Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Collaboration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Oregon[edit]

Hey, I noticed the list is rather heavy on airports. I have nothing against airports, but I'm thinking I have a few dozen small towns that could use illustrations as well. I don't routinely add the {{reqphoto}} template to things I've written unless they're unusual, like Nimrod. So should we routinely request photos on most articles we write? What's the consensus? I'd like to add some from my list to the cat, but I don't want to flood it or abuse the privilege. But if people are going to be prowling about in nice weather this week with cameras, I'd love to give people the reminder if they happen to be passing through Ashwood or wherever.

Related tangent: It might be nice to have a place where people mention in the membership section or somewhere what region in which they live or travel (if they're comfortable with that), so we know what areas of the state are being covered. I think the Portland/Salem/Eugene area is saturated, then we have Columbia County, Southeastern Oregon and Medford (if that person is still around), but nobody in Bend or Corvallis anymore (as far as I can tell). Anyway, if that's a good idea and we make a place to put it, maybe it could be mentioned in the next collaboration update... Katr67 19:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add the request to any article that doesn't have one. I often come accross an article w/o a request with no pics that I could have taken care of, but didn't know the article had no photos. As to part 2, I'm fine giving my location (it's on my user page), but I don't know if everyone else is OK with giving that info. I think adding it is no problem as I've seen similar info (area of focus) on other membership lists. Should we also make sub-cats for the pic requests too (photo request in NW/SW/SE/NE Oregon)? If people are fine with the info, I'll mention it in the COTW update. Aboutmovies 20:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll tag a few then. It's easy enough to figure out that I live in a city in Marion County, though I don't state it explicitly. I'd be OK with saying my location is in Marion County and that sometimes I can get images in Lane, Polk, and Yamhill counties. If you want to set up subcats for the pics, I think it would definitely help focus our picture-taking efforts, maybe use the regions in the {{Oregon}} template and then the good ol' "Old Dead Guys" cat. Katr67 22:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where I am is hardly a secret---in Central Columbia County--Katr67 aludes to that---but I also wander around the state and usually pack a camera, thus photos of mine pop up from all over the state from time to time. I've wondered about the airport photos. for example there is a request for a photo of the Christmas Valley Airport. I've been there with a camera, but didn't take a photo. I don't fly so getting a photo of the runway is a problem, and to take a picture of the facilities-----I'm acutally thingking about it. The 'facilities' include a small building about the size of a phone booth which I believe houses the control equipment for the runway lights, and beside it is a portapotty. The airplane stake down site is nearby, and if I go by there when the lighting is right, I've sort of thought that the 'right photo' for the airport is a photo of the portapotty with an airplane in the background, and some caption about the 'facilities' at the Christmas Valley airport. Some might think it was tastless, but I suspect the people who fly to the airport likely regard those facilities as among the most important.
As far as photos go, my view is that not everyone reads well, and photos are a great communication medium, and I sort of think that just about every page could be benefitted by an appropriate photo, particularly if the article relates to some place or physical thing.Rvannatta 19:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At a small airport like Christmas Valley, it is very unlikely to be a problem for you to walk out next to the runway (which doubles as a taxiway) and take a few photos. The satellite photo doesn't appear to show any fences (except perhaps where I positioned the center of the image). Even obeying the fence, you should still be able to take a decent photo from near an end. The portapotty would be appreciated by pilots, but might not be appreciated by the public at large. —EncMstr 20:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
certainly access to the runway is not difficult. The tiedown area is beside the main road and has an open gate which gets you into the tie down area. The runway is on the otherside of the tie down area. I'm due to go to Christmas Valley in a couple of weeks so I shall see what I can do.Rvannatta 01:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did as you suggested. Photo added to CV airport page. Wasn't hit by any airplanes while standing in the runway, nor did airport security haul me off.Rvannatta 04:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP stuff[edit]

NRHP articles created since the beginning of the drive, though not necessarily a result of the COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House & Senate folks created[edit]

Suggestions[edit]

  • Two articles per week is a good choice for the current number of active WP Oregonians. Consider increasing it when "narrow" articles are CTOW (example: Thuja plicata), and as the number of participants increases.
  • Minimize pairing of similar COTW articles. For example, the week of October 292007 featured two biographical articles.
  • Likewise, a variety of types of articles from week to week would provide a sense of progress, accomplishment, appeal to different people, and spice things up.
  • Here is my thought for a collaborative effort - According to the Oregon Statistics, we have 29 articles that have an importance of TOP but only are at START class while we have 9 HIGH/STUB and 429 MID/STUB. I would like to see a list of these TOP and MID articles that are START or STUBS and see if a collaborative effort could be done to bring these up to C class or better. C. Williams (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State park tracker[edit]

State park articles created during the week of the COTW drive: Aboutmovies (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper tracker[edit]

Oregon House drive tracker (Nov. '08)[edit]

New stubs:

New articles:

Suggested priorities for this COTW:

And the rest... (we're 2/3 done!)

Copy editor wants to be helpful[edit]

Hi, Project Oregon. I live in St. John's, in North Portland, and am interested in North Portland and its history. I am generally not knowledgeable enough to add chunks, but I'm a good and enthusiastic copy editor. I read the style guide and am working on learning how to use the various templates and tags. Would someone please point me in the direction of project articles that could use a copy editor? Sylvia A (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sylvia, thanks so much for the offer and the interest! First thoughts: (1) There's a "to-do list" near the bottom of Portal:Oregon, which might give you some ideas. (2) If you sign up for WikiProject Oregon, in addition to a warm fuzzy feeling, you'll start getting our "collaboration of the week" notices. And (3) one specific one, because he has some connection to the history of North Portland, I've been wanting to do some work on the E. Henry Wemme article -- it's definitely sub=par, and could use work on a few levels.
Anyway - thanks again, and I hope to see you around. I'll try to think of some other things, too. -Pete (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Governors[edit]

Pick one (other than the GA ones) and go to town making sure it has sections, proper spelling, inline citations and proper references, is fully categorized, and has a picture (all the living ones have one, thus any without would qualify for fair use if you can't find a free image). Plus, as all have infoboxes, make sure any other political offices they held are also included besides the governorship. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration tools for general article drives and for NRHP articles[edit]

I visit to suggest possible use of a couple tools supporting collaboration, namely:

  • use of general Recent Changes tool, applicable for any collaboration that involves multiple articles
  • use of new batch-draft-generator-of-NRHP-articles tool, applicable for any drive involving multiple new NRHP articles

See this Recent Changes to Grand Forks County NRHP articles (last 500 edits or 30 days). That report is supported by this list of articles covered in the given article drive. I've found it surprisingly useful to let me know about other editors deliberately contributing in an article drive, or just randomly arriving, in this Grand Forks example and in other ongoing drives for Connecticut NRHPs and elsewhere. It's encouraging to know about others activity, both on and off your own personal watchlist, while working on an article drive. Where random others enter, you can make specific invitations to collaborate more directly.

See this corresponding set of rough draft NRHP articles. The drafts include material that can be useful in improving many pre-existing articles or in creating new NRHP articles at a level somewhat further advanced than the Elkman NRHP output with which many of you might already be familiar. A quite useful feature is that the draft index and the drafted Talk pages includes useful, customized "Find Sources" links set up for each article topic. And there are other innovations reflected. I'd be happy to support a Wp:Oregon drive on any NRHP list and its indexed articles, if there was interest.

Both tools would be relevant to support a COTW like you did for National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington County, Oregon, a COTW during December 2009. The Recent Changes type report could easily be applied to any other article drive, or to all your recent collaborations as a set. I'll watch here briefly in case there may be any comments or questions, which i would welcome. Or contact me anytime in the future at my own Talk.

Also, congratulations on your very nice Spruce Production Division collaboration! Keep up the good work! --Doncram (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the first suggestion, see the top of many of the WP:ORE pages, such as the WT:ORE talk page, for the blue bar with Recent Talk and Recent Changes. That has changes project-wide and is an effective replacement for personal watchlisting of the 10,000+ Oregon-related articles. I think I'll add the blue bar here too. —EncMstr (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon/Collaboration&oldid=409232143"