Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Oregon Encyclopedia list

Warning

I was going through the list and swapping the first 2 columns. Another editor has since broken the list up into sections, which is great, but please know that column headings currently don't match contents until I finish going through the list. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doncram: Thanks for creating sections -- should help reduce edit conflicts! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I finished fleshing out the revised format. Hopefully no one else was affected adversely. I also fixed a few booboos. Hopefully MediaWiki can seemlessly resolve edit conflicts. If not, I apologize in advance. —EncMstr (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

alr template and section headers

{{Alr}}, or Template:ALR, allows for a quick version of article quality measure, without having to manually look up what's on the Talk page. E.g. {{alr|Adams, Oregon}} for Adams, Oregon. Adams High School (Portland, Oregon).

Also I inserted some section headers because i figure it helps editing (and the page is very long and slow to edit), while sorting functionality is not important. The sections could be removed by anyone of course. I only started, don't want to cause edit conflicts. --doncram 01:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doncram: Thanks for creating sections. I am stepping away from the list for a little while, if you care to continue. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry we seemed to be going at cross-purposes a bit. I inserted some more letter section headers but will stop now. --doncram 02:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doncram:: I was curious how {{Alr}} did such magical evaluation. Expecting I was going to learn some new Lua, I was surprised to see in its documentation: it is a measure of article length (not quality). Five red dots is less than 2000 bytes; one yellow, four red is 2000..3999 bytes; five yellow dots is 10,000 to 11,999 bytes, etc. ALR means Article Length Rating. —EncMstr (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

EncMstr, thanks for confirming. I definitely think we should focus on quality, not article length. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Notes

• Carleton Watkins does not have a WikiProject Oregon tag on its talk page -- should we tag as WP:ORE? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Missing Wikipedia articles

Here is a list of articles we should create:

• Beverly Cleary Sculpture Garden, currently redirects to Grant Park, Portland, Oregon

---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose.... Oh, er, is this not a vote? What i oppose is starting another list. What the list needs is a column where you can write notes about development needed in Wikipedia, given what the Oregon Encyclopedia suggests is problem. On the row in the list of OE articles, not in a new list! --doncram 04:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I added a "Notes" column and a couple entries into it. Is it worth splitting the OE coverage column into "OE link included in WP article" vs. "OE link noted at Talk page"? I would think the goal would be to see that the OE link is used either as an inline citation or as an external link in the article. If that isn't easy, then at least mentioning its availability at the Talk page is good. --doncram 17:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doncram: I had filled in some cells of the single 'OE link on article/talk page' column. In some cases, the OE link appeared in the article, and other times on the talk page. Did you check these? If not, I'm inclined to revert to the single column version, not only to avoid having the need to go back and re-check, but because my concern is just making sure the OE link is somehow connected to the WP article, regardless of whether its mentioned on the article or its talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the columns back. I also eliminated the Notes columns, and noted redirects in the quality assessment column. There might be a few instance where notes like red link locations are somewhat helpful, but I think keeping this checklist simpler and not having many blank cells makes for easier viewing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for considering this and commenting. I did not check any, so you're correct that where i split out a separate column the distinction between article vs. Talk has not been verified. And I am happy to defer to you about how you want to manage it, so go ahead and combine back the column there if you like. But there aren't many where there was any indication yet, though, so now would be the time to split, if ever. If it is worth focusing on mining the OE, I sort of figure that the goal should be to develop the corresponding Wikipedia articles, including getting an OE citation into the articles, either as an inline citation or an external link. Noting it on the Talk page would be secondary. Since it takes the same amount of time to note it here either way, why not indicate which it is?

But, hmm, actually, though, two columns is overkill. How about use the one column titled "OE link in article or Talk page" to convey which status, i.e. use "Article" or "Talk page" or "Both" as contents? You can leave "Yes" as ambiguous where it has already been indicated, but be more informative going forward, perhaps? I presume you won't be putting in "Neither" or "No" because it is easy enough to put a mention on the Talk page at least?

Perhaps doing this can be done relatively easily by running AWB on the list of articles, with a copy of this list open at the same time, by the way.

Note that in the notes column for some redlink items, I have noted a few cases now where the topic has been suggested in a "Requested articles" list somewhere (where I gave link to the OE source article in each case). This feels to me like it might be fairly productive. But you have now eliminated tracking of where this has been done? --doncram 20:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doncram: Thanks for replying, and sorry if I stepped on your toes. As for the 'OE link' column, I really just want to make sure the OE URL is displayed either on the article or its talk page. Sure, the longterm goal is to expand all of these articles and incorporate the OE source as an inline citation or external link. But for the purposes of this checklist, I think just posting the OE URL on the talk page ensures the source is available to editors working on articles. I don't really plan on adding "no" to this column, because fixing the problem is as simple as pasting a URL on the talk page. As for noting where red links are requested elsewhere, I'm not sure this is necessary since we already have a goal of creating articles for all appropriate OE topics, regardless of where else they've been requested for creation. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

(ec) About the Notes column, i had made a note about Beverly Cleary Sculpture Garden, currently redirecting to Grant Park, Portland, Oregon, conveying some judgment (not a lot) about merit of creating a separate article. I had also applied judgment and reported on my action of suggesting the topic to one or another Requested articles list, for suffragist Elizabeth Eggert and for artist Curl. These just got lost. I submit that allowing a free-form notes column allows various editors to contribute notes they feel are useful, in a not-excessively-controlled way that is useful for a project worklist page. If it's going to be highly controlled, then it's not a working cooperative worklist.... --doncram 20:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Putting an OE topic onto the "Requested articles" list for an edit-a-thon about Women artists, or whatever, seems to me like a great way to accomplish the goal of getting the article created. ORE editors can cooperate in getting the word out about these to edit-a-thons which need topics and get stuff done. Preventing tracking of this -> over-controlling, IMHO. The goal is not to keep article creation for ORE editors only. --doncram 20:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doncram: How do you feel about using Reference templates to create a Notes section at the bottom of the page, like so, if you feel note-taking is crucial? I am just trying to keep the tables neat and simple. Having the extra notes column for a few random comments doesn't seem necessary, especially for tables where no notes are present. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)