Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/archive 2007-03-16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 requesting feedback: List of Oregon ballot measures 2 And another "situation" 3 Category:People from Oregon and subcategories 4 Make Oregon govenment-generated resources public domain 5 Article I can't clean up 6 Forest Grove, Oregon 7 Peer review listing 8 Portland Aerial Tram 9 Cape Blanco Sat Image

[edit] requesting feedback: List of Oregon ballot measures

Folks - I've been doing a lot of work on List of Oregon ballot measures, which I believe is a very important page - historical info about ballot measures can be hard to find. The Oregon Blue Book has a good list of every measure and votes for/against, but it lacks wikilinks or any detail on the more important measures.

If you scroll to the bottom, you'll see that I've put more work into recent years - the lists are complete only since 2000, and I've made a table only for 2006. Please let me know if you think I'm on the right track with this table. There's another possibility at User:Peteforsyth/measurechart, which doesn't explicitly state "YES" or "NO" for whether a measure passed - the color coding and a percentage over 50% would indicate passage of a measure. If the table format is desirable, I'll go ahead and convert previous years.

Additionally, I'm not sure the best way to communicate how a measure passed. Is the percentage good, or would actual number of votes - for example, 142,332 "YES", 564,050 "NO" - be better? Or both? The raw number has the advantage of clearly illustrating how many more people vote in general elections than special elections, etc.

Might be worth looking at the List of California ballot propositions for comparison.

Any comment welcome - but probably best to discuss over there.

-Pete 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And another "situation"

I would welcome some help at Talk:Bull Mountain, Oregon. Just wikislap me if I'm being out of line. Thanks! Katr67 18:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to take on Friends of Bull Mountain? Katr67 02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People from Oregon and subcategories

How are we dealing with Category:People from Oregon and its subcategories? I see people like Jon Krakauer in both Category:People from Oregon and Category:People from Corvallis, Oregon. I'm assuming if someone is in a subcategory then they no longer need to be in the main category, so he can be removed from Category:People from Oregon, correct? This brings up another problem, however. Esera Tuaolo is in both Category:People from Corvallis, Oregon and Category:Oregon State Beavers football players. This might not seem like a problem at first, but Category:Oregon State Beavers football players is a subcategory of Category:Oregon State University alumni, which is in turn a subcategory of Category:Oregon State University people, which is a subcategory of Category:People from Corvallis, Oregon. So by him being in both categories he is essentially being categorized twice, bringing up the original problem of being in a parent and subcategory at the same time. For someone to be in Category:Oregon State University alumni or Category:Oregon State University faculty, they have to be considered "from" Corvallis (unless they commute...even then they would qualify for the category, per the "otherwise closely associated " clause in the category description) So If someone is in either of these categories should they also be categorized as being from Corvallis? If so there are about 150 people that need to be added to Category:People from Corvallis, Oregon, and if not there are a couple that need to be removed. Another idea would be to leave the people in both categories only if they lived in Corvallis outside of the time they were at OSU (i.e. Mike Riley), but that would be very hard to find out for each person, and it would have to be added to the category description. VegaDark 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Category dilemmas give me a headache, so I'm not long for this discussion. I will make one observation though: the following piece of the chain you describe seems wrong to me (for reasons that you allude to - basically, a OSU person is not necessarily - or even likely to be - "from" Corvallis.)

Category:Oregon State University people, which is a subcategory of Category:People from Corvallis, Oregon

-Pete 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was decided a while back that for people to be included in "from" categories, they can be born in, residents of at one time, currently reside in, or are "otherwise closely associated with" the city or surrounding area. So with this description then all people who go to or work at OSU would be "from Corvallis", hence Category:Oregon State University people being a subcategory of Category:People from Corvallis, Oregon would be accurate. VegaDark 03:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the born, residents, etc. designation, though I have a problem with some of the places being too broad, like Category:People from Medford, Oregon including Ashland. But you're not asking about that. I'd say if you're going to recategorize anything, err on the side of less work. Of course using AWB would make it easier if you decide to go the other way. Frankly I think it would be silly to add all those people to the Corvallis cat. On the other hand, I've seen it discussed that being in both the parent and child cat isn't always a bad thing if it helps people find the article. You might ask User:Hmains. He(?) has done a lot of work sorting out the Oregon categories. I don't always agree with his changes but at least everything is consistent now. Katr67 04:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I still feel that the connection I highlighted above is a mistake. Even by the definition VegaDark cites. For instance, a quarterback, born and raised in PA, who played pretty well for Oregon State for 3 seasons and then went on to be an NFL star in Texas would be a notable OSU alum, but unless he had more of a connection with Corvallis than that, I'd hardly call him "closely associated" with it. OSU and Corvallis are distinct entities - in many contexts, one is not "of" the other. -Pete 06:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If he was QB here for 3 years then he would have lived here for 3 years. So under the defnintion I provided the "residents of at one time" part would apply and he would be ellible to add to this category by that part, not just by close association to OSU (although I believe that would apply as well). VegaDark 07:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I "selectively overlooked" that phrase in your definition. Anyway - I don't agree with that part of the definition, but if that's a consensus that's been reached, I'll drop it. Since I don't pay much attention to categories, it doesn't make much sense for me to stand in the way! -Pete 18:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't we make a OSU category that is not a sub of People from Oregon? Just its own category. Then the other OSU cats could be subs, and leave the Corvallis as a sub of Oregon? Being someone who graduated from OSU 1) I don't consider myself from Corvallis to where if I ever became notable I would hope I am not catagorized as such and 2) I hope OSU alumni is not being used for people who just attended, they better have graduated (and in the case of football players there is a long history of both not being congruent). Aboutmovies 20:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

From Alumnus: An alumnus is a person who has attended or is a graduate of an educational institution. So yes, all people who are notable enough for a page who have attended OSU do qualify for this category, regardless of it they graduated or not. And we could make those category changes, but per the definition above it makes sense to keep it as a subcategory, which I agree with. VegaDark 03:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

One more crack at why I think the phrase "residents of at one time" is problematic. I don't know the discussion that led to that consensus, but it seems likely to me that there was a desire to be permissive when an editor wants to intentionally assert that a certain subject is "from" a town, based on his or her understanding of the subject's connection with the town. But to use that rule in assigning categories seems like a mistake. I'll drop my QB example, in favor of the more reality-based example of AboutMovies. He/she is an OSU student, and yet would find it inappropriate to be described as "from" Corvallis in the future. But if that's part of how categories work, there's no way for an editor to make that "correction." I think this scenario is all too common, especially for a college town like Corvallis. -Pete 04:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

First Pete, was a student, graduated a while back. And I agree with you, Corvallis does not equal OSU and vice versa. For one you don't have to go to Corvallis to attend classes. There are web classes and other distant learning programs. Plus OSU Cascades, the Portland center, and for those other definitions of alumni, those that work at the extension service offices around the state or the Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport. I know when I went to OSU I had a significant number of profs who communted in from Portland (and students from Albany or even Eugene), so again I don't think they would consider themselves from Corvallis. But more on the whole alumni thing. Aboutmovies 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with including people who have not graduated, is that definition is not widely accepted. I know it is in some dictionaries that way, but not all. For instance here lists two different definitions, the one you quoted and: alumnus - a person who has received a degree from a school (high school or college or university) To illustrate, in common usage in academic journals such as High School Journal; Dec96/Jan97, Vol. 80 Issue 2, p103, we have the following quote: “Many of the student authors drew parallels between the school's current academic and social life and the school milieu recalled by alumni. The biographies also cited the graduates' personal role models.” Additionally from Education Week; 12/13/2000, Vol. 20 Issue 15, p12, “What began last year as a discreet inquiry by the alumni group into how the nation's richest orphanage spends its money has escalated into a pitched and very public war involving the state's top law-enforcement officer. It has become an emotional, symbolic struggle over intention and interpretation, a painful pull between the old and the new. At the heart of the dispute is some graduates' contention that the school's current administration...” As you can see the authors uses the term alumni as synonymous with graduate, not the all encompassing definition. Also, on Alumni association you will see that alumni is in parentheses next to graduate which indicates the author is using the term as synonymous to graduate the term it is next to and set off from the rest of the sentence by a comma. Furthermore, going off the talk page for Alumnus it seems to be more of a British use to include all former students. And if you really study the definition that wikipedia uses, it does not make sense. As graduate can be subsumed by attended, there is no need to include graduate. Anyone who graduated also attended. Therefore the definition should say: “Alumnus-a person who attended or worked for any entity.” Instead of extra words. But I don’t personally agree that alumni includes non-graduates, as that would degrade the term and I would be in the same category as some high school drop out who took rock climbing at OSU, we would both be OSU alumni. The OSU alumni association will even let them be a member, but then again they just want the revenue. As a graduate, and this is my opinion but I’m guessing other graduates share this opinion, is that using the term alumni so liberally degrades our accomplishments. We took the time and effort to persevere and complete the graduate requirements, our reward is being an alumnus. To lump us in with dropouts is ridiculous. Why even have the term? You could easily just say former students. And no matter what definition (graduates only or not) the definitions we use do not match up to the Latin, since according to the Latin definition I am the amunus of my mother, my father, my pre-school, my elementary school, my junior high school, my high school, my undergraduate school, PSU where I took one 4 week summer class, my law school, my wife, my brother, my dog, and so on. But I think we can both agree that this is not the commonly accepted definition for the term. Someone way back started using the term improperly to sound smart, and things just kept changing as many words in the English vocabulary do. But that’s really neither here nor there to this discussion. As to the categories, no that would not make sense. If we go with your definition, there is no need for “OSU Alumni” as they could all rightfully go into “OSU People,” or is there some other distinction keeping the two separate? I know when I created the Willamette University Alumni category I only added people that had graduated, and the same with the WU College of Law alumni category. I could have just created a “WU people” category and included both in there, but again that degrades both those who graduated and those who graduated from law school. Ultimately my point is that the common usage of alumni (whether correct or not by some dictionaries) is that of solely and un-inclusively graduates of a school, and schools only. Not where someone worked for three months during the summer or where they took a couple classes and dropped out. Aboutmovies 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, here are some things to keep in mind when making this decision. I think if you wanted to change it you would have to go higher up than this Wikiproject, because: 1) List of Dartmouth College alumni is a featured list, i.e. the standard all other lists of alumni pages should be held to, and that includes people who never graduated. 2) The naming conventions for lists of people by university affiliation would have to be redone throughout all Wikipedia. The "List of ___ People" categories are not named as such because they include non-graduates, they are named as such because they include both alumni and faculty, since they aren't big enough to break into two sections as I have done with List of Oregon State University alumni and List of Oregon State University faculty and staff. 3) Perhaps most importantly, the OSU Alumni Association inculdes people who never graduated on their list of famous alumni. "Years listed after each entry represent year of graduation or years of attendance". They list Swede Halbrook, who never graduated. The also list some other athletes who look like they went pro early. VegaDark 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

VegaDark, the only decision really being discussed is the whole Corvallis/OSU categorization topic. The definition of alumni is a side topic that is only about the definition. The only reason it was brought up is that you asserted the definition you bolded above as if it was the only definition. My point to that was, no, not the only definition. I realize it would have to be decided higher up, as obviously a decision elsewhere was made at some point in the past on this topic. And if I feel like it I may go raise the object, but even if I proved my point they would likely decline the change just do to the shear amount of work in making the changes that would be required.

As to the categorization, you asked for input, with the question:

So If someone is in either of these categories should they also be categorized as being from Corvallis?

And some of us have given suggestions, I think the consensus to the question is no, all of which you seem to disfavor. So I’m not even sure why you asked.

Part 2 still doesn’t make since if we are going by the Wiki definition, as it also includes people who have worked somewhere. Hence a professor, coach, custodian (like Beaver Joe) and the like could also be under the alumni category. Again, it becomes repetitive to have both.

As to part 3 of your reply, I’m a bit confused. If you look about half way through my alumnus definition debate you will find:

The OSU alumni association will even let them be a member...

Which refers to people who were just students. So I know they will let in people who did not graduate, in fact they will let in anyone in the world who pays the membership fee. So if we use their definition then everyone in the world is a alumni of everything, so I’m now a Harvard alumnus and a NASA alumnus too. No wait, I don’t think I want to be associated with the NASA drama. Aboutmovies 20:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying in part 3. I said "OSU Alumni Association] inculdes people who never graduated on their list of famous alumni." I did not mention who is allowed to join the OSU Alumni Association or not. Being a member of an alumni assocation is different from being an alumni. Most any alumni association will probably let you become a member if you pay them enough. And as for this being a side discussion, I agree. I did not even intend for there to be a discussion as to if Category:Oregon State University people should be a subcategory of Category:People from Corvallis, Oregon or not. I made the original query with the assumption there would be no issue of that given the all-inclusive definition of "from" being used right now, which I didn't think would be under debate. My essential question was do we remove people associated with OSU out of the Corvallis category since they are already in an OSU category, or do we add the 200 or so people in the OSU category to the Corvallis category. Since there is obviously some disagreement here about as to what a "from" category should even include I can see now that bringing this here won't accomplish much. VegaDark 10:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn’t quite understand what you meant by the OSU Alumni Association item. But I still don’t. Was your point 1) their list should be used for what should go into the alumni category because that is the university being discussed, or 2) people who don’t graduate are allowed into this alumni association, or 3) something else? Aboutmovies 03:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was that since the OSU Alumni Association classifies people that haven't graduated as alumni, that gives us justification to do the same in the category and the list for alumni. VegaDark 20:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As we were editing at the same time, I’ll respond to your last OSU bit. Again, that was the point I was addressing to begin with, that they include non-graduates. But if you want go with the OSU Alumni definition, you need to include the whole world, you can’t pick and choose off their list who you want to add. You have to use their definition, which is admit people who pay us money. If you want to go by their list online, fine. But then there are a lot of alumni that need to be de-alumni categorized (Brent Barry and Corey Benjamin for instance) since they are not on that list. The thing is, the reasons/rules for putting people into categories needs to be standardized and work across the board with whatever definition is used. Otherwise it is not a reason or rule, it is an excuse. That is the whole theory around the rules of physics, where it has to apply universally and must explain everything, not just work in some cases.Aboutmovies 20:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A little more food for thought. Harvard University, argueably the most prestigous and famous school in all the land has a Notable non-graduate alumni of Harvard list. What is that all about? I'm confused, what is a non-graduate alumni? Then, probably the most famous college dropout in the history of the world (and definitely the richest) Mr. Bill Gates is not categorized in any way shape or form with the school he would be an alumni of. Can you explain this to me, please? I'm really confused here. Aboutmovies 20:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My explaination is that Wikipedia doesn't have an accepted standard for this, so people are essentially doing what they want on alumni lists until that happens. VegaDark 20:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Still confused, you quoted and bolded as if it was wikipolicy above that alumni includes both? Aboutmovies 20:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Never did I state it was Wikipedia policy. As far as I know there isn't one. I bolded it because I was showing you the definition of alumni according to Wikipedia, so it makes sense that that would be the "unofficial" policy. VegaDark 20:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said you did quote it as policy. I said “you quoted and bolded as if it was wikipolicy” and when you do bold and quote things, that is how it comes across. And if there was an "unofficial" policy then things would be more uniform accross wiki, and as anyone can see things are not uniform. But the bolding and quoting is really the entire reason I have been pushing you on your definition. You didn’t say, well “I have been putting non-grads in the alumni because one definition says it’s ok.” As I stated in my original post “I hope” the category only includes graduates. Clearly showing that was my personal feelings. And I have never bolded anything, which you seem to be quite fond of, as if it makes more of a point. In fact you are the only one here bolding more than a single word on this talk page. Bold is like typing in all caps, its rude. Additionally, you need to examine the issue from both sides to see the strengths and weaknesses of your own arguments, then play out what these definitions result in. And that is the problem here, you asserted one definition as if that was the end of the argument. And you didn’t even include the whole definition of the term. In fact you probably stopped looking for any other definition or common usage of the term. You must be able to see both sides of the argument. Debates are like chess matches, you need to be thinking about what the other side is thinking and planning four steps ahead. Now, I’m not saying the usage of the term the way I define it is correct. I’m saying that it needs to be decided one way or the other, and either way there are changes that need to be made. If alumni is graduates only, remove the non-grads. If it is a newer definition, get rid of either the OSU people cat or the OSU alumni cat as they are duplicative. The sub cats of these can move as needed. I’ll go with whatever the decision turns out to be, but right now the categories are in between definitions. Aboutmovies 21:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I'm not the one being rude here. You are being rude with your confrontational attitude that I have tried my best to reply calmly to. Please don't lecture me on how to conduct a discussion.

I can see this conversation is done. VegaDark 21:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make Oregon govenment-generated resources public domain

Friends,

I have written a draft of a letter to members of the Oregon Legislative Assembly, which would encourage them to pass legislation making works of the government of Oregon public domain (like works of the Federal government.)

I believe such a law would allow resources like Wikipedia to blossom in their efforts to provide coverage of all things Oregon.

Please look at the letter, and feel free to improve it - especially any of you with a better understanding of the legal details than I have!

Thanks, -Pete 19:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article I can't clean up

Could anyone take a look at ENR Program and tag it appropriately. I am trying to avoid it due to WP:COI issues, as I think it is a candidate for major clean-up if not for AFD. Thank you. Aboutmovies 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try, but let me take this opportunity to state emphatically that I don't believe a conflict of interest disqualifies you from editing an article. I will also point out that the link you provide is a guideline, not a strict policy. I've seen enough of your work to know that you have good judgment, and enough of your discussions to know that you are reasonable when people disagree with you. So as far as I'm concerned, if you see a problem, you're probably the best-qualified to fix it - and so I hope you do. -Pete 06:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The page had just been copied directly from the UofO website. I redirected it to University of Oregon School of Law. We really should be focusing on writing the school article before we get to programs within the school. Cacophony 07:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete, thanks for the vote of confidence. I know I could have edited it, but I just wanted to avoid any claims of bias as I would have removed just about everything from the article. Aboutmovies 16:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now. Probably a good call. -Pete 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forest Grove, Oregon

Any WPOR members from FG? If so your city is painfully lacking much presence on Wikipedia. See the FG talk page for some suggestions on how to expand. Aboutmovies 08:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review listing

Hey kids, just want to point out that Round barn was just listed for peer review. It's a pretty good article, and has two photos of Oregon's own Pete French Round Barn (one of them by yours truly ;) FWIW, the text does not address that barn very well - the comments about architecture and design seem to address a different style of barn altogether. I'll post that comment there, but any assistance on rectifying the issue would be appreciated…I'm no expert! -Pete 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portland Aerial Tram

Portland Aerial Tram is currently a good article nominee. Katr67 16:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It failed, but it looks like with a bit of rewriting it could pass... Katr67 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cape Blanco Sat Image

Greetings from a Washingtonian. Your Oregon State article about Cape Blanco has an image that is either reversed/mirrored or upside down. The water should be on the left. Not sure how to change that but us Pacific Northwesterners ought to be accurate if nothing else. Cybirr 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from this satellite image, the photo on Cape Blanco (Oregon) is not reversed or mirrored. Perhaps you are expecting that it be oriented with north at the top? There's no requirement for a satellite photo to do that. The current orientation might be more welcome for those from the southern hemisphere. Somewhere I have a map of the world with New Zealand at the top center. Guess where it was made... —EncMstr 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hmm. We'll have to ask NASA to run the space shuttle the other direction next time. ;) I never thought about it being "upside down" but I guess you're right--there is potential for confusion. I'm not an image whiz but I bet someone on here could easily flip it over. In the meantime I'll tweak the caption. Thanks and happy editing! Katr67 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Yeah, is insisting it be oriented north to south smack of "hemispherism"? Katr67 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, yes... hemispherism... I'll report to sensitivity training ASAP. But you do make a good point. I came to the Cape Blanco article with the idea of most western point in the lower 48 in mind. So it follows my thinking 'oriented' my expectation of how the image should be displayed. Classic example of preconception and bias.Cybirr 01:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice job fixing it, EncMstr. -Big Smooth 21:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. —EncMstr 22:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)