User:Valfontis/Archive 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 → Archive 30

Shakespear (disambiguation)

(context--see mouseover text)

Hi, Thanks for your input on the Shakespear disambiguation page. Please see my comments on the talk. I'd be interested in your response. Interesting to note that you knew he'd appeared in xkcd without my contribution referencing xkcd. Seems like you took note of him. Garemoko (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I googled for the bridges. I came up with a few obscure mentions of an obscure government functionary from the 19th century in India, and your addition to this dab page. Looking over the references I found to the man, I took note that he was not notable by Wikipedia standards. A single mention in the mouseover text of a webcomic is not enough to confer notability on someone or something that was previously not notable. It's possible, due to the popularity of xkcd, that he might become a meme someday, but he is currently not notable. Also, we generally don't add redlinks to dab pages unless there are several incoming links from other Wikipedia articles. Please do read up on notability. Just because I was curious about something and tried to Google it doesn't mean it needs to have an entry on Wikipedia. The "xkcd explained" type of websites and forums will probably handle that nicely. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an indiscriminate collection of information, no matter how fun or interesting. If you'd really like to get a second opinion, I would ask somewhere like the Village Pump, as the talk pages of dab pages usually don't get much traffic. I hope this explains. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Willamette River Light bad coords

What makes you say the coordinates were bad? —EncMstr (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. I don't understand what happened before, but your edit is better. —EncMstr (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yup, you got it. It was a copy and paste error. This edit added a second, different set of coords which overrode the first set of coords and placed the light down by the Umpqua! I just acquired one of these (thriftstore, 6 bucks, go me) and was revisiting all the lighthouse articles. Valfontis (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up (Elmer Feig)

In the fear that mine is even more woefully less adequate than yours, I know what you mean about the Ritz book. It is a good starting point, however. Ritz mentions an article I want to find at the library: Spencer, "The Legacy of Elmer Feig" in the February, 1987, Northwest Examiner. Although I have not met Ed Teague, I have relied on his work and think of him as a bright light in the quest for truth. I wonder what he thinks about Portland's late-20s building boom, Feig-wise. Visitor7 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't actually met Mr. Teague, just talked a bit via e-mail, I forgot who contacted whom, but you could e-mail him, I bet you'd get a reply. He's also very responsive to corrections submitted to the "Boundless"/Building Oregon UO architecture archives. Valfontis (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Teague sent a response to my email, and I have removed the section on controversy where the Oregonian was the only source for a series of problems Feig was having with the city establishment. I think the article is improved without the controversy section, at least until someone writes a Feig book and pieces the clues together. Visitor7 (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. Ed's a great resource. Valfontis (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I know I am persistently remiss in this. Thanks for the reminder.I'll try and stick to it. All the best Notafly (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

fact (cn) tags...

Context: Benjamin Wistar Morris (architect)

...should really only be used if you're uncertain that the purported fact is true or not, not when you're reasonable sure the fact is true but a citation hasn't been provided. Doing it any other way would have most of Wikipedia tagged. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I think much of it should be (tagged)! Anyway, since that article was fully cited when I started it, I'd prefer it stay that way. Since I'm a regular, I found the word "misuse" a bit..odd. No harm done. But the circumstances of the addition (massive addition of uncited National Academy info by an unregistered user) also made me suspicious. I fixed it. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Dick Magruder and Roger Martin

  • Valfontis: Some time ago, you said you had copies of Oregon Voter magazine which including Who's Who in the 19XX Oregon Legislature editions for 1959-1973. Am finishing articles on Dick Magruder and Roger Martin who were both in House of Rep's during latter part of that period. Have enough info for 2 good articles, but am missing one thing...place of birth for both. Can document that Martin was born in Oregon, but not sure where...probably Portland or Lake Oswego. Am pretty sure Magruder was also born in Oregon...probably in Clatskanie or nearby town with hospital (St Helens perhaps), but haven’t found source to confirm that. Short bio probably won’t have that info for either, but worth checking. Also, wouldn’t mind checking your source for stray facts I missed. If you still have info, can you pass along notes from 1971 session at you conveyance...thanks! If you don't have this info any more, thanks anyway...appreciate your time!--Orygun (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought these were in a box but I just looked on the shelf and the 1971 issue was on top. I'll take a look. Valfontis (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I typed a couple of these out verbatim for Aboutmovies. I'm willing to do it again but can you check with him and make sure they weren't Magruder and Martin. I'm pretty sure I did Martin. Valfontis (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I've joined the 20th Century and hooked up this scanner someone gave me! Send me an e-mail and I'll send you scans. Valfontis (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That would be great! My e-mail is *redacted*. Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Publisher

Editor and publisher of the 12-15-1970 issue was A.M. Tewksbury. Albert Mackey Tewksbury died in 1974 per this brief obit in the Bulletin. Previous editors were C.C. Chapman (editor 1915-1955) (Charles Clarence, state rep 1939, b. 1876 d. 1956) and Walter W.R. May (editor 1955-1965). I think this is something of a FUTON bias issue--a quick search reveals very little on Tewksbury. He was apparently buried in Pennsylvania. Oh and there was some hanky panky in regards to a timber-industry publication, from what looks like a related company. Valfontis (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Oregon Culinary Institute

Thanks for the feedback, Valfontis. I may have mentioned I added additional references, and stripped down ANY language so as not to appear flattering. This is merely informational, and was approved initially. Also, via chat, I was informed I need to add references, which I did. Please advise if it needs even more. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LovemyOregonducks (talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to fix this and I'm pretty biased against COI editors, but see the article's talk page. Also please read the bold, red, instructions above about how to sign your posts, among other things. You will get a lot further around here if you learn some basic Wikipedia skills. Are you perhaps an intern? Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Cucumber, West Virginia

I have never heard of a cucumber tree, nor do I believe such a thing exists, any more than a tomato tree or a lettuce tree. The article on cucumbers indicates they grow on "a creeping vine" or a trellis. Quis separabit? 21:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you click through the cucumber tree link? Valfontis (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes. This is the edit I was making when I hit the edit conflict:

I never heard of a cucumber tree, nor did I believe such a thing exists. The article on cucumbers indicates they grow on "a creeping vine" or a trellis, however I did check belatedly your cucumber tree wikilink and I see your point. Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit? 21:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Beaver Motorcoach Corporation

  • Did some serious repair work on Beaver Motorcoach Corporation article, created by new editor Cybertrain. As you may recall, article had format, documentation, and plagiarism problems (see talk page). May want to take a look at it now to see if either of the banners can be removed.--Orygun (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I saw you working on it, thank you. I think they probably can be removed. Did you fix the plagiarism issue? Valfontis (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK

Margaret Jewett Smith Bailey at DYK is giving me some problems. The article seems good but very similar to its sources, but we can fix that. However the Grains is said to be part auto-biography part novel ... and the article uses that as a source. Her version of events differs from the official? version. I feel that we need to make this apparent. Do you agree? Victuallers (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I already rewrote and added to it quite a bit. Did you check? I'm using the introduction of the 1986 edition as a source. The editors are reliable sources, I think. Is that what you mean? Or do you need me to quote the intro about how reality and her narrative are different? It does address that. (It says her version of the story is very close to the truth.) Although I hate the construction, "according to", I could say "according to the editors of the 1986 edition...". The Grains proper starts with a preface on page 25. Valfontis (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
No I didnt check. The reviewer at DYK did. I'm not sure its made clear that you are quoting the editors rather than the book. Her version may be close but it differs a lot from O-encyclopedia which is your more reliable source I would have thought. Not used to having a complex edit reverted. Do feel free to go on without me. THe major problem is the close paraphrasing which I didnt really have time to help with. I'll leave it to you. Victuallers (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Re: edit warring. The quibble at DYK was with a close paraphrase of my initial source, the Oregon Encyclopedia, and I agreed. I rewrote quite a bit of the original wording using a different source--the intro to the 1986 edition, of which I have a copy--which expanded on the brief summary provided on OE. I liked my wording better and another paraphrase was unnecessary. If I could find a link to the full text of the 1986 edition I would provide it, but there isn't one. I agree that the original article was a close paraphrase. I swear on my honor as a Wikipedian that the rewrite is not a close paraphrase. Valfontis (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, I can appreciate that you want a DYK. For me, though it would be nice to see some women's history on the front page, but I'm not really motivated by DYKs and such. I'd rather have time to develop this article in the way it deserves using the dozen or so sources I have found. I can take care of the close paraphrasing of the bare-bones summary given at OE and that should take care of your DYK. If you need proof the new sources are not closely paraphrased I can send you or the DYK reviewer scans. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Pine Tavern

Valfontis: I removed the first paragraph in the Menu section of the Pine Tavern article as you suggested. I left the second paragraph which talks about using local products. I think that info is important to ties the restaurant to other Wiki-projects interests (e.g. Wiki-food and Wiki-agricultural perhaps). I also removed a sentence and a Bend Bulletin quote from the Landmark section since it may have sounded like guidebook info. In any case, I hope these changes are enough to clear the advertising tag…which I did after making the changes. Feel free to put it back if this isn’t enough.--Orygun (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look, I wasn't too concerned about it really. It was more to satisfy this person and their unnecessarily snarky edit summary. I know your work and know you're no "shill". Hopefully now we can all have a constructive conversation about it. And I agree about the local products. Valfontis (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Valfontis - Thanks for the copyedit, I appreciate it. I ended up putting Naomi's article up late at night overly-tired when I probably should've waited until the next day to do so. I'll go back over my last half dozen recent articles to make sure I didn't make similar silly errors. I may change the capitalization of some of the titles of her positions at some point back to how I previously had them after I doublecheck them against her CV again; schools tend to differ in how they handle capitalization of academic appointments - some positions (like director) are pretty much always capitalized and whether or not professorships are capitalized depends on the school. (Some schools look at it as "John Smith is a professor of philosophy at XYZ School," and some as "John Smith is Professor of Philosophy at XYZ School." Pretty much difference of a job versus a formal title.) Just as a small note, I posted this before I had noticed you'd podsted on Zack's talk page. Let's keep the discussion mostly there, but thanks again.) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yep. I call this Capitals of Great Metaphorical Significance. Basically full titles are capitalized and descriptions are not. Thus the "University of Oregon" but not "the University says, blah blah blah". "She was promoted to Professor of Philosophy" vs. "She is a professor of philosophy." Universities and Other Entities tend to overuse capitalization; I think it trickles down into the rest of Academia. Here is a Decent Style Guide. I may have messed up a few, but I tend to err towards less capitalization. Unless I am Being Facetious. Valfontis (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 Oso mudslide comments

This situation does appear to be an edit war. Factual information is being replaced with sensationalized and unsubstantiated information. I am not sure the process of editing so that the sensationalized information is minimized and the factual, verified information sticks. If you have advice, I would appreciate it. Right now, in this devastating Oso mudslide, there are many victims who perished, an entire community is buried under mud, and those whom wish to pursue their own agendas are proffering from correlative, not causal information. Would you please give me advice on how to make edits that are substantiated? Trying to reconcile this situation with the other editors appears futile. thank you. Forestrystudent (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you were the one edit warring, although several others working on that article are also doing so regarding different aspects of it. To start with, you need to start discussing the situation on the article's talk page. Instead you have reverted others' edits and/or blanked information without discussion or even an edit summary, which is not how we do things here. So start with the talk page, where your contributions have already been noted. Also click through the blue links on the welcome template on your talk page and skim them so you have a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Good luck. Valfontis (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record...

If anyone is looking at my contribs, I hereby slap myself with a fresh Chinook salmon for adding 300 extra edits to my count because I can't spell "wiki" correctly. But hey, I found 300 new Oregon categories. Valfontis (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh huh. Someone is dying to become a preplenuary grognatatus maximus before his or her time. --Esprqii (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Nah, when I grow up, I want to be an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. Valfontis (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

I've appreciated your involvement with the 2014 Oso mudslide article. I have some questions that are more "how-to" than article-related, so I'm posting it here instead of there. The talk page is getting long and unwieldy again. I'd like to archive some of it, but:

  1. Is seven days long enough to wait before archiving a section?
  2. Is it all right to archive sections out of the order they appear on the page?
  3. Does one need to be an admin to archive article talk pages?

I made a list of sections that have been dormant for at least seven days, and I'll go ahead with the job if your answers to the questions are positive. Thanks! - Gorthian (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the appreciation. For the basics of archiving, see WP:TP and WP:ARCHIVE, which I admit I haven't looked at in a while, and although I don't think I've ever been questioned about how I go about archiving, take my comments with a grain of salt and double check what that page says. I've been archiving (and reformatting!) talk pages for a long time before I was an admin, it is a much-needed thankless task that doesn't often get done correctly, or ever. So no, you don't need to be an admin! For developing articles, I tend to wait a week before archiving. For relatively low-traffic talk pages, I think anything older than a year is fair game. If you have the patience, I would arrange the posts in the archive by the date of the first post in each thread, but I don't think it would be the end of the world if you just "dump" the newly archived posts at the bottom of the page. The main thing to remember, I think, is to not archive anything in way that appears to be shutting down or censoring conversation. I think that whole Steelhead discussion can go away now, yes? I hesitated to archive that until the dust settled but I think it has. I also tend to archive threads that are attracting off-topic chat, no matter how old they are. Thanks for asking. Valfontis (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Oddly enough, those references say pretty much the same thing you did. ;-) Thank you! - Gorthian (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note from Hmains

You reverted a number of (or all) my edits to Oregon places. Please explain why. You edits generally do not match the text of the articles which govern what categories can be used for the articles. In addition, a place cannot both be an incorporated community and a ghost town. A community must by definition have people; a ghost town has no people. Hmains (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That is very black and white thinking. The term is actually somewhat ambiguous. (Although I'm about to use Wikipedia as a reference, the following article is cited.) See Ghost town:
"The term can sometimes refer to cities, towns, and neighborhoods which are still populated, but significantly less so than in years past; for example those affected by high levels of unemployment and dereliction."[1]
And Ghost town#Definition:
"The exact definition of a ghost town varies between individuals, and between cultures. Some writers discount settlements that were abandoned as a result of a natural or human-made disaster, using the term only to describe settlements which were deserted because they were no longer economically viable; T. Lindsey Baker, author of Ghost Towns of Texas, defines a ghost town as "a town for which the reason for being no longer exists".[2] Some believe that any settlement with visible tangible remains should not be called a ghost town[3] others say, conversely, that a ghost town should contain the tangible remains of buildings.(Thomsen, Clint. "Ghost Towns: Lost Cities of the Old West") Whether or not the settlement must be completely deserted, or may contain a small population, is also a matter for debate. Generally, though, the term is used in a looser sense, encompassing any and all of these definitions. The American author Lambert Florin's preferred definition of a ghost town was simply 'a shadowy semblance of a former self'.[4]"
A place can be classed as a "populated place" by the USGS (possibly erroneously--GNIS is not perfect), and the townsite still be largely (although not completely) abandoned. I have endeavored to keep these articles true to the boom/bust definition. Some may be subject to debate, but the term "ghost town" should have a citation in each article, it is not just my opinion. The category scheme should be an aid to navigation for these types of places. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I work on categories and minor items in articles. Whatever is in the article content at the time of my work is what I use. So first: If an article (Antelope, Oregon says a place is a city and does not mention it ever being a ghost town, then it goes into city categories not ghost town categories. Your revert of my edit put such a city back into a ghost town category. You were simply reverting everything I did to Oregon articles or inserting your opinion when no facts (cited or otherwise) were present. Similar situation regarding other of your reverts. Hmains (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I feel the original versions were more accurate so I reverted. I don't have time to do the requisite research and writing right now. The Antelope article is long on Rajneeshees and short on ghost town history. Here are a couple examples of how it is a ghost town [5] [6], obtained within the first few Google hits. Ghosttowns.com is not a reliable source, nor is the photography site but the book by Henry Chenowith that is cited (he didn't add the content from what I understand) is a good starting point although it is old. I get it out from the library once in a while. When I have time to do the research I try to back up any "ghost town" claims with multiple sources. I'll get around to fixing it eventually. There is in fact even a photo of an abandoned building in the infobox, but of course that is original research. I note that Finetooth, who is a better editor than me, has worked extensively on this article. You might ask him for his opinion. Good for you for insisting on sources. So fair enough, but I have to insist that "populated place" or "city" and "ghost town", are not mutually exclusive. Good luck, Valfontis (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

… for attending the meetup this afternoon. It was a pleasure meeting you. I hope to see you at another Wikipedia event soon! --Another Believer (Talk) 04:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

... also, you might be interested in this newly-created entry. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Nice! I'm sure I have a pic...on my old, inaccessible hard drive. If the light is good this evening I'll try to get a new one. Valfontis (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thanks so much. Do let me know if there are other notable sculptures in Salem. This seems inadequate! I am trying to improve coverage of Sculpture in Oregon as part of the Oregon Arts Project. Needless to say, you are more than welcome to help, if you are interested! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a sort of stupid temporary(?) "sculpture garden" next to convention center that has works by notable artists. Critique can be found here, I may or may not be affiliated with the bloggers but they discuss sculpture quite a bit for a transportation blog. More here. Not a "reliable source" but a place to start anyway. Salem isn't the artiest place... but.. Earthball! We need an article on Riverfront Park (Salem, Oregon) first though (hint, hint!). There is also a carousel there with hand-carved animals, not sure that counts. Also fairly recently a statue of Tom McCall was installed. I'll think about Salem some more. All the public buildings have 1% for Art type-installations. For Eugene, write about Big Red. Valfontis (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Good list here. Cricket and Fly were written up in the Salem Is online magazine recently, the "Chicken Fountain" (Hatfield fountain) at WU and the doughboy on the grounds of vets' affairs should all have a decent amount of interesting bits to write about. Valfontis (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thanks for the suggestions. I created a short stub for Riverfront Park and added several sculptures to the list of articles to create. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! The same blog has lots of talk about the urban renewal district. See also Finetooth's excellent article on Pringle Creek and Union Street Railroad Bridge. Lots of material for expansion. Now I need to get off my butt and write about Minto-Brown Island Park and also Wallace Marine Park--they are all going to be connected eventually. Some things about So-Lame are actually pretty cool... Valfontis (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I need to come spend a day or weekend and visit the sites. Historic buildings, parks, public art, etc. Have you seen the photography projects we've started in Portland and now Eugene as well? Perhaps we could do one for Salem, too, either a one-off or a series. If you enjoy taking pictures and would be interested, let me know, otherwise User:Visitor7 and I might have to plan one for later this year. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

(belated reply) I love taking photos, I hate uploading them. So I can't really commit to any photo projects. I'd be glad to show you (or anyone else who's interested) around though. There is a pass that gets one in to Deepwood Estate, Bush House, Hallie Ford Art Museum, and Mission Mill, if you're up for all that history. Plus three historic districts. Valfontis (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Margaret Jewett Smith Bailey

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Frank M. Warren, Sr.

slakr\ talk / 16:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hooray! Valfontis (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Woot! --17:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Who was man or woman of mystery? Valfontis (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow, never seen that before! --Esprqii (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
3,000+ views...wow, tilikum love their Titanic trivia! --Esprqii (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Is that the final answer? Just don't call it a bicycle bridge or the taxpayers will come after you. Máh-sie. Valfontis (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Morris H. Whitehouse#Projects

You tagged this section of the article for cleanup without specifying a reason. Please clarify. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a mess. Sigh. Valfontis (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
That vague comment is not much helpful either. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Did you see my note on the article's talk page as per the tag? Your note here triggered said cleanup. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

For future reference: Example and FAQ. Valfontis (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Good job with the sources on Astro Pops. You managed to find a lot of references I didn't. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Awww, thanks! Valfontis (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thatcher Road post office

Anyone is invited to come to the Thatcher Road post office on May 4th, 2014 around 1pm. 5901 Thatcher Road, Forest Grove, OR. You will be able to meet the family (children) that lived there when the building was purchased while still in the post office format and they will be able to describe in detail the remodel of the post office to a residence. I hope to have historical photos of the building there on May 4th, if I do not get them printed out in time, they will be posted on this Wiki site.

There is also another building directly across from 5901 that was the Thatcher Grange Hall. It is now in very poor condition as it was used to house cattle.

The building (5901) is set to be destroyed and May 4th, 2014 will be the last opportunity for anyone to visit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJduyck (talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind invite, it sounds like a great opportunity. I probably won't be able to make it but maybe others who live in the area would like to go. Uploaded photos would be great. I didn't know there was a Grange hall. Do you know if any of the historic info has been published, say by the Washington County Historical Society? Valfontis (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I have not had time to research public archives. My grandparents, Carl & Wilma Mayer, and my mother and her siblings lived in the post office building, which is why I have photos. I used to visit the Thatcher Grange Hall with my grandfather as he tended his cattle across the road before it was in the terrible shape that it is now. My grandparents had a solid history of the area. This is an area where everyone knew/knows everyone. The family welcomes anyone that is interested to come by on May 4th.
MJduyck (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Have you invited anyone from the local paper? If they were to write up and publish the history we would instantly have a reliable source for this information. Not that we don't believe you but we call that original research. Valfontis (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

My family is well established in the Forest Grove community (Duyck). The FG Fire Dept is doing the burn on the building. We will request that the FG News Times be in attendance. We will offer them photos (old and current), for both the post office and the Grange Hall. MJduyck (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

List of newspapers in Oregon

Yeah, I saw from the history that you were the main person on that... I took liberties with a few titles adding the city name, figuring that having 5 papers listed as The Times wasn't as useful as Smalltown Times and Littleville Times etc. I think it works.

A bit weird having the first section alphabetical by city and the second section alphabetical by title, but even that has a little bit of logic if one things about it from the perspective of a person searching for information, i.e., they'd be looking for the paper TODAY published in a given city or the history of a given PAPER published in the past. Anyway, have fun with it, I'm done with that piece for now. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis /// Carrite (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the two different alpha schemes work but as long as it is organized in some fashion, that's all that really matters. And yes, it seems like there is quite a bit of research needed to figure out the correct dabs for newspapers. Like the Forest Grove News-Times is really News-Times (Forest Grove) since it doesn't call itself by the former title. But we can figure that out as we go. By the way, the Catholic Sentinel isn't defunct. Or is a different one? Valfontis (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Not sure on the Catholic Sentinel. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Valfontis/Archive_23&oldid=1083971305"