Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia

Anne Cox Chambers

I think, Anne Cox Chambers, is probably good. Sadads (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thanks! bd2412 T 17:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

In your credit lines, could your write out dates - so 05/31/2005 becomes May 5, 2005. This could help reduce ambiguity (since I would read 01/06/2010 as June 1 not January 6) and generally help our international audience. Ta. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that. bd2412 T 17:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking a serious problem. Please audit the damage done thus far.

I had a look at the Lindbergh article and found that the wikilinking has gone overboard. Please observe the WP:OVERLINK, particularly concerning "chain" links (why link "Manahatten" when the Garden City article will contain links to that and New York?), and common-term links such as "author". Every low-value link dilutes the high-value links in the vicinity. The lead was a blue carpet. Tony (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the concerns of the NGE is that we mirror their scheme of links, although I have gone a bit above and beyond that in an effort to demonstrate the utility of being able to link to Wikipedia's wider range of subjects. Are you referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Charles Lindbergh? I haven't worked on the mainspace article yet. bd2412 T 01:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't link to "demonstrate" Wikipedia's variety of articles; we link to terms that significantly aid readers' understanding of the topic. From the top: what in United States (I delinked this) helps the reader understand in the Lindbergh article (that they don't already know)? Please see WP:OVERLINK on linking commonly known geographical terms—this applies to the links to Paris and France (which I removed) as well. I don't see the usefulness of most of those occupation links, although I could live with aviator being linked. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does get significantly better after the lead, although there are still a few questionable links ("gasoline", "fog", and "fame" [!]). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we've got our wires crossed a bit, because none of those things were ever linked in the version of the article I'm working on. You are obviously talking about the mainspace article, while I am talking about the NGE article in project space, which we need to merge into mainspace. bd2412 T 05:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that when articles are imported into WP, they need to follow WP's guidelines and policies. Linking practice at the source is irrelevant, of course. Tony (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you intending to "merge" into the Charles Lindbergh article?

It is unclear to me what is being proposed by "merging" the "Lindbergh in Georgia" NGE article with the long standing Wikipedia mainspace Charles Lindbergh article, but it seems completely unsuitable to do so for the following reasons. First Lindbergh's stated "connections" to the State of Georgia are very minor indeed, to-wit: 1) he soloed there (on his own) when he bought his "Jenny" at Souther Field in Americus during a brief visit in May, 1923, and; 2) he visited the state again on October 11-12, 1927, as part of his 48-state tour with the Spirit of St. Louis in which he visited every one of the other then 47 states as well. (According to the "Lindbergh in Georgia" article, this visit lasted all of 19 hours.) That's it.

The information about his first solo flight is already included in the article in three sentences in the "Early Aviation Career" section with Lindbergh himself as the source (from his 1927 book "WE") as to what he did and how long he was there. (As with everything else in the "Georgia" article, it is unsourced except for a note saying "This article incorporates material written by Jamil S. Zainaldin of the Georgia Humanities Council" with a link to a virtually identical 2005 article which is also completely unsourced, contains considerable POV, and has easily identifiable factual errors such as how long Lindbergh remained in Georgia after he soloed, and the various places he spent his childhood, as examples) This alone would seem to make anything in the "Georgia" article unreliable to be included in Wikipedia, and even it it were suitable to be "merged" the material is already covered accurately in the mainspace article in far greater detail and fully sourced. All of the other material seems to be specifically "Georgia-centric", is equally unsourced, and refers mostly to the types of events that Lindbergh attended in every state that he visited (which was all of them) as he sought to promote aviation and use of the Air Mail during his 1927 tour of the nation.
- The article is self-sourcing; or, to put it more exactly, it has been published by the New Georgia Encyclopedia, a professionally authored encyclopedia, which can be cited as a source. bd2412 T 02:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current Lindbergh article on Wikipedia (which has been developed over a period of eight years now) is already very long, detailed, and mature. Therefore there is really nothing new that I can see in this "Georgia" article — ever if it were accurate, reliable, and properly sourced — relating to Lindbergh's very minor "association" with the State of Georgia (where he never either lived or worked) that would seem significant enough to warrant merging any of it into the existing mainspace article on Charles Lindbergh. Centpacrr (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is nothing usable, then there is nothing usable. Please note, however, that we are free to copy anything from that article over, so if there is even a line of information or a good turn of phrase worth copying in, please have at it. If not, I'll inform the NGE that we won't be using any material from this entry. bd2412 T 02:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have a great deal of original source material on Lindbergh (as well as a significant collection of philatelic Lingerghiana and other Lindbergh related non-philatelic artifacts), and based on years of studying, researching, and writing about this subject I really don't see anything in the "Georgia" piece that would either improve the mainspace article or that I would be comfortable using based on the errors I have already spotted in it. While the "Gerogia-centric" material relating to his visit to Atlanta may be "new", it is no more significant than what could be written about literally hundreds of similar visits that he routinely made to other cities and places in the United States and around the world during his lifetime to promote aviation, Air Mail, and his other interests. As nothing about the Georgia vist stands out above any of the others that would make this especially notable, I would therefore inform the NGE people that the project won't be using anything from this article. Thanks for your understanding. Centpacrr (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just what do we have permission to bring here?

There is a very small chart of articles. Are those the only ones we have permission to bring over here? Or are we able to import wholesale any NGE articles we want? I'm confused. LadyofShalott 02:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was to get that short list fully integrated into the encyclopedia in order to give the NGE people an opportunity to evaluate our ability to incorporate their work. That incorporation never really got off the ground, and we never got to the next step. We have not been authorized to import anything more than that. I can try to reestablish contact with the NGE people, but I'm not sure what I would have to say to them absent the completion of this initial step. bd2412 T 02:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]