Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests in Eastern Oregon Comments? —EncMstr (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC) It seems my motion was seconded and bolded. Katr67 discovered the template accepts some unsuspected-to-me classes: TemplateRedir, Current, and Future. "Template" is clear enough, and a minor oversight. Anyone know what class=Current or class=Future are for? —EncMstr (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Wild guess, but I'm thinking current is for an article that covers an ongoing event such as would often be covered in mainspace by {{Current}}, and future for tagging the talk pages of red linked articles. But that's my guess. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Psst, EM, I think you meant Redir, not Template. Katr67 (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Y'all have been doing some excellent work on this stuff -- hats off to you! -Pete (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC) I just noticed a small problem/redundancy, though. The new system puts talk pages into Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests, but the older {{reqphoto}} template, when used with "Oregon" as a parameter, puts talk pages into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Oregon. Any reason not to just merge those categories? -Pete (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC) The former is placed by WP:OREgonians via {{WikiProject Oregon|reqphoto=region}}, hence evaluated as having non-specific geography. The other (placed by {{reqphoto}}) might be tagged by anyone, most likely a non WP:OREgonian. Ideally, a photo request article in the latter would be regarded as needing geographic assessment and moved into the former, or one of its subcategories. At least that was what I was thinking when I arranged it. If it seems too complicated, it's trivial to simplify. —EncMstr (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I see what you mean, but in my opinion this is parsing it too finely. I've already used "reqphoto=yes" in a few cases where there is a specific location, I just don't know it (for instance, someone who was famous as a Portlander, but has faded from the public eye, and who knows where they live now?) I think it would be more straightforward to merge 'em all into one category, with the location-specific ones as subcats. -Pete (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC) If you aren't sure which region name of Oregon to give to reqphoto=, just guess! (And then preview.) If it isn't recognized—besides a big bright red error message—it shows the valid region names. The template recognizes many variations and abbreviations. —EncMstr (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't say that clearly -- I've been doing what you suggest for areas that I know, and it works well. The problem arises in cases where the subject of the article's current residence is not known. Or (to a lesser extent) in the case of an article where I don't know Oregon's geography well enough to know what region it's in without a lot of clicking and reading. Having "non-geographic" appear in the template, in cases like this, is inaccurate. I'd prefer if it was a little more generic, like the existing one for {{reqphoto}}. -Pete (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC) That seems to be a case not addressed by any project or strategy I'm aware of. Perhaps a straightforward solution is something like {{WikiProject Oregon | reqphoto=a specific geographic location, but exactly where needs research}} (How's that for "user-friendly unfriendly"?) Perhaps, reqphoto=research? —EncMstr (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC) I guess I haven't been clear about what I'm suggesting...I don't think the "non-geographic location" phrase is helpful. I'm hoping for that famous EncMstr economy of words here! I think there's a very simple solution: change the {{reqphoto}} template's "in=Oregon" parameter so that it puts the page in Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests; and modify {{WikiProject Oregon}} with the "yes" parameter so that it reads "This Oregon-related article needs a photo" (or something similarly general.) Make sense? -Pete (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Altering {{reqphoto}} to handle "in=Oregon" looks messy and wikipolitically delicate. What do you think if {{WikiProject Oregon|reqphoto=region}} does what it now does and also places the page as {{reqphoto}} does (in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Oregon)? So one category has every single photo request, and other categories have regionally requested photos. —EncMstr (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC) OK, that makes sense. We could do that, it would satisfy part of my concern. But how about just merging in the other direction? That is, eliminating Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests and merging the sub-cats directly into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Oregon? -Pete (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Post-nuclear cleanup I just speedied {{WikiProject Oregon template}}. Feel free to delete it sooner than the backlog if you have the power. Katr67 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Congregation Beth Israel of Portland, Oregon

Does anybody have a photo of Temple Beth Israel in NW Portland for this article that was created today? I thought I saw one somewhere but I can't find it. Katr67 (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done, thanks to sometime Wikipedia widow Kimmers! Katr67 (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Kimmers! -Pete (talk)

Would you like a sortable table at List of museums in Oregon?

(This discussion was moved to Talk:List of museums in Oregon)

Google maps enables wikipedia overlay!

Within the last few hours, Google maps enabled a Wikipedia overlay. Click on "More..." (at the upper right of the map), check Wikipedia and the map you're viewing lights up with W icons. Click on one see see the article's lead for that point. Awesome. I'm glad I've diligently added the title coordinate to articles. —EncMstr (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very cool!! I spotted this blog post about the feature a little while back. One downside (or motivation) that comes along with it is the size of the icons. They are based on the degree of precision of the coordinates. This makes the inconsistencies in Oregon articles pretty visible: most notably, it seems many of the airport and helistrip articles have coordinates that are too broad, resulting in very large icons. Maybe something we oughtta tend to? -Pete (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How do I add coords to an article? I'd like to add them to Out'n'About. Does the infobox have to have the coordinates field? What's the best way to figure out the coords of a location? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For "official objects" look at the GNIS description which gives an "official coordinate" (see here). For run-of-the-mill landmarks, navigate with a map viewer until the object is closely zoomed in and perfectly centered, then copy and paste the Link to this page link, and remove the irrelevant parts. For example, Google Maps centered near Portland gives http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.516452,-122.645874&spn=0.214105,0.431213&z=12. Edit to 45.516452,-122.645874, replace the comma with a vertical bar, and surround it with the coord template: {{coord|45.516452|-122.645874|display=inline,title}}

Putting display=title is what gives the article its magic auto-extraction ability (and shows a coordinate at the top right of the article's page). There can be only one of those per article. Using display=inline (or omit display= altogether) provides 45.516452°N 122.645874°W / 45.516452; -122.645874.

There are several other useful options to {{coord}}, like a default scale, and the general map area so that the map page (which the generated URL links to) offers maps pertinent to that part of the world. The default coord is plenty useful; don't bewilder yourself with all its options until you really want a challenge. (Note that N S E W are acceptable ({{coord|45.516452|N|122.645874|W}}), but can be omitted with positive values for N and E, and negative for S and W.) —EncMstr (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks EncMstr. Let's say I go to the GNIS listing for Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and I get 452000N 1170005W. How do I convert that into syntax that can be read by the template? Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

GNIS offers a choice of decimal coordinates or DMS (degrees, minutes, seconds). The form you have is DMS. Format it like this: {{coord|45|20|00|N|117|00|05|W}} giving 45°20′00″N 117°00′05″W. They've dropped all the punctuation between the sets of numbers. Choose decimal to use the easier form. Note that the DMS to {{coord}} must have the NSEW entries. —EncMstr (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Northwesterner1 (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If you're too busy, I understand.

I've gotten the coords "(42.0370562939924, -123.62357407808304)" by putting "javascript:void(prompt('',gApplication.getMap().getCenter()));" into the IE address bar while the map is centered on the location of Out'n'About (this seems to work for any loc). Here's the google map. Could you add the correct template and coordinates to the article, or if you don't want to be associated with the edit, to this temp version of the article? I can probably figure it out on my own, but a concrete example would save a lot of time. I promise to show two other users how to do it if you help me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a better way, but I go the javascript version from here. The output has parenthesis, so if you want to check that it's right, you have to remove them. example. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is updated. See if that points to the correct place—the end of a dirt road? The company infobox doesn't accept a coord parameter, so I stuck the coord template (somewhat arbitrarily) at the wikitext bottom. —EncMstr (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Super cool! It is at the end of that dirt road. I see your edit in the history, but I don't see it on the page.[4] Does it not show up on wiki, but shows up on gmaps? I could add a ref since it seems a bit odd, but I'm not sure where since it doesn't show up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's in the top right corner of the article. Northwesterner1 (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Very cool! How come my coordinates for Oswego Lake don't show up on Google maps? I've had them in there for a couple of months. Is it the type:waterbody_region:US parameter? The excessively precise coordinates? The fact that it is in an infobox? --Esprqii (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I did this edit to Portland Aerial Tram.[5] Is there a way to put in the beginning and end? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To Esprqii: I couldn't find any help on Google, but I theorize they snapshotted the articles sometime between December 182007 and March 92008. My evidence is that the "Lake Oswego" icon gives a lead which has "in the in the U.S. state of Oregon". This was fixed on March 9. By examining more of the lead, a more accurate date could be determined, but it was hard enough to find that much. The Oswego Lake article was created on April 22008, so maybe it simply missed being snapshotted? —EncMstr (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, good detectivery! That sounds likely. I am just used to Google's fast caches. I've Googled articles I created later the same day and they show up in the search results (near or at the top, usually).

We should have a coordinate drive for our next collaboration (add where missing, make more precise, fix where incorrect) to be ready for their next snapshot. --Esprqii (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. Don't forget that the flipside of "make more precise" should also be considered: "make less precise." If Google is basing the size of the icons on the precision of the coordinates, we need to "zoom out" in some cases. Portland, Oregon shows up on the Google overlay as a small icon at the intersection of Burnside and NE 26th Ave. If we made the coordinates less precise, we might get a better result. Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To Peregrine Fisher: I don't think there is. An article can have only one "title coordinate". We'll have to find Google's documentation for how to do linear objects, if it is possible. —EncMstr (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If the size of the icon is based on the precision maybe we should use less specific coords for things like Portland and more specific coords for less important things like MAX stations. I've only noticed two sizes, but maybe there's more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've also only seen two icon sizes, but there are more than two "levels of importance." If you zoom in and out, you'll find that articles with very specific coordinates certain articles are only visible at the highest zoom levels. The icon for Portland, Oregon disappears quite quickly when you zoom out. We might want to look into drafting some "best practices" guidelines, identifying the level at which icons appear or disappear and providing some guidance for the appropriate level of specificness of geocoordinates, if that is indeed the cause.Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We can probably reverse engineer their system to take advantage of it, although waiting for the cache to update will be a pain. I wonder if there's a way to force an update?

I'm not sure how google is choosing the sizes, but Hoboken (PATH station) is apparently deemed the most important wiki location in the continental US. It has the largest icon on the map here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about the location precision determining the icon size. Yesterday I found two airports near each other Lehman Field and Parrett Mountain Airport, in the center here: one has a big icon, the other is small. Both give the same location precision, and were created about the same time at the beginning of 2008, have not been modified, and have nearly identical wikitext formats. (Parrett has incorrect coordinates, but that's beside the point.) Let's not get too hasty changing coordinates until we understand how it works. —EncMstr (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if my assumption about was incorrect. Somewhere on Wikipedia, there are instructions about levels of precision; though for the life of me, I can't remember where I saw them. Essentially, the coords for an entity should have significant figures that roughly correspond to its area. If the Google Maps implementation is not based on that, then the problem is with Google Maps, and I agree with EncMstr: we shouldn't do anything here to compensate for an error on their part. I don't really have any special insight into how GMaps determines size, just made an assumption. -Pete (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have posted questions raised here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Best practices, Wikipedia and Google. Maybe we should continue this conversation over there (except for aspects that are Oregon-specific)? Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

When I discovered the Wikipedia overlay on Google Earth last year I added lots of coords to increase the number of purple dots. Through that expierence, I think the updates are handled by actual people, so they there is no set time frame. Some will appear within a week, others take a couple months. Same with at what zoom level they appear at, I thinks its random based on the person doing the editing, since they only take parts of the article. Which oddly, the snipets I have noticed often have errors. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Silverdale, Oregon

I know that lots of Oregon communities don't have articles yet but, because I jsut created Silverdale, British Columbia and went to the Silverdale disambiguation page to add it there, I noticed Silverdale OR wasn't on it, so added the redlink. I know about the place because our high school band years ago did an exchange trip with the Oregon Silverdale (the BC Silverdale is in Mission District, where I went to school...) and also because I visited the Benedictine Mother House near there, whatever it's called - Mount Something....just thought I'd let y'all know the redlink was there, waiting to be blue'd....`Skookum1 (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Skookum1. "Silverdale, Oregon" doesn't show up on Google maps, and ACME curiously puts it in the South Pacific, midway between New Zealand and Chile. Do you remember where it is? —EncMstr (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not in here. Could you mean Silverton? It's kinda near Mount Angel Abbey in Mt. Angel, Oregon. Katr67 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it must be Silverton that I visited, as it was def. Mount Angel - it's the mother house to the Benedictine Abbey in Mission BC), and I gues I was conflused about taht - but I did google Silverdale, Oregon last night and got these results. Unless somehow those sites are confusing Silverton and Silverdale also; doesn't look like it, though....Skookum1 (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Eighteen Google hits is strong evidence that it doesn't exist.  :-) Reminds me of a travel catalog which sold "fake passports" such as for the West Indies. That's not really a country, so carrying a passport for it is perfectly legal (though using it is another matter). Its advertised use is when you are captured by terrorists or ransom specialists: bury your U.S. passport and produce your fake one. Perhaps the first Google hit (Myspace, Mike 29 male) is someone in Witness Protection? —EncMstr (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I just looked for it in the index of my Oregon Atlas & Gazetteer (2001), its not in there. --Tesscass (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the google hits, and agree with EncMstr...lots of MySpace pages are basically just spam generators, i.e. they're designed to look like real people, but they aren't. So it's likely someone just made up that name. The lighting company is in Washington, and the marketing-speak need not reflect a real location...probably came off the top of some ad exec's head. So, I'm inclined to think there really is no Silverdale. Cool to know that your Oregon diplomacy dates back to high school though, Skookum! -Pete (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is tempted to try to prove that Silverdale exists, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clayton, Oregon. It's hard to prove a negative, but I think at this point it's wasted effort. I've found that the GNIS (which is what the link I provided above is based on) includes every wide spot in the road, even if it only existed for a short time. It might be missing some locales from the early history of the state, but that's not the issue here. (Esprqii figured out later that the article Clayton linked to actually meant Dayton). Katr67 (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo requests in Portland?

My friend is going to be spending some time in Portland and plans to take photos of buildings, not necessarily important ones, but she will entertain any reasonable requests. She definitely will get the Charles Piggott House/Castle. Also "rambling funny house near where 26 goes into the tunnel" (does it have a name?), the Customs House and the Meier and Frank Building as well as a few houses she remembers near Washington Park. Does anyone know the name or address of any of those English Cottage-style houses on the way up to Pittock Mansion? There is one in particular with spider-web leaded glass--you will know what I mean if you've seen it. I know for sure we already have M&F, so any alternate takes y'all can think of if construction doesn't hamper the effort? I'll mention the Portland Hotel gates to her... Anything else we should have from List of Registered Historic Places in Multnomah County, Oregon? Katr67 (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, seems like the Portland Armory needs a new pic now that the renovation started in the existing commons pic is complete. Maybe it would inspire an article, since an addition to its historic uses, its very green renovation made some news and it is mighty purdy now. --Esprqii (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do, that's one of my favorites, and I have no doubt my friend will stop at nearby Powell's. I saw there was a pic in commons but didn't realize we should get a new one. Katr67 (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

An interior shot of Powell's might be fun for that article too. I think there is a good view of a lot of the colorful rooms from the mezzanine level...maybe she can swing an arty shot like the one in the Fred Meyer article.--Esprqii (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in downtown Portland and can take any pictures people need, too. I've got a high-end DSLR and I'm not afraid to use it. Tedder (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Photos are flooding my inbox! Question: Can I give my friend, who doesn't have any WikiMedia accounts, but is willing to put them in the public domain, credit and upload the pics for her? If not, we know of a workaround or two. Katr67 (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just upload it as if it was a picture you got from an old book. Using the upload wizard, using Its from somewhere else, and fill in your friends name under author. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. I had figured using "it's from somewhere else" would instantly call in the evil helpful imagebots. Katr67 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be totally safe and not go the way of the late/great Gilhousen, have Kimmers send an email to permissions-en [at] wikimedia.org with a link to the file where you uploaded it, and stating the license she releases it under, and explicitly stating that she owns the copyright. Then the helpful diligent OTRS gnomes will take care of everything. (Another way you could handle it -- and this is useful for people with no "inside helper" like yourself -- is just to email the photo itself to photosubmission@ (same domain), again naming the license, and also explicitly stating that she owns the copyright. Documentation is here: Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission) -Pete (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I see Tedder started a Portland Amory article with updated pics, which is awesome, but I think I send my friend on a fool's errand. To avoid duplication of effort, I've got more pics of the Portland Armory, the Piggot House, Temple Beth Israel, and the U.S. Customs House. Is there a centralized place we could make a list of images that already exist but aren't uploaded yet? I've got a ton of images but I find the upload process tedious, so I haven't dealt with them yet. But if there's an immediate need I can certainly get off my duff and take care of uploads by request. Should we put the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Graphics? Katr67 (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth are you sitting on Duff??! I guess I'd say, yeah, get offa him and just upload the things to commons...making and maintaining lists just sounds like creating more maintenance tasks in the long run, to me...it duplicates the categorization on Commons. (Though, if you do want to make a list, I agree that the /Graphics subproject is probably the place to do it...) -Pete (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

welcoming new WPOregonians

I just created {{WikiProject Oregon Welcome}} (and greeted our newest official member with it). It's for helping new WikiProject Oregonians getting started. Right now it shows:

---

Welcome to WikiProject Oregon! If you'd like, you can add the WP Oregon userbox to your user page using this code: {{User WikiProject Oregon}}. Check out the ongoing and archived discussions at WT:ORE and be sure to add the page to your Watchlist. If you are new to Wikipedia, it's a good idea to browse through the core principles of Wikipedia as well. The project home page at WP:ORE has many useful links to get you started. The recent changes and recent discussions links will display recent edits on articles within the project's scope. Welcome!

---

Please make it more useful and pretty. I didn't subst: since I figured there will be revisions forthcoming soon. —EncMstr (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it! Don't see any pressing need for changes, I'll look to start using it..I guess it'll be a race as new people join ;) -Pete (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this off the ground! I'll add it to the list of handy templates on the front page as soon as we update the main template and drop the other two, as discussed above. Katr67 (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)