Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

Archives March-December 2006 May-September 2006 May 2006-

archive from March 16, 2007 - completed topics and mini-projects.

[edit] Do these articles qualify for WikiProject Oregon?

Before supporting nomination Aranas for deletion, some things to consider:

Is he a "mover and shaker" or "up and comer" in the Greens? I'm elbow deep in the major parties and their prominent figures, so it'll be awhile before I collect material on the minors beyond what would fit in stubs.
Should we consider merging his info into Pacific Green Party rather than nominating for deletion (do we really want to reflect a major party bias by treating their failed nominees differently than the biggies).
Notability is so subjective. While the deck is stacked so heavily toward the major parties that "third party" candidates seldom get elected, they more frequently have an impact, by forcing issues to be addressed and/or playing a "spoiler" role (especially true now that so many races are decided by razor thin margins).
I haven't really had time to think through the whole "vanity" and/or "promotional" vs. "comprehensiveness" thing. I sure don't want to spend a lot of time researching the chairman of the "blow up the Columbia River Dams" party while I have a couple of full days' work ahead of me to get a decent article on Jim Redden up. On the other hand, I don't want to neglect the little movements altogether... they are, after all, part of the strange and wonderful Oregon tapestry, and a picture of Politics in Oregon would be incomplete without them. So, I'll just shut up and think on this a bit, if that's okay. I guess I'm just not up to bold tonight. -- J-M Jgilhousen 06:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't be hasty. Merging sounds like a really good option. You're probably right about third party candidates, but judging by some of the candidate profiles I read in the Voters Pamphlet (hmm, there's an article idea...), where Joe or Jane Candidate say s/he has been Chair of the Podunk, Oregon PTA, been active in Podunk High School Soccer and Choir and is now running as the Blow Up the Dams Party (heh) candidate for the 5th congressional district, well... Does running for office make someone notable who otherwise isn't notable? People like that should definitely get mentioned in the Blow Up the Dams Party article, but do they need their own articles? Just more food for thought. Katr67 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't wanna get me started on what the Voter's Pamphlet has become with the institution of a "buy a page, say what you want" policy. But, back to the point, there is a distinction to be made between those who pay a filing fee and declare themselves a candidate, and those who have received nomination from a party recognized by the Secretary of State. As I am sure Ralph Nader would attest, the latter isn't as easy as it might seem. -- J-M Jgilhousen 11:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent) I just stumbled upon a proposed guideline that seeks to address these very issues at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. I would suggest we hold off on deleting or merging these individuals until consensus is reached, and the result becomes "official." -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 09:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article collaboration?

Last spring members of this group had talked about collaborating on either Oregon or Portland, Oregon and trying to get one of them to featured status. People agreed to work on Oregon, but this effort seems to have fizzled. Before I archive the posts relevant to that discussion, is anyone still in interested in this type of collaboration, or are we all happy working in our own little corners of the project? As has been discussed, Oregon will need a lot of work, including full articles on History, Geography, Government, etc. But we now have interested people working directly or indirectly on those subjects. Neither of articles is terrible, but definitely need a lot of work because of the kind of inconsistency that creeps in when many people are making additions and subtractions. Let me know what you think and we can decide what to do from there. I’d also like to make this an opportunity to see who still considers him or herself an active member of the WikiProject. Thanks! Katr67 00:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving this mini-poll up for a while because of Winter break for those studenty types... Katr67 18:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Katr67 Active and daunted by the prospect of cleaning up the articles, but I’ll go if you go. :) Katr67 00:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
EncMstr Mildly interested, but put off by the late summer feverish pace—and major direction changing—of the Portland article. The Oregon article seems a more reasonable target, but the scope seems too big for our merry little band. Within the WikiProject Oregon scope, my more visible edits are often short-lived by the hand of those with a different style: that's discouraging. — EncMstr 02:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
JGilhousen I definitely consider myself an "active member" of the project. I'm feeling like I've bitten off about as much as I can chew by tackling the Government and Politics subproject, and want to leave myself some time to dabble in other subject areas within the project. A major collaboration on a single article doesn't appeal to me right now. -- J-M Jgilhousen 02:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
VegaDark I consider myself active, and would try to help on any collaboration if one were chosen. VegaDark 06:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Big Smooth I'd pitch in if we had a single article to focus on. I've been hanging around the fringes of the project lately but I've still tried to improve Oregon-related articles whenever possible. -Big Smooth 20:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Follow-up

Anybody care to chime in before I wrap up this moribund discussion? Katr67 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I would love to work on something like this. I feel that the thing that's lacking is someone asserting their vision for the project. Y'all are smart and motivated folks, and I think if anyone were to step up and commit to shepherding this process through, many of us would get in line and offer our services. Personally, I don't have much interest in doing that at the moment, but I would love it if somebody else did. I'd mildly prefer Oregon over Portland, but would gladly work on either. In the meantime, I'll continue hammering away at List of Oregon ballot measures and other politics-and-gummint type stuff. -Pete 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a good idea to focus on a GA or FA, rather than the independent works each of us is doing, valuable as those may be. A high visibility article could bring more interested helpers to our project. —EncMstr 22:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say I have no interest in leading the effort, due to preferring a wikignomelike existence, but when you said "Helpers", I pricked up my ears. Helpers=good! My vote is for Oregon over Portland as well. I think whichever one of us wants to lead the charge to an FA, the rest of us will follow, no matter what we've said. :) Maybe...just maybe...I'll take a stab at starting the process for Oregon. Katr67 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the spirit! What else might create even more spirit? —EncMstr 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A round of Oregon microbrews? Katr67 00:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No? Well, Aboutmovies created a cool new Oregon barnstar. Anyone up for making a (monthly?) newsletter? We have a ton of inactive members and that might help get them more involved. Katr67 22:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How should we do this?

There's about six of us who are the most active members of WPOR, and I know of a couple others who could be prodded into action, so how are we going to do this? I was poking around the Minnesota page (the only featured U.S. state article right now), and the main Minnesotan "cat herder" User:Ravedave's edits and it seems I got the impression that they split the project up into sections so as not be so overwhelming.

For starters, we will need subarticles. See my thoughts on Government and Politics and History.

Several of us each have our niches, so we should of course continue to work in the areas we love best. I haven't looked at the featured article criteria in depth, but at some point me (or someone else) can post a list of projects and we can take our pick... Katr67 22:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll volunteer for the history articles and a re-write of the current section. Plus I'll take care of the redlinks from the Econ section. But not till Spring Break. Redlinks are not a criteria, I just think it will look better without them.

For the gov't section might I suggest a table with the current main elected officials: Gov, SOS, AG, etc. from Executive branch; Chief Justice from Judicial branch; Speakers of the House/Senate.

As for climate, since it has been listed as deficent before, how about charts (plus a brief overview) like Portland has for say Burns, Bend, Hood River, Portland, Eugene, Medford, Astoria, Brookings, Pendelton. They would need to be smaller, or maybe some sort of code trick where you could mouseover a link to a city and the chart would magically appear. Anyway that would cover most of the main climate regions. Though if someone is good with graphics I might suggest a rain guage like what is in The Oregonian for the rainfall yearly total instead of just listing the number for a better visual representation of the differences between the coast, valley, and east/south. Aboutmovies 00:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to update/cleanup/expand a "Health and education" section (like Minnesota's got), as that's more my area of expertise. -- Scientizzle 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm also a copy editor-type person...so I'll work on grammar, style & word-choice, too. -- Scientizzle 02:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh good, I'm off the hook then. :) BTW, welcome to the project! Katr67 05:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You can never have too many copy editors! Oh, and thanks for the welcome. -- Scientizzle 05:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep plugging away at the politics and government stuff, and help out elsewhere when I can. I like AM's suggestion of a table. Site note- Wikipedia:WikiProject Arizona has FIVE featured articles. How's that for motivation? One of them's a porn star. We can do better. -Pete 01:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reversing colors on Oregon_DEM_relief_map.gif

Could somebody please reverse the colors on this image to the more convention greeen=low, brown=high. Seeing the Coast in brown, with Eastern OR in green just disturbs me. The Gomm 23:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's from the USGS--you'll have to take it up with them. Katr67 00:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

if it's USGS, it's a work of the Feds, and therefore public domain. So I believe we can edit away. I hadn't thought of it, but I tend to agree with The Gomm. I'll add this to my list I suppose, but it might take me a little while to get around to it…it's not a simple edit! -Pete 04:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my above post sounded snarky. :) Just stating the facts--I didn't realize it was possible to change it. I can definitely see the concern. It's kind of like that yellow tree license plate we had many years back. Hey, and while you're at, much like the photo of the Oregon State Capitol, the image of our fair state is crooked too. Probably absolutely geographically correct, but a bit jarring to the eye. Katr67 19:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How is that? I got rid of the black background in favor of transparent. It could be done better, but I don't really feel like spending much time on it. Cacophony 02:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon Project Ratings

As I've been editing, I have come across some other projects project boxes on the talk pages. Many have a ratings part integrated into the template. I was thinking we could tweak the OR template for the same. Thoughts? Aboutmovies 07:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I too have noticed various rating on articles belonging to many other projects. It seems to me that two judgements are useful in any tagging scheme.

importance: the priority of including the article in an excerpted collection. If only X articles (or Y Mb of content) can be included, what is the succession of articles?
completion: the degree of breadth and depth covered by the article compared to an ideally completed article; it is also inversely related to the work still needed

These two dimensions could be useful in prioritizing work on WikiProject Oregon. I've noticed one project's members quibbling a bit over the criteria for low and medium importance articles.

It occurs to me that tagging each article is inherently disorganized. How about a table instead?

Article	Importance (0..10)	Completion (0..10)	notes
Oregon	10	9	needs more climate information
Portland, Oregon	9	9	needs more proportionate balancing between sections
Bosley Butte	1	3	needs history, coordinates, notability, references
List of Oregon State Parks	3	1	only 7 of 200+ articles are written; still haven't completed article format
Joel Palmer	5	7	his journal has more information not yet included
Breitenbush Hot Springs	3	8	more editorial input needed; photos needed
Applegate River	2	1	stub article
Bill Sizemore	4	5	tagged for cleanup; needs notability in intro, etc.

(I populated it with a sampling of real project articles, but glossed over the values, though they might be close.) The wikiproject tag should addtionally link to an organizing article containing such a table. I used numbers (instead of the more usual low/medium/high) so a sortable table can help organize. —EncMstr 19:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Since no one else seems to care, I guess we can just drop this for another time, though I do like the above table for sorting. My goal was more of the rating "stub - FA" on the individual pages and not even worry about importance, I thought it could help us start rating some of our articles and move some towards FA status. Oh well. Aboutmovies 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not particularly interested in ratings systems, but would go along if it were implemented. But as you can see from the discussion I started up above somewhere, people aren't even all that interested in making FA articles. Just bein' maverick Oregonians as usual I suppose. BTW, I'm probably going to do some more archiving of this page in the near future. And P.S. all you WPOR folk rock! Katr67 19:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be really cool, of it doesn't take much effort to implement. I saw one at Wikiproject Arizona that would be very useful, it's some kind of auto-generated chart: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arizona#Arizona-related_articles_assessment

Also, I am definitely willing to participate on making Oregon or Portland into a feature article. Please count me "in" if that ever gets picked up again. -Pete 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another overlooked but notable Portlander

Okay, I'm sure that everyone here has seen or heard about the guy in the SUV who played bumper cars on SW Salmon next to the MAC club (Youtube video clip here), but Did You Know that he was Broughton Bishop, executive and one of the family that owns Pendleton Woolen Mills, an Oregon business institution? This states that he is President & CEO, but the company website states that he is only a Vice-President. (The fact he is part of the family that owns Pendleton was mentioned in the 19 January 2007 Friday Oregonian front-page article, but very briefly & if you read the article too fast you might have missed the connection.)

I think this combination may just make him notable. -- llywrch 20:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valsetz description

The description says the town was founded by the William Mitchell Co. This is not true. The founder was Cobbs & Mitchell, which owned the company until selling to its sales agent, Herbert Templeton, who ran the town and mill as the Valsetz Lumber Co. It was then sold to Boise Cascade. So only three owners in its history. (I am the author of Company Towns of the Pacific Northwest, University of Washington Press 2003, and there are several other sources documenting the establishment of the town and its ownership history.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.41.32.185 (talk • contribs) 5:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi Linda. I wrote the article using information from OGN, which I consider a fairly reliable source, but feel free to edit the article if it is inaccurate. I'd encourage you to sign up for an account--it's great to have real writers contributing. :) It's also usually a good idea to mention this sort of thing on the article's talkpage as well. Thanks for bringing it up. I've been wanting to check out your book. Katr67 06:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Have you seen Category:Company towns? There are several Oregon towns in there. Katr67 06:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions needed

Sunriver Resort and Sunriver, Oregon need to be looked at. Take a look at the edit history of the resort article and the article's talk page for the background. Basically, what "Sunriver" consists of is a mildly confusing mess, and I'd like some third opinions about the content of both articles, as discussed on the talk page. I've sort of taken on the role of mediator, I guess, but I don't feel real strongly about a piece of property I'll probably never set foot on. :) Thanks. Katr67 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Significance of Boones Ferry

My bias is warped by being raised living next to Boones Ferry Road. Should Boones Ferry go in {{Oregon Pioneer History}}, perhaps as a place? —EncMstr 08:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would vote no, as we don't want the template to get too big like what happened to the Oregon Cities template. And though Boone's Ferry still has a name impact on the area, so do some others (Scholls Ferry for instance), and the shear number of ferries in the early days makes it hard to pick out which ones. I'm thinking maybe a Oregon Historic Ferries article that could go on the template. The article could have a brief synopsis of the varrious ferries, then a link to the individual articles. Aboutmovies 16:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions. Thanks! —EncMstr 16:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably Historic ferries in Oregon, actually. Sounds like a great idea. Some of the individual ferries, like the ones I added on the transpo subproject, probably aren't notable enough to justify their own articles but redirects to the main article would solve that problem. Katr67 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WPOR Manual of Style

I think we need to decide on the format of ORS citations. In ORS itself, the format is: ORS 221.333 (the year being implied as the most recent version--currently updated every two years, but with the annual sessions experiment, this may change). Meanwhile, Aboutmovies introduced this snazzy style: Or. Rev. Stat. § 222.125 (2005). Is that how they're cited in the court cases? I prefer the former, but that's the form I am used to using. Thoughts? Since this is kind of state-specific I thought maybe when we decide we can add a little WPORMOS section. I ♥ acronyms... Katr67 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The style I introduced is the ALWD citation style. It's the legal, technical style, and probably more than what we need. I really introduced it to make a point on that page, namely cite the full statute plus they seem to be wanting to get legal in their description so I thought I might help them out. Aboutmovies 00:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I know of MLA, AP, APA and CMS but not ALWD. :) Shall we leave it that way on that page then? Or is that a case of WP:POINT? Otherwise, I was planning on doing some rewriting to improve the clarity of that article if it still needs it (because I was the one whining about it), and I can change it to the simpler style then if everyone agrees. Katr67 00:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it quite reaches WP:POINT, but feel free to change if you would like. Just no dashes from ORS, or parantheses around the chapter number, plus there needs to be a full six digit number. Aboutmovies 01:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hells Canyon

I am a river runner and hydrology expert. I keep editing the article on Hell's Canyon on the Snake River because the flow rates are quite inaccurate. I remove the part that says "The Snake through Hell's Canyon generally carries more water than the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon". I have run both rivers and the Snake River IS NOT bigger than the Colorado River, according to USGS. Here is my source to the average flow of the Snake below Hell's Canyon Dam, which is about 11,000 cfs, compaired to a low average of about 14,000 of the Colorado below Glen Canyon Dam. User:Peckvet55 22:48, 13 Feb 2007 [source http://waterdata.usgs.gov/id/nwis/uv/?site_no=13290450&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060]

Thanks for explaining. I personally reverted many changes on that article by anon editors who blanked an entire paragraph without any explanation in the edit summary. Unexplained anon blanking looks like vandalism to me. Thanks for signing up for an account. This kind of discussion is better placed on the article's talk page. I'll copy this post there, and if you blank the material again, please fill in the edit summary. Thanks! Katr67 06:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin subpage

I added Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Admin as suggested awhile back. It was eyeopening to see the amazing variety of articles in existence! A few might not be enduring (Category:MAX, Category:Avifauna of Oregon).

I'm not planning on doing much more with this, unless several WP Oregon editors feel it is of value. —EncMstr 19:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Day-um! That's really cool. I hadn't had a chance to look at it until now because it takes a minute to load. How did you do that? Katr67 05:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry for the slow response: I hadn't noticed your message until now.) Yeah, it puts a real load on the browser. I made it by listing the category, pasting it into vim, and performing several transformations (remove "talk", put double square brackets around each entry, etc.) to produce the wikitable. Then I used many regular expressions to categorize. Alas, that might have produced many mistakes. —EncMstr 07:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lat/Long Coordinates - Pine Mountain Observatory

I am brand new and all at sea, completely lost in how to do anything really, but I think I can figure most things out via cheatsheets and the sandbox but this one: How would I go about entering actual latitude and longitude for Pine Mountain Observatory? ~~(I'm sure there's a way to link to that, erk) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Mountain_Observatory~~ I can't find anything anywhere about how to do that, but like I said - I'm new, and lost! Or if someone who knows how would like to do that ... N 43° 47.485 W 120° 56.542 Chamois-shimi 09:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! I am no expert on this, but I just ran across something similar…basically what you want to do is use a "template." Wikipedia templates are used by putting their names between pairs of {{curly braces}}; by doing that, you make it pull in a bit of code or formatting that has already been set up. So, as I understand it, you will want to use {{Geolinks-US-mountain|xxxx|yyyy}} (where xxxx=latitude, and yyyy=longitude.) Just put that anywhere on the page (I think the top is traditional), and it should put a little standardized notice of the coordinates in the upper-right corner of the page. There are lots of these templates, for varying uses - see a list here: Category:Coordinates templates. Hope this helps! -Pete 09:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wait - I just looked at the page, and I see it already has a different coordinates template. Please look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Geographical coordinates for instructions on using it. Looks a bit confusing - I'll help you puzzle it out if needed. -Pete 09:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh. I was going to say something else, but I just looked at the page. Hmm. I would ask the person who put the observatory template on there. Or if you can figure out the name of the template (I couldn't--I tried Template:Observatory), sometimes the talk page will have instructions for using it. Is there a WikiProject Astronomy? I'd take a look but I have to run off to work...

But for future reference, if you're going to fill out one of those geolinks templates (my favorite is {{Geolinks-US-cityscale|foo|-foo}}), I pull all my data from the Portland State geographic names list. Oh and the geolinks template goes in the external links. It will give you the little coordinates in the corner and a bunch of handy external links to maps. (Example). Welcome and happy editing! Katr67 15:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I just figured out how to add the coords, using the info at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Implementation details and running the coords Chamois-shimi gave above through a Google Maps search, which gave me the converted seconds so I could fill out the template. Google, how do I love thee? Katr67 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. But next time you can use the pure decimal lat/lon by using template {{coor d}} instead of {{coor dms}}. That is, {{coor d|43.791417|N|120.942367|W}} instead of {{coor dms|43|47|29.10|N|120|56|32.52|W}} which give 43.791417° N 120.942367° W and 43°47′29.10″N, 120°56′32.52″W. —EncMstr 02:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice? Nice?! The triumph of my Wikipedia career--a word geek figuring out a math thing--and you call it "nice"?

And just where were you when we were trying to figure this out earlier?

Good to know about the different tls. I figured I should stay with the one that was already on the page, I have no idea which format is appropriate in which circumstance. To me it's pretty much just a string of numbers that will lead you to a map. Katr67 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub Project Invitation/Blatant advertising

As I have seen those listed as members grow a lot over the last month or so I wanted to take a moment to invite all members to take a look at the project's subdivions. There is no requirement or even urging to join one, but I wanted to make sure everyone was aware of them and a bit about them.

You like cities, do population figures get you fired up? Then maybe Cities is just for you!
Perhaps you don't like other people, but you like mountains and rivers. Well we have Physical geography just for you.
Wait, there's more. Do you like Planes, Trains, and Automobiles? Then we have Transportation so you can expand the world's knowledge about Oregon roads, highways and choo choo trains.
Perhaps your expertise is more in the art, music or sports scene. Then we have the Culture division to show Oregon is more than just rain and trees.
Maybe you love old people. OK that may sound wrong, so maybe do you love to write about old people? Then join People and write biographies about politicians (dead & alive), pioneers, or any other notable person related to Oregon.
Now, if you order in the next 10 minutes we'll throw in Government for free (OK, government is never free). Anyway, there you can spend hours upon hours writing about ballot measures, the Oregon Constitution, or the evolution and interaction of Oregon's different branches of government.
Do you like antiques? Well history is all about old stuff so join History today, because tomorrow its history (I know, lame).
Are you one of those people who is fascinated by the stock ticker at the bottom of CNBC? Well then don't just sit there staring, write something about those companies at the Companies subproject.
Lastly, if you just like to draw or take pictures, maybe Graphics is for you. Make maps, take pictures, conquer the world. It's all in a days work.

Aboutmovies 21:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

<applause> I think we should nominate you as the WPOR Marketing Director... Katr67 02:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Only if we can increase market share. Aboutmovies 04:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon-bio-stub up for deletion

{{Oregon-bio-stub}} is being considered for deletion as it apparently was not created through the proper channels. See the discussion here. I like this stub and voted to keep it. Katr67 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't up for deletion as it never was nominated. {{Washington-bio-stub}} was and while its creator did say during the discussion, if you delete mine the other State bio stubs should be deleted as well, the primary reason for considering {{Washington-bio-stub}} for deletion, that it's too small, doesn't pertain to {{Oregon-bio-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's good. I got nervous--some editors overseeing such discussions aren't as conscientious with the "might as well delete this one too" type things. See my response over there. Katr67 03:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] archiving some completed discussions

I'm moving some older discussions - only those that clearly came to some kind of conclusion - here. Hope that's OK, it just seemed things were getting unweildy. -Pete 22:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I see there's a process for this that I disregarded. I'll come back and clean up soon! -Pete 22:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Three lashes with the Oregon State Fish for you! Katr67 03:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French Prairie

Rather than cross-post this to all the subgroups and folks who might be interested, I'll just say here that I just finished an article on French Prairie and though I'm sick of looking at it, it's an interesting place and the article could be expanded greatly if anyone is interested. I've stashed what look to be some helpful links as comments in the refs section. Happy editing! ...now go outside and play... Katr67 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article for Deletion

The page on Oregon politician Michael Charles Smith is up for deletion. Worth a look. The article used to read like a campaign brochure, but I've edited it down considerably. My opinion: Smith is notable in Oregon (having two news stories cited, and many more as far-flung as Boston and NH), but is being improperly considered in the context of national presidential contenders. -Pete 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon Institute of Technology motto - is that right?

Could some one pls confirm the motto for OIT? The wiki entry gives it as 'Magnus Frater te spectat', which is Latin for 'Big Brother is watching you'. I doubt that's right - sounds like a joker was at work. I didn't spot any motto on the OIT site, but some one must know. -Vince 68.6.39.9 22:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I took it out. It was a very sneaky joke edit mixed in with a bunch of legitimate editing. Now if someone could explain what the heck a "Hustlin' Owl" is... Katr67 22:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free the Unfree Images!

One of the reasons our long-lost editor Jgilhousen quit Wikipedia is over stuff like this: Image talk:Ted kulongoski.jpg. Can someone please just go snap Ted's photo next time he's having a press conference or something? Our city flags and seals are slowly diappearing too. The editor who tracked most of those down doesn't appear to be active anymore, so if someone has any interest in trying to get those back, it would be mighty helpful. Thinking about copyright makes me twitch so I'm not gonna go there... Katr67 04:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just in terms of NPOV, I would be happier with a Wikipedian's snap than with the Guv's Official Portrait. So, I agree with Katr67 about the next press conference or whatever other public op. Ipoellet 15:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, and believe both goals (i.e., getting proper permissions for "official" materials,and gathering more "non-official" materials) are worth pursuing. I have a call in to the Gov's office about this; are there other images I should ask about as well, when they call me back? As a would-be advocate for open-source software and a longtime attorney, the Governor should have a staff that understands the value of jumping through the hoops properly. Wikipedia's hoops need some work, too.

If we can get this thing sorted out, I vote we all chip in for a cake and a greeting card and launch an all-out campaign to get John Mark back on WP ;) -Pete 01:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

ps. Lemme plug my User:Peteforsyth/leg letter again, which aims to get the State government to join the Feds in making government-produced images, etc. public domain. I think this is doable, and would love any feedback or assistance in figuring out how to get it done. -Pete 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Carissa to be on main page

The New Carissa will be featured on the main page on Saturday March 31, 2007. Yay! Katr67 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Just scanned the article to make sure it's still in good shape - it looks good, with a few minor updates I am researching. The only thing that bothers me is this image of the stern laying on the beach. It's not a terribly great shot, and you'd think in the last eight years someone would have taken a better picture - I just can't find one that's freely licensed like all the other images on the page. Does anyone else know a good place to look? -Big Smooth 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here we go! Let the vandal-fighting begin! Katr67 01:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Oregon State University alumni up for featured list nomination

List of Oregon State University alumni has been removed as a good article, since lists no longer qualify as good articles, but it is now up for featured list status. You can contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oregon State University alumni. Thanks, VegaDark 22:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eugene Photo Op

I'll be in Eugene this weekend and I'm going try to get some photos if the weather cooperates and I can figure out my friend's digital camera. I'd like to get some NRHP buildings, especially Knight Library and the UO Art Museum, some of downtown Eugene, and a few train stations enroute. I'll be pedaling around the bike paths and venturing into the western edge of Springfield. Let me know if you have any photo requests and I'll see what I can do. Katr67 19:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How about Eugene Saturday Market? (And an article? ;-) Portland Saturday Market is ready to link to it.) —EncMstr 19:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Alas, the market doesn't open until April 7, but next time I'm down there I'll make sure to get some photos. Hmm, I should scan some of my Oregon Country Fair images one of these days... Katr67 19:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness for WP:NOT#CENSORED! ;) -Big Smooth 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't be silly, it's not *all* naked people in the mud. Too bad too because I have some great shots of the Mud People parade. ;) Seriously though, in an informal poll, everyone I've asked says the first two words they think of when they recall hearing about the fair *before* they actually attended was "naked" and "mud". But I've got some very nice colorful shots of fully clothed jugglers and stilt walkers and such. I bet some of them are even sober, so there. Katr67 23:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Oregon_762c.html"