Talk:List of Oregon state symbols/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about List of Oregon state symbols. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Order of list
I think it's sorted by year, then by obscurity. In other words, roughly chronological but with the kind of symbols other states have nearer the top. Or it could have been completely random. How should we do it? Straight chrono? Valfontis (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I sorta liked alphabetical. And not a table, I don't think. The California list is nice. (Not just sucking up to Pete.) --Esprqii (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're right (alpha and no table). I checked a couple other states and they're alpha too. But unlike some of those other states, let's continue to skip the bad links, unofficial symbols and bolding. We're No. 1! Valfontis (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Woohoo! --Esprqii (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I actually jumped in here and did a large overhaul on the list coincidentally, not seeing this very recent discussion. Now that the list is divided into Insignia, Flora, Fauna, Geology and Culture, do you think it is best that each section be in chronological order? I certainly would have no problem with that. Also, do you think each column in each section should have a specific width so that the tables are uniform all the way down the page? Right now, the Insignia table looks skewed since it does not contain a picture. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Rather than subtables, I think I would prefer a single, sortable table for ease of use. Then readers could sort by name, type, or description as per their own preferences. Don't see the real advantage of having multiple tables, especially since one of them only has one item. --Esprqii (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that a single sortable table would be much, much better than multiple sections. Adding the category would take up extra space, but this could be overcome a bit by combining other columns ... e.g., the notes on a 2nd line under the year of adoption and the picture directly under the name. YBG (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Rather than subtables, I think I would prefer a single, sortable table for ease of use. Then readers could sort by name, type, or description as per their own preferences. Don't see the real advantage of having multiple tables, especially since one of them only has one item. --Esprqii (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I actually jumped in here and did a large overhaul on the list coincidentally, not seeing this very recent discussion. Now that the list is divided into Insignia, Flora, Fauna, Geology and Culture, do you think it is best that each section be in chronological order? I certainly would have no problem with that. Also, do you think each column in each section should have a specific width so that the tables are uniform all the way down the page? Right now, the Insignia table looks skewed since it does not contain a picture. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Woohoo! --Esprqii (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're right (alpha and no table). I checked a couple other states and they're alpha too. But unlike some of those other states, let's continue to skip the bad links, unofficial symbols and bolding. We're No. 1! Valfontis (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I sorta liked alphabetical. And not a table, I don't think. The California list is nice. (Not just sucking up to Pete.) --Esprqii (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK
I've gone ahead an nommed this at T:TDYK since it's been expanded over 5x in the last 5 days. Feel free to change the hook. Nice work! LittleMountain5 23:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I already nominated it here. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, I feel dumb right now... sorry. :/ LittleMountain5 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't! Not to worry. I did go ahead and add a note on the DYK nomination page pointing out that another fact was nominated previously, just to avoid confusion. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, I feel dumb right now... sorry. :/ LittleMountain5 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Flag and seal?
This source mentions the flag and seal as "official" state designations. Just confirming that these do not need to be added to the list? By the way, Esprqii, this was a nice addition to the list/lead, so thanks for the contribution. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, go ahead and add them. Most of these kind of lists have them, but the previous list when it was split out from Oregon only contained the ones that were ceremonial (i.e. sentimental/not really necessary for the state to function) vs. the seal and flag that officially represent the state government to other governments. You can see that they are also mentioned in the section of ORS that was cited, if that's still in there. Valfontis (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I added the flag. The seal is a bit more complicated. After reading the History section here, should 1859 be the year of adoption since that is when Oregon became a state? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Congrats!
[1] :) LittleMountain5 03:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, and thanks to all those who assisted with the process! --Another Believer (Talk) 05:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Animal to Mammal
Shouldn't the Animal section need to be called Mammal? as Fish and Birds that also have a section are also Animals but not Mammals. In addition, the article that the Animal links to is called Mammals aswell.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Good question, Honor. In this case we would need to go with what the relevant source says (the Oregon Blue Book, in this case), because this is an official designation of the state legislature. The language used in the resolution passed by the legislature is what we should use. (I believe the list of state mammals is linked because there is inconsistency among how various state legislatures have phrased it.) -Pete (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)