Wikipedia talk:The 50,000 Challenge/Pacific Northwest

on creating new NRHP articles

The Oregon "Missing articles" section lists many NRHP historic site topics that could become articles. Sources available include (1) summary NRIS information available via a tool described at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Resources#NRIS and (2) NRHP inventory/nomination documents which are now available online for most Oregon and Washington NRHP-listed sites. An NRHP document reference can be added to a draft article by copy-pasting the following:
<ref name=nrhpdoc>{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=XXXXXXXX}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date= |accessdate= }} with {{NRHP url|id=XXXXXXXX|photos=y|title=photos}}</ref>
and replacing "XXXXXXXX" by the property's 8-digit NRIS reference number. After saving the draft article, the links to document text and photos will usually work fine (for most OR and WA properties). It's a small gamble that usually saves steps relative to first looking up the NRHP documents at the National Park Service search site (http://npgallery.nps.gov/nrhp/LegacyAdvancedSearch?searchtype=natregadvanced), also an option. For properties listed on the NRHP a long time ago, it's also good to run a Google News or general Google search to find more recent information in news articles. Those are a few ideas for anyone interested in starting NRHP articles. Also questions can be posted at wt:NRHP, the discussion page of WikiProject NRHP, and I am happy to help with any NRHP article in progress if contacted at my Talk page. Hope this might help anyone interested in getting started. --doncram 01:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This is great to know. Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey, then do let's try to use a full reference to the NRHP nomination document, including its accompanying photos, when starting new NRHP articles. It seems a shame not to include the photos, which are part of the NRHP submission, and it seems a shame not to cite the author and date of the NRHP document. And why not use the NRHP infobox, too? I am just wondering, given a couple new NRHP articles started in the last couple days.  :) --doncram 16:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Alaska as part of this challenge

As Rosiestep and I have signed up for the Alaska portion of the challenge, I left a message on her talk page about it. One of the things I mentioned is whether or not we should consider Alaska as part of this particular challenge, among other options. I have to run along to work, but feel free to let me or her know or leave any feedback here. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Sorry, no longer interested in participating — I'm seeing far too much subpar crap that will never have potential being created and vigorously defended, plus I'm seeing far too much micromanagment / meddling going occurring on the project side from the same few editors. There's too much of that going on across the encyclopedia in general for me to put up with little fiefdoms of same being created hither and yon on top of it. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking if Alaska should be considered part of the Pacific Northwest? (I don't think it is.) Having a sub-campaign (and project subpage) dedicated to Alaska is not needed unless there are enough editors who express interest in working on Alaska-related content. Truth be told, I don't see much use for the subpages except to facilitate discussion, since all WPUS50k articles are being listed on the campaign's main page (see "Article achievements" at the bottom) as well as the state-by-state page. I say just keep adding your Alaska-related work to the bottom of the main page and avoid worry about the maintenance of an Alaska-specific page, but that's just my $0.02. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:ALASKA has been moribund for years, to the point where I question whether it should still exist, really little more than a few individual editors "collaborating" here and there. As for "whether Alaska is considered part of the Pacific Northwest", the article Pacific Northwest sure mentions Alaska plenty of times, with the caveat that there is no clear agreement on the matter. Looking for third-party sources turns up a Seattle-centric view that it isn't, which I'm sure also applies to other places outside of Oregon and Washington.

I signed up for the challenge because, well, I always enjoy a challenge. However, if the objective is to rack up 1,000 article creations/improvements per state, that may be a little hard to accomplish by taking a "you're on your own" attitude towards editors working on topics where interest and warm bodies are lacking. The recent episode with the AFC crowd putting up every roadblock possible to collaboration and claiming WP:OWN over articles-in-progress, with zero interest in making any improvements themselves, left a really bad taste in my mouth. I'm already having misgivings about this endeavor when I see a bunch of new articles in the same WP:NOTDIR/WP:NOTNEWS vein which already proliferate and pollute the encyclopedia, or the usual suspects using these improvements to micromanage or piddle around making edits for the sake of making edits with no regard for whether this editing activity leads to any actual improvement.

We're in a billion-website world. The Wikipedians who act as if people contribute here because they have no alternative should really wake up. It's insulting to see a slew of new articles about a Trump presidency, something which hasn't even happened yet, based on the scarcest notion of sourcing, all the while these same editors make excuses time after time about why we lack coverage of topics where notability and reliable sources are long established. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Sorry, no longer interested in participating — I'm seeing far too much subpar crap that will never have potential being created and vigorously defended, plus I'm seeing far too much micromanagment / meddling going occurring on the project side from the same few editors. There's too much of that going on across the encyclopedia in general for me to put up with little fiefdoms of same being created hither and yon on top of it. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

When RadioKAOS mentions a "recent episode with the AFC crowd", I am not sure what they refer to. Perhaps Articles For Creation is not meant, maybe it is a typo where AFD=Articles For Deletion is meant? There is wp:Articles for deletion/Kathy Tebow in RadioKAOS's recent edit history.

Anyhow, I support the suggestion to expand the Pacific Northwest challenge to explicitly include Alaska. It has been requested. No reason why not to. cheers, --doncram 16:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Review checks?

@Another Believer, Dr. Blofeld, and Doncram: Is anyone doing any review checks of the articles that are being created?--Kevmin § 22:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I stopped reviewing articles and trying to reconcile the various lists back when editors were arguing over participation requirements, adding and removing templates, and changing list entries. I prefer to spend my volunteer creating content, not policing . ;p ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they don't need checking, the time is best putting into content!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

missing Oregon articles

In 2 edits just now I removed a bunch of NRHP topics, for both formerly NRHP-listed places and currently NRHP-listed places, from Wikipedia:The 50,000 Challenge/Pacific Northwest#Missing Oregon articles. These had originally been grabbed from redlinks appearing in a couple NRHP county/city list-articles, and they are not "lost" in any sense. However, it is very much NOT a priority to create articles on demolished buildings that once were listed on the NRHP, and it is also not a priority to call for minimal stub articles to be created about any others. See a discussion section above about problems in some NRHP articles which were created. I personally did expand some or all of the problem NRHP articles, and I created other ones on the list. However I strongly judge that Wikipedia does not need these other redlinks to be made into minimal stub articles, which IMO would only constitute negative contributions, and I would appreciate the removal being "kept". There is no reason to call for creation of these particular NRHP articles over any others, and promoting these redlinks here seems to call for bad work to be done.

It is IMO a far higher priority to improve existing NRHP articles that are minimal stubs. For example, in National Register of Historic Places listings in Benton County, Oregon alone:

• Dr. Ralph Lyman Bosworth House
• J. R. Bryson House
• Camp Arboretum Sign Shop
• Jesse H. Caton House
• Corvallis Hotel

and there are more. All of these could be easily improved by using the available online NRHP registration documents (see discussion section above about that). --doncram 19:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your edits. There's no harm in suggesting potential articles for people to work on, and we don't need to only list the top priority articles. If anything, we should be adding more red link suggestions, and removing the blue links. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I reverted yours, as it seemed you were not discussing. How about listing higher priority articles, i.e. the existing ones that need improvement, rather than calling for more articles of the same type. I believe that a majority of WikiProject Oregon and Wikiproject NRHP editors would prefer for existing articles to be improved. That can be tested by an RFC or some other discussion process, if necessary, but why would you object to substitution of a better list. It is particularly absurd to call for creating articles on demolished NRHP places, for which usually/often there are no NRHP registration documents available online. Please don't be simply kneejerk in your response about this. --doncram 20:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to get in another argument with you, but I still think there's no harm in maintaining a list of red links for people to consider, regardless of "priority". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Page structure

I recently overhauled the structure of the Oregon articles section. This way, once we reach 1,000 articles and the mission is complete, we can just removing the subsection headings "Archives" and "Most recent 100", and the page will display a nicely organized list of 1,000 articles, collapsed in groups of 100. I didn't want to step on the Washington folks' toes, but if you like the changes, I can try to replicate the same structure for WA articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Looks good, but I would move the Check marks description out of the collapsed section. SounderBruce 01:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Even when the comment only applies to the collapsed content? We've long stopped using the check marks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

If it applies to more than one collapsed section, then I think it should be placed outside. Plus, one can also use that prose to explain the frequency of collapsed sections. SounderBruce 02:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: You good with the changes I made to the Oregon section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. And yes, let's ditch the check marks -- they weren't applied for very long anyway. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Missing article on Herschel the sea lion

@Another Believer, SounderBruce, and Bri: I noticed this week that we are missing an article on a notable piece of Seattle history, Herschel the sea lion! I have just started a draft User:Kevmin/sandbox/Herschel the sea lion and would welcome any help you would be willing to contribute.--Kevmin § 14:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for creating! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Approaching 1,000 for Oregon

@Dr. Blofeld: FYI, we are getting close to 1,000 for Oregon! That'll take care of 1/2 of this challenge. :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: All  Done!, in case you are tracking progress anywhere. Thanks to all who have contributed ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Incredible work! So happy to read these articles :) No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Well done! :-) Feel free to up the target, but only if you're happy with it! ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Page width

Anyone know how to prevent the content width from stretching beyond the page width? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)