Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

School's in for the Summer, School's in forever...

Or it will be soon. At least the homeschool and Internet school kids may be getting a head start. How do I know this? After a nice summer lull, I noticed that Sacagawea and Chief Joseph were vandalized a few times the other day. It seems that every school in the region studies the American Old West soon after school starts in the fall. So if you can spare a few minutes a day to refresh our handy watchlist here, you too can help keep the Lewis and Clark Expedition from being filled with naughty words and other assorted garbage. If you want a handy link, check out the silly userboxes I made here: User:Katr67/Gold Dude. Feel free to pirate, plagiarize, penguinize or platypize however you see fit... The ORGon TRail RUlZ DOOD! SchOOl SUX. LOLZ. etc. Katr67 (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin watch page discussion

P.S. EncMstr--do you have time for an update of Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Admin, peut-être? Katr67 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oui. I tried a month or two ago, but there were so many articles the updated page was rejected (for being too big I think). I was thinking of splitting the Admin page (into articles and non-articles maybe) to solve the problem. —EncMstr (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Oregon articles by quality accomplish a similar purpose? Cirt (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, the main thing that the "Admin" page accomplishes is that it enables the "recent changes to Oregon articles" feature. (see the Oregon infobox at the top of my user page, or the RSS feed in the upper right of http://wikiprojectoregon.wordpress.com if you don't know what I mean.) There might be other advantages too, but that's the big one. -Pete (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no worries, I was not aware that that was how recent changes was monitored using that page/feature. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Both pages have a multitude of uses. Like Pete, the use I know most demanded for the /Admin subpage is seeing recent changes pertaining only to WikiProject Oregon pages. Have you seen Recent discussions or Recent changes? (They're on the project page too.) —EncMstr (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Added recent changes as a new feature to the bottom of {{User WikiProject Oregon}}. Should prove useful. Cirt (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cirt--thanks for adding the links to the user template--I know Pete has had that feature on his for a long time, and I've had it off and on, but it makes sense for everyone to have it. (And if anybody doesn't like it, s/he can "subst" the template and take out the bits not needed.) If you look at Pete's page, you will see he's added the COTW and a link to our blog as well. Pretty cool what you can do on the Intranets these days... Katr67 (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

EncMstr--I think splitting the pages would be the best way to go, though it's too bad we apparently can't have a "one-stop" watchlist page. Shall we go back to making the watchlist/admin just Category:WikiProject Oregon articles and put Category:WikiProject Oregon disambiguation pages, Category:WikiProject Oregon category pages, Category:WikiProject Oregon templates, Category:WikiProject Oregon image pages, Category:Redirect-Class Oregon articles, and Category:Portal-Class Oregon articles on a separate page on which we can then use Recent Changes? Katr67 (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw Katr67 making some changes to the project template and some of the categories; I haven't looked at the changes, but I expected it was solving this problem. I think that having two categories (articles and non-articles) would get us by for awhile—maybe a year or two—then they can be split more finely when there's cause. I think I'd prefer there be a minimum number of categories so that it's easier to monitor all pages with as few links as possible. —EncMstr (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Katr67 - Thanks, I was just about to come back and ask if those userbox changes were okay. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oregon NRHP database now online!

Good news for all you old dead building enthusiasts! Oregon Parks and Rec now has the beta version of its database of Oregon NRHP properties online. The deets are here: http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/HCD/NATREG/, and here's the disclaimer that leads to the search engine: http://heritagedata.prd.state.or.us/historic/ Enjoy! Katr67 (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, it also includes non-NRHP buildings too. I think any place that has had a survey has an entry. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is really, really cool. The database is pretty nice, I found some stuff about my house that was unavailable online from other NRHP sources. Old buildings FTW! Steven Walling (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The citation needed in Palmer House (Dayton, Oregon) bothered me for a long time; the link above provided a reference which quenched that pain. Alas, the site has a long "beta" disclaimer which, on second reading, isn't as gloomy as I thought the first time. There's every reason to think links into it will persist for awhile. —EncMstr (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Geocoordinate pause

I've been following, and sometimes encouraging, the progress at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates to deprecate the coor* series of templates in favor of a single template {{coord}} which offers several new features. Participation has been a bit light, but is slowly tottering in the direction of progress. If any willing member of WP:ORE would provide some encouragement and/or insight, it would be most useful. Review the main discussion beginning at WT:GEO#coord template one year on, and provide feedback at the last subsection WT:GEO#An end in sight.3F.

Summarizing, {{coord}} was created more than a year ago to replace the ninesome template set {{coor title d}}, {{coor title dm}}, {{coor title dms}}, {{coor at d}}, {{coor at dm}}, {{coor at dms}}, {{coor d}}, {{coor dm}}, and {{coor dms}}. A new hcard microformat is created by coord so coordinates are automatically extractable—and is the only source recognized by Google Earth and Google Maps. Bots are ready and able to convert the existing template uses into the new form so backward support isn't an issue. One WP:GEO member advocates {{coordinate}} instead of {{coord}}, which has gummed up the works of moving beyond the coor ninesome. Several tables compare the pros and cons of the three choices.

A little encouragement would be very helpful at this point. —EncMstr (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazing, it was less than four minutes after my post (above) when Andy began implementing the change. There are likely to be disagreements even with action taken, so comments would still be helpful. —EncMstr (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a Geo microformat, btw, which can be included within an hCard, but isn't necessarily. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, EncMstr. I've been faithfully using the {{coord}} template instead of the Geolinks and Mapit links since the whole frustrating (to me) controversy over changing those to make them so they didn't show up as external links. I'm not sure I'll be able to make heads or tails of the discussion but I'll take a look. Thanks for adding the parameters to my coords too--I have only managed to memorize "display=title" but I'll try to put in the more precise landmark parameters now that I understand it a little better. I have a question about {{GeoGroupTemplate}} too, but I'm busy now, more later... Katr67 (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See how GeoGroupTemplate presents itself at Mount Hood#Glaciers as Map of all coordinates.

Andy liked a description I wrote of coord—perhaps I should title it Coord for Novices? It's on my talk page. —EncMstr (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was reached, and the old coor * templates deprecated in favour of {{coor}}. {{coordinate}} has been nominated for deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

I'm 99.9% sure that Andy meant {{coord}}, not {{coor}}.

I wrote an explanation of {{coord}} based on explanations I've written previously here (WT:ORE) and on my talk page. It is intended to be readable and accessible to any Wikieditor dealing with coordinates, yet it contains enough depth for most situations involving the template. See User:EncMstr/Coord. I'd appreciate any feedback. —EncMstr (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Make that 100%. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Psathyrella aquatica

I ran across this and thought it might make a nifty DYK. It's the first aquatic mushroom, discovered in the Rogue River by a Southern Oregon University professor. I'm still not entirely convinced it's not an elaborate hoax, and there's not much info out there yet--this may have to wait until the piece in Mycology is published, but maybe someone wants to take a stab at expanding it, if it's not too old. Happy 'shrooming, Katr67 (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit of searching but was only able to come up with one other source which itself is sort of meh. Perhaps you are right, hopefully when the piece in Mycology comes out it will itself generate some buzz and we'll have other potential sources to look through. Cirt (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

New article - Portland Monthly

Just wrote an article on the city magazine, Portland Monthly, also put it up at T:TDYK. Any help with perhaps finding other sources, adding material, copyediting, etc. would be most appreciated. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

New article - Portland Center Stage

New article, Portland Center Stage, just started and submitted to T:TDYK. Any additional info from other sources, copyediting, or feedback would be appreciated. It might be nice to get one or two other free-use images to use for this article - perhaps a shot of the interior of the main theater, Gerding Theater at the Portland Armory ? Cirt (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review

The article is currently on GA Hold in the midst of a GA review. The GA Reviewer commented that it might be nice to get some interior shots for free-use images to add to the article, could anyone take some pictures and upload them to Wikimedia Commons? It'd be much appreciated. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Oregon

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Le Grannde

Are you Le Grannde is the correct French spelling? This part is unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.157.45 (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This comment apparently refers to the second section of the La Grande, Oregon article; I agree that the two N's in "Grannde" seems weird (and I studied French for 6 years). But there's no citation for that sentence, so I'm a little reluctant to just change it. Anybody know? Anybody, for instance, with a copy of Oregon Geographic Names lying around? -Pete (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You rang? Katr67 (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I took French for 10 years and it looked weird to me too. Since the above note was so cryptic, I didn't really know to what s/he was referring, so thanks Pete for checking into it. I Googled for a bit of La Grande history and have concluded that it was either subtle vandalism or misguidedness. From May of '07... I fixed it. I'm sure when I check OGN it will back up the fact. Katr67 (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

George Flavel

I just noticed this got deleted. Can one of you admin types take a look and if there is anything salvageable, could you put it in User:Katr67/George Flavel/Temp? If it's the ship captain from Astoria (see: Captain George Flavel House Museum), he's certainly notable. I'm not sure if the article made that clear... Otherwise I'll just make it a redir for now. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The entire content is:

Captain George Flavel was born on November 17, 1823 in Virginia. In 1854 at age 31, he married pioneer Mary Boelling. He died on July 3, 1893 in Astoria.

It was deleted for notability. —EncMstr (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Obviously no one could tell he was notable from that. And it looks like Pete is on the case! Go Pete! Katr67 (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

New party

Who doesn't love a party? We have a newish one here: the Oregon Peace Party. Here's a memo from the Sec. of State. Let's stub it up! -Pete (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

...and there's my stub in the dark. Please feel free to make it much much better. --Tesscass (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making that happen, Tess! I made a couple of tweaks..hopefully more will be attracted to round out the content! I'll keep an eye on it, and maybe do a little research myself to expand further. -Pete (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Search for Portland photo

Hi,

right now I'm improving the article about Barbel class submarines in German Wikipedia and I search for a specific picture. To my information, right outside the OMSI, there is the propeller of USS Blueback (SS-581), which is also located at OMSI. Does anybody possess a free picture of the propeller or is able to take one an put it under a free license at Commons? Thanks in advance, --schlendrian •λ• 17:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I ride my bike by the sub and propeller pretty frequently, if nobody else takes care of this I will try to get a few snapshots for you. I never knew the propeller was from the sub, actually! -Pete (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That'd nice of you. Would you mind to notice me on my talkpage after uploading the picture? --schlendrian •λ• 14:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's taking me a little while to get down there. But in the meantime, there are a few free use/copyleft ones already out there, in case you didn't find them: [1], Official OMSI photo (does not specify license, but is designated for "media use"), a picture from a U.S. Federal agency (which means it's public domain, at least in the U.S.A. -- which I think is all that matters for Wikimedia projects, since the servers are hosted in the U.S.). Also, there are a number of these shots available on Flickr under free licenses; I suspect this link will only work if you are logged into Flickr, let me know if you have trouble. -Pete (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(By the way I am a Flickr reviewer on Commons, so I can help out if you want to use one of those.) -Pete (talk)

i checked flickr before posting here. All pics of the propeller are non-commercial use only with exception of [2], which is critical due to personality rights. Maybe i will blur his face and use it. If you come along the OMSI, i would still be thankful if you could take a picture, but take your time, the article is ready and I will survive without the picture some time ;) --schlendrian •λ• 10:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I just found [3] which is really beautiful and should be useable for commons. Thanks for pointing me to flickr again, I searched the tags, and this one is not tagged very specifically. Thanks also for your willingness to take the picture, but this is pretty much what I had hoped for --schlendrian •λ• 10:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiWednesday

Hi, here is your rather late (as per usual) notice that this is the week for WikiWednesday! Come meet your fellow WikiHolics face to face, plan out projects, give and get kudos, etc. We've had some really fun and productive meetings lately. This month, we will likely be putting some work into our own brand new wiki, to make it more pretty and informative...also, I'd like to discuss ways to get the word out about our work, specifically in the political sphere, as the election approaches. Come one, come all -- and don't let the agenda stop you, if there's something else you want to discuss -- bring it! Click the link above for the details (it's at 5:30pm Wednesday), and don't forget, if you arrive late (after 6, I think), you need to dial the office to get let in. -Pete (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Zumeo.com

Zumeo.com is a Medford company. Some of the employees have been trying to create a wikipedia article on their company. They're serious newbies who don't know about WP:COI and whatnot, so I've been trying to explain to them how to write a neutral article that won't get deleted. Any help would be appreciated, although I'm not asking for the article to be put up for AfD or anything. Relevant pages are zumeo.com and it's talk page, User talk:Jbooye, and User talk:MatRudi. You can tell who is who because I moved some advert like info to the talk page, and the users are using variations of their real names. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I forgot. Also relevant are replies on my talk page: User talk:Peregrine Fisher#Thanks for any help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oregon State Park Logo

Heads-up...on 30 Sep a picture-police bot went through and deleted Oregon State Parks logo from all the state park articles that use it. On image discription page there is a wiki-link to complete list of Oregon parks, but apparently bot was looking to match individual park names on image page with article titles that use image. Since bot couldn't read list, it assumed any park article that used image was in violation of Fair Use rule. Here's text I put on article's discussion page when I reversed image deletion in case anybody want to use it.--Orygun (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The image discription page for Image:ODPR logo.png provide a rationale for using this image for "all" Oregon State Parks including Collier Memorial State Park. The image discription page specifically includes a wiki-link to a complete list of Oregon parks that qualify to use this image under Fair Use rules: List of Oregon state parks.

I addressed it in a way the bot seems to recognize on other logos. The problem is that many articles for which there is now a rationale don't exist. It seems like someone or something might object, but maybe it's okay. —EncMstr (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Shared login to OregonLive.com available to us?

I'm annoyed when an online Oregonian article outlives the 14-day period when anyone can read it, and it gets stowed away in the archives for paying subscribers only. I ran into that problem today when editing the article Washington Initiative 1000. This initiative was supposedly endorsed by the Oregonian in January, but in September they changed their mind. I wanted to add this to the article and be able to cite the Oregonian articles in question. Through Google, I think I was able to find the online version of the January article, but gee, I apparently have to be subscribed to the Oregonian in order to actually see it.

It would be awfully nice if members of WikiProject Oregon, at the very least, were sharing a login to the Oregonian's website for the purpose of adding a citation of an Oregonian article to a Wikipedia article where needed, or to verify these citations. Is one being shared by anyone? If not, would anyone like to do so? Assuming it's allowed by the terms of subscription, of course. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 07:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I do doubt the terms of subscription would allow for that. But many county library systems allow you to access the archives from your own home using your library card # (Chemekata, Washington County, Multnomah County, Clackamas County). So you may be able to avoid needing to pay. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If you know about an article having appeared there, use the original URL in the form at http://archive.org a.k.a. The Wayback Machine. So far, none of the citations I've given in that form have stopped working. —EncMstr (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

See also Pete's page on O-vanish. Katr67 (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Also note that a few members of WP:ORE are students who may have access to newspaper archives through their school library accounts. So thought it's annoying to have to do so, it never hurts to ask on this page if someone can go look something up (I'd offer to go to the Oregon State Library and/or the Salem Public Library's microfilm collection, but I'm lazy). Katr67 (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Market of Choice

A minor content dispute is brewing at Market of Choice (recent editing history). It appears one or two disgruntled employees are reverting some grudges into place. Help! —EncMstr (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello I am new to this page. I would like to ask for some clarification on this topic of Market of Choice. I would first off like to agree that their was some vandalism going on on this page and thank you from clearing it up. I am a strong believer in the first amendment but also do not condone slander of any kind. As you seem to be working as a group on all things Oregon I figure here would be the best place to ask these question. I noticed that Katr67 looks to be the user who is monitoring this topic. While it looks like they have done a good job I also noticed that in the discussion board they mentioned using their option to edit the page. They used their option to remove a POV. My question is how is their option not just a replacement POV? I have also posted on Market of Choices discussion board. Sorry if the beginning sounds a bit rude but I was just typing and didn't read it over (I know shame me!) Anyways Thanks for your clarification! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.41.136.51 (talk • contribs) 00:48 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We strive for a neutral point of view, where major competing opinions are represented. One easy way to accomplish this is like the current article, which is a stripped-down, facts-only narrative. —EncMstr (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note that while the first amendment is nice and all, it has no place on Wikipedia. The first somewhat protects your right to say most things, free of government interference. As this is a privately owned entity, free speech is nice and we strive not to censor, but we can if need be. So even if something is not libel (it would be difficult to slander someone on Wikipedia), such as an opinion that MoC sucks, other editors can and will remove things that are not appropriate in an encyclopedia or against other core policies/guidelines, despite someone’s First Amendment rights. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the page on POV? As I explained on the MoC talk page, I felt the infomation added to the article about the company's hiring practices wasn't particularly notable. Meaning that it's not unique to that business, and thus not important to mention in an encyclopedia article about the business, unless those hiring practices have somehow become a source of controversy to the point where they are notable enough to have been mentioned in the press or another reliable source. Besides which, the material wasn't cited. Though I explained on the talk page that points systems are not unique, based on my personal experience, a quick Google search...this one took me seven minutes...reveals that a point system for employee tardiness is common across the U.S.:[4], [5]. So though it may have been my opinion that the mention of a points system in the article is not notable because it is not a unique situation, and I stated an example from my personal experience, my common sense tells me that this is likely a common practice in tens of thousands of businesses across the country. But the bottom line is, the material was removed because it was unsourced. Again, if for some reason the points system at this particular business has reached a level of notoriety that makes it the topic of interest to the mass media, then it may be perfectly acceptable to mention in the article, just cite the source.

Now, since you are all editing from the UO while claiming variously to be both customers and managers of the store,[6], [7] is this merely an academic discussion among young people who work at MoC, are you interested in improving the scope and accuracy of the article, are you trying to figure out a way to vent about your employer or do you just want to figure out how to put a completely non-notable person's name into the article? I hope you're here because you want to learn about Wikipedia policy with an eye toward improving the article. Because WikiPedia is not here for self-promotion of apparently completely non-notable people, nor is it here to attack someone who works at a particular business, nor is it a soapbox for the venting of employee grievances about standard-issue employment policies. Since User:Kitchenclerk also seems to have a misunderstanding about what "POV" means, perhaps you should ask him to log in and join the discussion. You have been given ample examples of how to cite the material you wish to insert (if you click on the blue links and read the articles), thus, if, rather than take that infomation and use it, you continue to feel that my opinion is misguided and you plan to continue stating that I can't use my opinion to remove an opinion, I'd suggest you look for redress in one of our dispute resolution processes. Sometimes if you get some outside opinions you will find someone who can explain our editing policies in a way that you can understand. I won't be discussing this anymore, I'm finding it tedious. Good luck. Katr67 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have completely re-done this article. It is now 100% cited. --76.105.154.250 (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent discussion at WP:MCQ about state legislature maps

In case it's any use to anyone, this is a discussion I started in order to clear up some confusion on my part as to copyright laws and such. Here's the gist of it:

“ Well the Secretary of State of Oregon cannot copyright the boundaries of the electoral districts. . . but s/he can (if Oregon law allows it) copyright the "expression" of that information. . . . Your alternatives must have a different expression of the same information to be free. ”

Sounds like images like this are probably free then (I remember someone here expressing doubt once). And in this case, I guess I'll see if I can make vector images. Unless someone more vector-savvy wants to do it. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 22:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention to that -- yes, you came to the exact same conclusion I did, that the "facts" of the boundaries are uncopyrightable. Vector images would certainly be desirable, but I don't have the skills…if you're able to do it, that's fantastic! Might be good to start with the House districts, as we don't have maps for those at all yet. (Of course, this all relates to the general concept of whether it's possible for state governments to copyright any of their works, which is an ongoing question…and one I'm hoping to get resolved in the upcoming legislative session!) -Pete (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What I had to get cleared up was whether or not I would be making a derivative, and thus still copyrighted, work if I used the data files provided by the state to make these maps. Now I feel pretty confident that I won't infringe any copyrights.

I'm still trying to find a method for converting .shp files to .svg, and I'm really not having luck. Google gives me solutions, but not ones that actually work when I try them. But I'll keep trying. In the meantime, maybe we'll need to settle for raster. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 00:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Big edits happening to Portland, Oregon

Some large edits are happening to the Portland, Oregon page. Just a heads-up. Tedder (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ORE admin page is split

The original admin page hasn't been updated since May because there were so many pages in the project, Wikipedia refused to save an updated page. The solution is to split it into two pages. Unfortunately, that means two links are needed for see all the changes. I've made the original page mainspace articles only (6709 articles); the new page has all non-article pages: it currently contains 496 images, 819 categories, 290 portal pages, 150 templates, and 11 project pages.

Accordingly, I suggest changing the title of the links to Recent WP:ORE article changes and Recent WP:ORE non-article changes. Comments? —EncMstr (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Durn it, we're just too dang productive! See below… (and yes, that does seem like a good way to split it up. Thanks for that!) -Pete (talk)

Big belated thanks for doing this! The name change is fine with me. That's for the links on the main project page, I take it? Katr67 (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes they are proposed names for the main page (and the template). They seem long; I was hoping someone might shorten them. —EncMstr (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm feeling rather dull. Why do they need to be shortened? I guess I don't get what you're looking for. -Pete (talk) 05:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, for maximum snappiness of course! Bureaucratese isn't my forté. Links should be succinct and not "head turners". —EncMstr (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Blog update!

Hey all, we've been a little quiet on our blog of late, but I just added a new post congratulating some of you on major recent accomplishments…take a look! We've gotten so much done in the last year or so, and I think it's about time we got a little recognition from the wider world. As a recent discovery by Steven Walling shows, the local media continues to miss the point. But with the kind of improvements we've had recently, surely that can't last long! -Pete (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

More fun news -- Oregon featured on the Commons main page today! See Wikimedia Commons, or the archive. -Pete (talk)

Thanks for letting us know about the WW/Oregon Encyclopedia article. Who's the mystery person who's our fan? My friend attended the OE meeting here in Salem. If anyone wants to hear his opinion (Pete) send me an e-mail. And thanks for the kudos too! Katr67 (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ethel Fahlbush (nee) Taylor of Brogan bred and born

hello from erlanger kentucky i am with my mom ethel fahlbush (nee) Taylor of Brogan Ore. Mom married my Dad during the depression. Dad was one of the workers sent from KY. to work the CCC in the 30's Is anyone out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.12.82 (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, there are a lot of us out here, did you need something? This is a project concerning writing and improving an encyclopedia, if you are looking for social networking or genealogical networking try Myspace or ancestry.com respectively. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles missing coordinates

User:Occuli did an AWB approximation of category:Landmarks in Oregon which lists recently tagged Oregon articles without coordinate data here. Also, there is this catscan which list more directly only {{coord missing}}-tagged articles within category:Oregon which should catch even articles not tagged for our project.

Find official GNIS position for U.S. geographic points at http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/, as explained at User:EncMstr/Coord. —EncMstr (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great! I was wondering how we were going to be able to keep up with all the bot tags, I added coords to a few but then it got overwhelming. Also, for a quick and dirty way to find coords to copy'n'paste, try Portland State's Oregon place names database, which is based on the GNIS. And hey could EncMstr or Aboutmovies explain the best way to find coords on a specific building? I use Google Maps to do this, but I end up having to reinvent the wheel each time. I believe AM once explained it to directionally challenged me so that it made sense. Katr67 (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You could type the street address into http://maps.google.com and use the location it provides. Or zoom and pan until you're closely centered on the feature. Then use the map data by:

• Reverse click on the link link at top right. Choose your browser's "Copy link" or "Copy link location" operation from its popup menu.
• Edit the article, find a suitable place to add the coordinate:

• For articles with infoboxes accepting a coordinate, or with an obvious place to put the coordinate into the text, use:

{{coord|latitude|longitude|type:landmark_region:US-OR_source:googlemaps|display=inline,title}}

• For other articles, just put it near the bottom of the wikitext, where the {{coord missing}} template is placed, in this form:

{{coord|latitude|longitude|type:landmark_region:US-OR_source:googlemaps|display=title}}

Obtain the latitude and longitude from the link by editing out the extraneous information. For example, the link http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.523875,-122.670399&spn=0.434891,0.854187&t=h&z=11 has 45.523875,-122.670399. (Sometimes there are multiple coordinates in a URL, look for ll= which is the map center; this works with many Google Maps-based mapping tools, such as ACME Mapper.) Change the comma to a pipe and you've got it. —EncMstr (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I was unaware of the several parameter possibilities until this week. I've added a link to User:EncMstr/Coord to my user toolbox, and I plan to add additional information to at least some of the "coord" templates I've embedded here and there. Finetooth (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OUS Page dis-ambiguous

 Done I am a wiki neophyte so sorry if I do not adhere to the SOP. Can someone change the top of the OUS (Oregon University System) to use a standard dis-ambiguous link?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.32.10 (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I did what was asked. Is that what you mean? —EncMstr (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Update to the Skidmore/Old Town Historic District in Portland

From [8]

Skidmore/Old Town Historic District, Portland, Oregon

This nomination provides for a more complete and updated survey and identification of all of the resources within the boundary of this historic district. Originally designated a National Historic Landmark in 1977, this 20-block commercial district marks the site where Portland began and where it first flourished. Buildings, dating mostly from the mid-to-late 19th century, represent a variety of Victorian-era architectural styles. Many feature cast-iron fronts, constituting one of the most impressive collections of this particular building type on the West Coast. This updated nomination also documents the district’s significance for its historical associations with the early development and economic growth of the Pacific Northwest’s most important urban center of the last half of the 19th century. Portland’s success during this period can be ascribed to its pioneer merchant-entrepreneurs, speculating and capitalizing on the city’s strategic location at the head of navigation on the Willamette River and its connection to the greater Columbia River system. From this location, Portland grew from a tree stump-strewn clearing to the cultural, financial, trade, and transportation hub of the region, second only to San Francisco as the “metropolis” of the Far West.

Image removal

After welcoming our newest member, I thought it might be advisable to remove the image from {{WikiProject Oregon Welcome}}. One it looks a little awkward, and two the image is often already on the user's page due to the invitation. Thoughts? Aboutmovies (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks fine and should remain. It makes the welcome look extra friendly and differentiates it from others. Cirt (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If they were invited it's slightly redundant, and maybe the big gold dude could be incorporated somehow. But if they were not invited, it's awesome. —EncMstr (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Project article on AfD

If anyone is interested you may want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pier 126 Heliport. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of these also get listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oregon. Katr67 (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Bill Kennemer

I'm embarrassed that I may have jumped the gun in having this article deleted, because when I looked at the voters' pamphlet he was in there and it turns out he was a state senator for nearly ten years. He's currently running as a state rep in District 39 (replacing the retiring Wayne Scott), which may or not be notable by itself, but the senator bit is certainly notable. He's also currently a Clackamas County commissioner, which isn't necessarily notable, and the deleted version of the article was {{likeresume}} and likely {{COI}}, which is what I based my proposed deletion on. Obviously no one cared that much as the prod went uncontested, so I wouldn't argue for the restoration of the current article, but restoring it to a decent stub might not be a bad idea if someone is interested. For when we eventually have legislative sessions 1-72 (minus 35) finished. ;) Katr67 (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought something looked odd about that PROD, but I couldn't remember what it was he was known for. I think the deletion was fine, someday we will get around to writing a good article about him. Heh, thanks for noticing them leg. session articles :) Oh, also by the way thanks for the template help on John Kitzhaber. -Pete (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I saw lots of signs for Kennemer this weekend while punkin-patching. I kept thinking that I knew that name sounded familiar. Anyway, if he wins, I'll be sure to have him on my post-election article bonanza list. I hope that's the COTW that week (hint hint). --Esprqii (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Willamette University haiku

University
Claims to be oldest in "West"
Whose definition?

See Talk:Willamette University for more info. Katr67 (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The talk page bar has now officially been raised. Good work! -Pete (talk)

PacNW Coast subproject of WP:NorthAmNative

Hi; seemed appropriate to drop notice of this discussion here. Please weigh in as seen fit.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

pdx doctor interviewed by wikinews

A doctor of psychiatry here in portland famous for his work on internet addiction just got interviewed by wikinews. I think it might interesting to try and invite him to Wiki Wednesday to speak, ask him if he's ever encountered any wiki addicts, maybe draw in a crowd from the local tech community. It's a relevant subject in my mind. (I've put this on the mailing list too). Steven Walling (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

College radio stations

A member of your wikiproject recently recreated Category:College radio stations in Oregon, despite a prior CFD discussion, with the rationale that because WikiProject Oregon wants the category to exist, that somehow takes precedence over the fact that WikiProject Radio Stations doesn't favour subdividing radio format categories by state. Somehow, in his reasoning, WPRS opposing the category is "a wikiproject controlling categories", but WPO favouring it somehow isn't.

I just wanted to clarify that if you guys really do want this category to exist, a discussion between the two WikiProjects needs to take place first. Wikiprojects don't control categories, true — but that goes both ways, and applies to WPO recreating the category just as much as it does to current WPRS practice. Consensus can always change, so it's always acceptable to start a new discussion to revisit the issue, but please don't simply override a prior CFD result until a new consensus has been established. There are valid processes to revisit a CFD result if you disagree with it, but simply ignoring it isn't one of them. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the edit summary in question was: "start again, don't recall a CFD on this and WikiProject Oregon does break these down like this (not to mention WikiProjects do not control categories)"

Speaking for myself, I don't read that as an assertion that "our" wikiproject gets to "control" things. It just seems like a reasonable invocatoin of the bold/revert/discuss process. Which is exactly what we're doing now, except that accusations about what a WikiProject might be asserting are irrelevant and unhelpful.

Yes, I would like to see a new discussion on this, involving members of both wikiprojects. -Pete (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, to me the phrase "WikiProject Oregon does break these down like this" reads as "what we want overrides what other wikiprojects want", and the part about "don't recall a CFD on this" comes across as a "what I say goes" sort of order. WPRS has no objection to participating in constructive discussion when there's a conflict between two different projects on an issue like this, but the person who first brought this to WPRS' attention also read the edit summary as an overly aggressive violation of WP:CIVIL. But going forward, that's really neither here nor there, I suppose.

At any rate, I'll open a discussion at Category talk:College radio stations in Oregon so that there's a place for discussion. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec; here since that page doesn't exist yet) I would expect that Category:College radio stations (which is soft redirected to Category:Campus, college, student and university radio stations) best to have subcategories for each state under category:College radio stations in the United States and category:High school radio stations in the United States, given the number of these stations I know of, and how I would think most readers would expect to find them associated. —EncMstr (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Bearcat, since the cat was originally deleted by given a rationale as per the WPRS, would that be overriding another project to begin with without a discussion between WikiProjects? Or was someone at WP:ORE notified about the proposed deletion? Aboutmovies (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion opened at Category talk:College radio stations in Oregon. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I left my thoughts on the supposed "conflict" at the category talk page. Katr67 (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the discussion on the review page, the deletion was overturned on a technical measure and Category:College radio stations in Oregon has been relisted properly at CfD so this discussion may take place in the proper venue and per policy. - Dravecky (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ladd Carriage House returned!

The Ladd Carriage House returned today. I have some printed flyers (including a 2-page history) from the Friends of LCH, as well as a couple hundred pictures. I'll go through the pictures and choose the best one(s), and I will either extrapolate data from the flyers or scan it so someone else can do so. Also note the building is for sale/lease. Tedder (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver

Two important points. First, it's called the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area more commonly in the press and books, not just Portland metropolitan area. Thus, this category needs a rename. See my comment on the category talk. Second, Vancouver is not a suburb of Portland, so don't put it in that category. A suburb is defined as "an outlying residential district of a city", and the 4th largest city in an entirely different state which is in fact older than Portland is not a suburb. Steven Walling (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Suburb, not I don't think Vancouver is either, but size ranking, being a city, being in in another state, and age have nothing to do with it. Vancouver is a close call judging by the traffic numbers of people from Vancouver that commute to Portland (Most suburbs in the United States are commuter towns with a prevalence of detached[1] single-family homes.[2]) For instance Forest Grove is a suburb, but it is an older community than Portland. Suburb=sub urban; which means not rural, but also not urban. That is, lower population densities than an urban area, but more density than rural areas. 20 years ago there is no question Vancouver is a suburb (same with say Hillsboro and Beaverton), but as Vancouver has evolved and grown more dense and added more jobs, it no longer fits the definition of suburb. But that is going off the classic definition of suburb. But, Vancouver, Hillsboro, Beaverton, Gresham and about every city/community in the 7? county metro area will have sources calling them suburbs.

As to a cat rename, sorry but I disagree. Portland-Van = 13,200 ghits, Portland metro = 316,000 ghits. So its not even close. And officially its "Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area" at least for now until the Census Bureau decides on another change. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a quibble, but I re-did your google with "anything but 'Portland, Maine'" in advanced search and it came out at 301,000. I don't know what other Portlands there are that have metropolitan areas/named metros, but there might be others, including namesake in England ... or I guess I'm thinking of Portsmouth. For comparison what's the commuter comparison between Seattle, Tacoma, Everett et al. i.e .the Tri-County Area, which I guess isn't htes ame thing as the Seattle Metro, if there is such a thing. The Greater Vancouver (BC) Regional District was recently renamed "Metro Vancouver"; I'm not sure if that's been adapted over to Category:Metro Vancouver but just a heads-up (interesting, it's not...I'll have to check at WP:Vanc as to why). As an outsider who's only passed through or hung out for a few weeks or days sometimes, it's always seemed like a single metropolitan area; but I guess like Abbotsfoird it's that one extra step away to not be part of the "Metro". but it's a common media market, interregional business/industrial infrastructure - or not? All perhaps not relevant to the naming issue directly, but soncideerations in detemrinig if it should be a category, i.e. spannign the Columbia; aren't there other two-city examples in teh US; Kansas City maybe?Skookum1 (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A Google test? That's hardly a reliable source, and you know as well as I that it's not an acceptable measuring stick for renames or anything. The rename is about more than historical frequency of use (something which Google wouldn't well represent, being an Internet search engine), it's about accuracy. There are many cities included in the category, like Amboy WA, which are in no way suburbs of Portland. Amboy is a rural outlier of Vancouver. Steven Walling (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Google test is good neutral indicator that can be used for initial assessment. And, what your memory/blind assertion/OR is a better indicator? I at least provided an objective evaluation via an internet search, and an official designation. As to Amboy and the entire cat, the cat does not mean they are a suburb, it means they are in the Census designated metro area, which includes 7 or so counties (see Portland metropolitan area for which ones it is). The suburb cat someone started, well that's been nominated for deletion. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's another test for you: The ""portland-vancouver metropolitan area" searched in Lexis-Nexus's database for all major news gets 325 hits. "portland metropolitan area" gets more than 3000 (don't know how many exactly as it maxes out at that number and requires you to edit your search). A Lexis or Westlaw search such as this is acceptable in court cases and legal briefs and legal journals. What's more, is it is easier to do that search comparison than for me to start doing citations for all 325 entries for one and the 3000+ for the other. And by the way we can use search engine tests for naming purposes. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is the first bolded redirect on Portland metropolitan area "portland-vandcouver" then, and it just says "also called" Portland metro area? Anyway, If a name change is unacceptable to you, I'll remove those parts of rural Clark, Cowlitz and Skamania counties which are clearly not in the Portland metro area. Tiny rural census designated places in WA and cities halfway in to the Columbia Gorge are not part of any metropolitan center.Steven Walling (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your point with the first bolded redirect part. I'm not saying there should not be a redirect, as the term is used. But it should not be the title for the article as covered by the Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you've begun removing those. I won't dispute many of them, but others are clearly in the suburbs of Vancouver, meaning they are probably still part of the suburbs of Portland- for instance, Battle Ground, Brush Prairie, Five Corners, Mill Plain, Orchards. It's unfortuante that you chose to begin a discussion, saw opinions against yours, but decided to go ahead and turn this into a pet project. Tedder (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring your less than congenial comments, rural suburbs of Vancouver, some of which are more than an hour's drive from Portland, are not in any metropolitan center, much less the sphere of Portland. I know, I've been there. Steven Walling (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Every little burg, community, house in Clark, Cowlitz and Skamania counties is in the Portland MSA. Same with Yamhill county. I may not agree either, but, as I said, see the metro page for the details of what is officially in/out per the census designation, which includes a source you can click on to see this. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ladd Tower, Ladd Carriage House

I created a page for the Ladd Tower. It needs more content- one source would be the permit documentation. I also modified the Ladd Carriage House page, adding a photo and some more text. Tedder (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons image needs link fixed

A while back, the Corps of Engineers changed their Web site and now the "Source" links on Image:USACE Fremont Bridge Portland.jpg no longer work. This is the correct link to the description page for that image. Note that, considering that this is a rather large database of free images, there may be many other images whose links are now broken. Jason McHuff (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

COTW notification standardization

I appreciate the variation you guys infuse in your COTW notifications on our talk pages, but I think the title should be consistent and straightforward. It's always been something that has bothered me about these notifications (I've finally got around to complaining after more than a year): the titles are random and hard to recognize at a glance. Usually "COTW" is somewhere in the title, but even that is missing sometimes. It really makes it hard to tell what it is at a glance, and I suppose it doesn't help that I don't usually care for the particular type of humor used.

Don't get me wrong, if you want to infuse your notifications with variation and humor to keep it interesting, by all means keep doing that in the actual body of the notification, just not in the title. If I'm just being a spoilsport and other people like the titles, that's fine. But I miss the short time when the titles used to be the dull but consistent "WPOR Collaboration of the Week". (I've archived all the notifications if anyone is curious: 2007, 2008) -kotra (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I like them. But as far as "us guys", it is Aboutmovies who writes and sends them, and if you're a member of WP:ORE, you are "you guys" too you know. Feel free to opt out of the messages. I appreciate how AM is trying to keep things fresh. Personally I would end up not reading notices with a generic title. I think the fact that he keeps it interesting (for us, for himself) is one of the reasons why the COTW hasn't died like so may other good ideas on the wiki. YMMV Katr67 (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I knew Aboutmovies delivered them, though I wasn't sure if he or she wrote them, so I used a generic "you guys" since I'm not particularly active on this wikiproject. Didn't come across the right way, though.

In any case, you're probably right that the fluctuating titles get more people reading them, but I don't think we need that. If it's not interesting enough to read on its own merit without confusingly changing the title every week (like to the vague title "Red red links make me feel so fine..."), then people can unsubscribe, as you mentioned. But for me, it would just be nice to have a more standard and consistent title. Maybe something like "WPOR Collaboration of the week: Wayne Morse, Oregon House of Representatives" so that it could still be updated each week. But I'm still interested in what articles are being worked on, so I don't really want to opt out either way. It's just a minor annoyance for me how it is right now, and I was wondering if anyone else felt the same way. -kotra (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

He's a he. I'm not. Katr67 (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. To be clear though, I meant "you guys" as gender-neutral. -kotra (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I like them too, just the way they are. The variation and unpredictability indicates that a thinking, living being created them with care. I read all incoming talk page messages, so it doesn't really matter if it's completely obtuse or not: I'm going to figure out its meaning—if it has one.... —EncMstr (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As the author, I'll weigh in a bit, but I'll go with whatever the project decides on. The variation in heading started originally due to a bug. Back when the COTW started if there were multiple talk page entries with the same name, the TOC would not work properly (AFAIK the bug has been fixed). I then started more variety due to a speed issue whereby the autofill comes in handy, as I do not have AWB. You may notice the header starting with less and less used characters such as Z, Q, K, etc. and other high value Scrabble pieces. This makes it easy to type a letter or two, the down arrow and two quick ENTERS after already pasting the message. And I as would prefer not to clear out the saved autofills, the header gets more and more varied, though I have started to delete individual autofil entries I am unlikely to need again. That's the reasoning behind the headers. The humor in the other parts is meant as a way to hopefully infuse some humor to readers in what is an otherwise often thankless tasks of editing on Wikipedia. A small ray of sunshine if you will for all who battle daily against the trolls, vandals, POV pushers, etc. that come to Wikipedia for their own purposes, and not to build the web. Also, Kotra, if you like you can add the {{WikiProject Oregon COTW}} to your talk or user page to have the current COTW articles displayed in addition to opting out, this way you avoid the messages but still know what is going on (or you could even add this to your watch list as that is the master template that gets updated). Aboutmovies (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

AM, you've done a great job being funny for the most part, it's just not fair to put it all on you. Really, we need to dedicate the next COTW to stockpiling humorous COTW notifications. They should draw from Oregon culture, history, and have lots of secret Oregon in-jokes, most of which I won't even get since I wasn't born here. In fact, that should be the standard. So I regret that I must opt out of that particular week. Please know that while I will be laughing at future COTW notifications on the outside, I'll be crying on the inside because I don't get it. --Esprqii (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I guess I'm alone on this one, and it's not a big deal, so I suppose there's no need to change. As for your suggestion, I don't have a problem most of the notification, just the title. So I don't think I'll opt out, but thanks for the option. And thanks for your work and dedication. As Katr mentioned, WPOR's weekly notifications have lasted longer than most, mostly thanks to you. Keep it up! -kotra (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

AM, thanks for the insight into the life of a COTW manager…I never knew! I enjoy the quirkiness, for sure. But above all, I love the consistency! There have been a number of "dead weeks" where nobody has done much…a lesser COTW guy would have gotten discouraged and let the program die off. But because of your diligence, there's always something to work on when we DO have a lot of people looking for stuff to do. -Pete (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Malcolm F. Marsh

Why is the banner doing weird broken stuff on this talkpg? Cirt (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The WPBIO tag's listas parameter broke it somehow. I rearranged them and, though the warning remains, everything else looks fine now. —EncMstr (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Must have been a change to the template -- there's a problem on Talk:Wayne Morse, too. -Pete (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it changed it everywhere the BIO template was in use with the listas parameter and the WPORE template was in use. I didn't find it anywhere else. For now I hid the "listas" part in the WPORE template until someone can figure out what changed, as the history to the BIO template says it hasn't been changed since Oct. 7. It may have been a software update per this. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Byron v. Rajneesh Foundation International

New article. It's my 5th Oregon-related Did you know. Next up I have been mulling over doing some research for the United States Attorney, Charles H. Turner (attorney). Aboutmovies (talk · contribs) and I were debating which disambiguation to use for the title, as Charles H. Turner already exists, whether to go with Charles H. Turner (attorney) or Charles H. Turner (Oregon attorney)... or something else perhaps. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)