Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Louisville/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Let's come together and finish article assessments

Please, everyone, if you have a little time, please squeeze in some article assessments. We still have over 400 left to do. (and almost 800 don't have importance set)

Check out the list of unassessed articles and have at it.

If anyone has any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerning an Ivy Tech campus

My apologies about removing the Louisville-related tag from the Ivy Tech article without discussing it here first. I was not aware that it was a matter of decorum to do so. However, my reasoning for the removal of the tag was that while the Ivy Tech campus is in the Louisville area, it's not actually in Louisville itself. Since the campus isn't actually in the Louisville city limits, I felt that it shouldn't be considered as apart of it. A lot of people from Louisville may drive to the campus and take courses there, but the campus' legal address is still in Sellersburg, Indiana. The same applies to the Indiana University Southeast campus - while it's in the Louisville metropolitan area, it's still technically in New Albany, Indiana. Ibm2431 08:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why IUS is considered as being apart of the metropolitan area. However, should the entire Ivy Tech article be flagged in the same manner? Does Ivy Tech - Sellersburg consider itself as a part of the Louisville metropolitan area? I don't know the answer, thus why I ask. The Kentuckiana Metroversity site makes no mention of it. Why is the Ivy Tech campus in Sellersburg considered as a part of Louisville other than being near it? Ibm2431 08:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Louisville covers the entire Louisville Metropolitan Statistical Area, of which Sellersburg is a part. Anything inside it is subject to coverage by the project. Consider that there's no inherent damage to the article if this project covers it; on the contrary, more project coverage will ultimately mean more attention to the article. Also, this is an encyclopedia, so inclusion is based on the fact that IUS is in the metropolitan area, not whether IUS thinks it should be included. There are probably many entities in the metropolitan area that balk at the idea they are in the Louisville metro area, but the facts are in opposition to them. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Classification of non-Louisville Proper articles under Louisville

I've noticed that Charlestown State Park has been included in Louisville-related articles. Someone recently changed a category on this article from "Louisville parks" to "Parks in Louisville". Both of these are misleading, however, as Charlestown State Park is not even bordering Louisville; it's merely in the greater metropolitan area. Is there a category, for things in the Louisville are, as opposed to incorrectly labeling it as something IN Louisville?

Thanks for your time,
Married to a Charlestown Girl,
CobaltBlueTony 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't currently have a category for that. However, if we were to do that, we would have to do that across the board, and it would make categorization a lot more complicated with respect to Louisville vs. Louisville metro area things. Perhaps we should just put a description in "Parks in Louisville" and other similar categories that the category applies to things in the entire metro area. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't one just edit the project template to say that the project covers things that are in the Louisville metropolitan area as well? I think it'd be the easiest solution. Have the project tag say something to the effect of "This article is within the scope of WikiProject:Louisville, which concerns subjects related to or in Louisville or its metropolitan area". Obviously, the wording could use a bit of work, but I think that it would be the simplest, most effective solution to clear up the confusion. Ibm2431 01:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, now the template says "metropolitan Louisville, Kentucky". The template is already rather thick, so I'd rather not add that many extra words. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali -- let's go to GA!

Who's with me to push this very good article of a great man to GA? It's already a strong B. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested Articles department redesigned for clarity

Check out the newly refurbished Requested Articles department. Hopefully, the page will now appear a lot less cluttered and easier to edit. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali nominated for U.S. Collaboration of the Week

Please vote for Muhammad Ali at Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding Louisville images to the project

I've come to the conclusion recently, after having an image description vandalized, and noticing the sheer volume of Louisville related images that need to be tracked somehow, that we need to add all Louisville-related images (as class=NA) to the project. But to save us the work of doing it manually, I'm going to enlist a bot that has helped us before: WatchlistBot. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Going on partial wikibreak

Hey all, I'm going on a "partial wikibreak" for the forseeable future so I can put more time into other projects. That means I will just do two check-in's a day to review and respond to changes in my watchlist and talk page. I have to be honest and say I won't be able to participate in any major efforts or discussions during this time.

By the way, WikiProject Louisville doesn't have that many initial assessments left to do. Somebody please be a sport and finish it up for the team. I frankly got burned out on it a few days ago. It's one of those boring drudgery tasks, but yet it needs to get done. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

publication

Apparently, a free newspaper called "The Highlander" (mailed to every house in the Highlands) is printing our articles (with attribution). This is of course part of what our copyrights allow for, but at any rate, they are printing one of the neighborhood summaries every month. Irish Hill will be next, and they are going in the order listed in The Highlands (Louisville). Just thought people would like to know, make some quick edits to tidy them up before publication. --W.marsh 00:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds cool. Maybe that will bring new members to the project, or at least more people editing Louisville articles. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

case closure

Regarding Inclusion Advice on archive page:

Inclusion advice

I can't decide whether we should mention the recent murder in Cherokee Triangle in our article on the neighborhood. I have a hard time judging these things. Any thoughts? I'm mentioning it here because discussion on the talk page there would probably be minimal or nonexistant. CJ article here --W.marsh 21:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC) I do not have a strong opinion either way. Unfortunately, the murder will be forgotten by most people in a few days and will only be mentioned again if the shooter is caught and during a trial. On October 12, 2003, Zachary Scarpellini was killed in the 1200 block of Cherokee Road, but even with this recent murder just a block away from the 2003 murder it is hardly mentioned, if mentioned at all. If you decide to include the recent murder, I would consider mentioning the 2003 murder as well. CJ 2003 murder article --Chris24 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Yeah, you're probably right, and thanks for the link to the 203 story. I just suffer from recentism sometimes. I'll reconsider adding it if anything new and substantial comes out, but for now I don't think I will. --W.marsh 23:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This is my first posting but submit regarding the murder of 20 yr old Zachary Scarpellini in October 2003. Today's Courier Journal (2/22/2007) mentions the indictment of Adam Barker for the murder of Mr. Scarpellini on October 13, 2003 in the cherokee triangle area of the highlands. Barker has been found guilty of homicide, several counts of asssault and tampering with physical evidence and has agreed to a 40 - year prison sentence. May noble Scarpellini, for confronting the man suspected of breaking into vehicles in our neighborhood, finally rest in peace. 74.131.33.168 02:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)m.hardesty 21:06 February 23, 2007 CJ article: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070223/NEWS01/702230452/1008/NEWS01

Courier-Journal phone interview re: Essjay

Just wanted to let everyone know I was interviewed by The Courier-Journal today regarding the goings-on with user Essjay from the Louisville area. I haven't been following this story very closely, but I tried to defend the Wikipedia by saying that any possible damage by Essjay using false credentials to influence content is easily mitigated by anybody being able to change any content at any time. I also said basically that any negative public image of the Wikipedia because of Essjay's actions would be understandable for those who don't understand the Wikipedia, but that it would also be undeserved. And I said that pretending to be something one is not is not limited to the Internet or in particular, the Wikipedia, and thus the onus should be on Essjay regarding his actions. I realize that this is in conflict with Essjay's many defenders here, but that is my position. Using false authority to get ahead is just plain wrong. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Our project isn't welcome to cover Essjay controversy

This is the first time I've encountered this, but apparently, WikiProject Louisville isn't welcome to cover Essjay controversy, despite Essjay being from the Louisville area. At least two editors are acting in an unusual zealous manner to keep us out. Just thought I'd let everyone know. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


I'll post the same response here that I did on the talk page of the Essjay article:
It's nothing personal, it's just that just because a person is from or living in Louisville doesn't make it particularly relevant / unique to Louisville. Let me put it this way, Essjay could have lived almost anywhere and this would likely have all still happened. Being in Louisville isn't a significant factor for this article.
Normally I don't take such strong positions on such minor issues, but lately the problem of overtagging is reaching critical mass. For example, see Template talk:WikiProjectBanners and Wikipedia:WikiProject reform. There is a misconception about projects as well as banners and when to use them, and although no one means any harm, there's still a problem.
So, again, it's nothing personal, and nothing to be offended about, but being willy-nilly with project scopes and tagging everything in sight doesn't help centralized collaboration. It's gotten to the point where it is harming how the community sees the concept of WikiProjects. -- Ned Scott 11:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The reality is that there are very few articles that have an issue with banners on their talk page. And this particular article didn't have a problem compared to, let's say, Abraham Lincoln. That article solved the "too many banners problem" by wrapping up the project banners into another tag so it didn't take up much real estate. There's no need for "reform", just smart technology.
Further, I absolutely disagree that Essjay controversy isn't Louisville-related. It doesn't matter one whit whether this person or controversy is unique to Louisville -- the fact is that the subject of the article is from Louisville. That is enough for inclusion in this project.
Last, I don't take any of this personally. But this does constitute a brutal attack on WikiProject coverage. And I think it's dead wrong. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
"The reality is that there are very few articles that have an issue with banners on their talk page" You may wish to read Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 19#Template:WikiProjectBanners.
It is not a brutal attack, at all. There's nothing stopping anyone from editing the article, and it certainly has a lot of coverage. Unlike many other projects, there's nothing about this one that particularly helps the article other than throwing in yet another talk page. Some WikiProjects cover common formatting styles, templates, or include an area of expertise. Ask yourself, how does this project and it's article scope help other than breaking articles down in yet another possible grouping. I could see the logic for more Louisville specific things, but not for anyone and everyone who was born or lives in Louisville.
You're forgetting the core reasons we have WikiProjects and why we tag talk pages. This is not about making claims to articles, this is about improving articles. Is it Louisville-related? Maybe. Does this WikiProject bring anything to the table of Essjay controversy? No. Overtagging is giving many Wikipedians the wrong idea about our projects, and that needs to stop. -- Ned Scott 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten anything. Your characterization of my position is exactly wrong -- it's not about claiming, it's about coverage, and you have no basis to conclude that this project cannot contribute positively to the article's development. We obviously have different viewpoints on what projects should be doing. It is not your position, nor anybody else's outside of the membership of this project, to reject this project's coverage of any article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"It is not your position, nor anybody else's outside of the membership of this project, to reject this project's coverage of any article." OK, that is a big red flag right there. WikiProjects are open to everyone, and no one gets excluded just because they don't list themselves as a "member". I have just as much say in the matter as you do. The last thing WikiProjects should be used as is an "us vs them" argument. -- Ned Scott 20:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProjects are open to everyone who joins them. Nobody is excluded. If you join, then you get a say. Please don't play this "red flag" game. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No.. that's incorrect. You do not have to "join" a project in order to join in discussion or be involved. A list of participants is more to show the activity of a project as well as helping participants find each other (for news, collaboration efforts, notices, etc). In the past we've used the word "membership" a lot, but if you look we've been trying to switch projects over to saying "participants" to help avoid this very misconception. -- Ned Scott 20:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no distinction between 'member' and 'participant'. Of course, anyone is welcome to edit any article covered (not claimed) by this project. But to have a say in project matters one needs to join. If you want to disagree with this, fine, but I'm not the only person in the Wikipedia who will take this position. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
"But to have a say in project matters one needs to join." That is not how Wikipedia works, and couldn't be more wrong. -- Ned Scott 20:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Kicking out coverage by a project couldn't be more wrong. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Lets say I come in and say "hey, this project shouldn't cover articles about toasters", would that be wrong? There's nothing wrong about not covering an article that doesn't need to be categorized in this way, especially by a project that will not likely be of any use to it. Nothing is stopping you from editing the article or talking about it on the WikiProject. You do not own this WikiProject, you do not get any more say in it that anyone else does. Stop being so offended and actually think about the situation. Don't jump to conclusions and get so defensive right away. -- Ned Scott 22:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, now this is drifting into nonsense. It's clear that this project should _cover_ Essjay controversy, but individuals with ownership issues regarding this article is preventing that. There's no basis for excluding this project. None. Very simple. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I recall others on Talk:Essjay controversy coming to the same or similar conclusions as I did. I don't have any article ownership issues with that article, as I have yet to edit any of the article content (I've moved the page and joined in talk page discussion, that's about it).
I'm probably going about this as a real asshole, and I'm sorry if I am, but I can't find any other way to explain it to you. You do not need to join a WikiProject, first, just to discuss changes to the project itself. You do not need to include all possible people born or raised in a place for a geographical WikiProject. There is a big problem with over-tagging and needless tagging. (Not all projects even use banners, or use them but not on all articles.)
The article is about the situation that happened, and it's pretty clear that this is no longer a normal bio article. A city-defined WikiProject scope should be about places, people, and things with strong connections to that city. Essjay simply being there is not enough. The actual "controversy" was on the Internet, for crying out loud. -- Ned Scott 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for revised importance scale

I've been thinking about the current importance scale and the criteria for each level. I'm not completely satisfied with them. Or rather, I'm not completely satisfied with the wording (it's not elegant, in my opinion). So, as an alternative:

Top-importance: Those articles which contain essential knowledge about Louisville that anyone, visitor or resident, should know. Examples include the main Louisville article, the Kentucky Derby, the Slugger Museum, Muhammad Ali, etc.

High-importance: Those articles which are about common-knowledge subjects pertaining to Louisville. A resident is almost guaranteed to know about it, and most visitors will at least be aware of the subject. For example, Jerry Abramson, the Falls of the Ohio, the Louisville skate park, etc.

Mid-importance: Articles about subjects which are fairly well-known in the community, but may be obscure trivia otherwise. For example, the Jefferson County Public Schools, Jeffersontown, some of the major high schools (though a couple, such as Male and Manual, probably go into the high-importance category), colleges (as opposed to universities), etc. Major cities other than Louisville probably go here, such as Clarksville, New Albany, and Shepherdsville.

Low-importance: Articles about subjects unfamiliar to even the residents. Examples would probably include all the neighborhoods unless there were something exceptional. Nearly all K-12 schools should go here unless there were something that merited the higher classification. Biographies of people whose only connection to the city is being born or raised here should go here (e.g., all the sports people)

One thing that I don't know what to do with - those articles which are probably of higher importance to the tourists than the visitors. For example, I was evaluating the National Quartet Competition (or something like that), and I had a dilemma because in southern gospel music, the NQC is fairly well-known, but around here, I was thinking, what? Or the Sons of the American Revolution. I didn't know that was based here. Perhaps we need a class for such articles?

--Carl (talk|contribs) 02:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Kentuckiana Blues Society

Thanks to all for the comments and suggestions to our Wikipedia page. I'm new so give me some time to get this right. Any suggestions are welcomed. Samstudebaker 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Assigning importance to articles

I just added a project alert to notify everyone that we still have almost 300 articles that need to be assigned importance. I did a few to get it started. Importance means how important the article is to the subject of Louisville in the Wikipedia, or at least, that's my take on it. Cheers! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Milestone for main Louisville article

Wow! Louisville, Kentucky is now in 25 languages as of today! Great news for our beloved hometown! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Brainstorm: Improving communication and coordination

It has seemed that for much of this year, communication and coordination in WikiProject Louisville has been lacking, and it's not really surprising given that this has always been an open, loosely coordinated project. I tend to believe that communication between project members is a major key to improved coordination, but others may have other ideas. At any rate, I am starting a brainstorming list for everyone to insert their ideas about how we can improve communication and coordination in the project. Thanks in advance for your suggestions! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Brainstorming ideas

  • Improve outreach by starting a project newsletter that would be delivered monthly to members' talk pages. Members, of course, will be able to opt out of receiving them. This is technically easy to implement, as many other projects are already doing it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Appoint a project coordinator via consensus of the membership. This coordinator would need to be a true Louisville booster (not necessarily a current resident, and note, I don't mean article boosting, but rather truly caring about the city and its complete appropriate coverage in the Wikipedia). The coordinator will use their discretion to decide the top efforts for the project to pay attention to. And this person would work diligently to encourage and recruit members to take part in these top efforts. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • New guy here :-) Ok I read below something about bots and flaging. Is it possible for someone to create a bot that would post notices to project members ... say a list of needs such as articles needing expansion? Could we also use this to generate a list of users -- say if someone creates or edits a Louisville wiki-article we flag that user and send them an invite ? Just a thought. M-BMor 18:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I think outreach would be a good idea... trying to get more regular Louisville editors. Obviously lots of people are interested in Louisville history and current events, yet most new stuff about Louisville seems to get added by the same 3-5 people. It just seems like the project can only really be so good with the small number of active people. I think maybe a newsletter would help here, just to kind of make sure everyone knows what our monthly focus is, what we're collaborating on, and what Louisville articles might be in the news. For example the failed Old Louisville FAC... as an individual I couldn't deal with the problems people brought up, but as a collaborating project we might have been able to do it.

But still, even great coordination won't overcome the fact that there are just about 5 of us, so I think our effort should be on figuring out ways to get new Louisville editors. I'm not really sure how to go about that, I've seen to it that there's a plug in each issue of "the Highlander", a monthly newspaper mailed to every house in the Highlands, encouraging people to log on and edit Louisville articles... but no one's really come forward to do that yet. Maybe we need to reach out to people who write about Louisville, like U of L, the Courier-Journal, LEO... just get the word out that if people are interested in preserving Louisville's history they should edit some Wikipedia articles. But then there's the problem of attracting POV pushers more than people who are just interested in generating neutral, academic-like articles... the latter is a summary of the current crop of regulars, and that's a good thing.

But my point is that we need to get more regular editors, somehow or other. All of the other things Stevie mentions are important, and we should look into them, but my main concern is with getting a critical mass of active editors. --W.marsh 17:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • (brought from Stevie's talk page) While the idea of recombining several descendant projects of WikiProject Kentucky has been pretty thoroughly killed (for some understandable reasons), promotion of communication and collaboration between projects still seems to be a way to create a rising tide that will lift all ships. The solicited contributions of some of this project's editors were key in helping me get William Goebel promoted to FA. I wonder if a common peer review area would be a good start. In other words, we could start a peer review area of WikiProject Kentucky, where reviews from WPKY, WPBluegrass, and Kentucky-related articles from WPLou and WPKYOVA could be requested. Similar arrangements could be made with other relevant WikiProjects (ex. WikiProject Indiana for WPLou.) I think the traffic in such a common review area would be light enough to allow editors from all four projects to collaborate on articles. I'd love to hear thoughts from others. Acdixon 18:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't mind better communication between the peer review areas of WPLou and WPKY, like when we have a peer review that's also related to Kentucky, placing a note in WPKY's peer review area that links back to the WPLou area. And perhaps WPLou's peer review area can always show what's currently being peer reviewed in both WPKY and WPIN. Enhanced communication, or more specifically, automatic info sharing is key, IMHO. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Stress on automatic. Is there a way to do this automatically? Sometimes I feel like the housekeeping on the project pages keeps me from getting all the work done on articles that I'd like to. Acdixon 19:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Here's an idea: when setting up an article for peer review, the WPKY project template should have a setting for peer review (maybe it already does), and then WPLou can show the list of articles from that category (if that's feasible). On the flip side, the WPLou project template should divide its peer review settings into two, one to set up an article for co-review with WPIN and the other for WPKY. Then, each state project can show the contents of those respective categories. If I can work out the technical details, does this sound good? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as recruiting new active members, I definitely appreciate what W.marsh is doing with The Highlander. I myself had letters to the editor in the C-J and LEO published when the project was new last summer. Perhaps we should approach the Louisville Cardinal to have them tell their fellow U of L students about our project -- it may not be too late to get into the summer orientation edition. I'll be happy to interview or co-interview with them. In addition, I have advertised this project in my Louisville discussion board, my MySpace page and a Louisville MySpace group, and I've even mentioned it on BluegrassReport.org in a couple conversations. Perhaps we should also advertise it on Craigslist? Or perhaps with fliers at Ear X-tacy, book stores, coffee shops, etc.? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • To add onto this, perhaps we should inform WikiProject Indiana that WPLou covers Southern Indiana articles as well. Perhaps this would draw in more active editors? I think I'll go ahead and do this. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • WP Indiana has even less collaboration. We'd be better off getting peer review from WP KY for my Indiana-related articles that are also WP Louisville.--Bedford 21:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I particularly like your initial ideas. However I think it would be helpful to establish some positions within the WP. Such as a team of members designated to working on the areas of the WP such as Assesment, Articles with To-Do list, Articles needing attention and so on. having a member to regularly watch those areas that understands Wikipedia exceptionaly which then in turn can help the regular members in the areas of the WP as they work. Just a thought. Jahnx 01:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe a project newsletter would be a great first step in improving the coordination and spotlighting articles needing improvement or cleanup. They are fairly easy to set up and are routine (per above). I also believe (if I am reading this correctly) that outside contacts would work well for WP Louisville. I've used this successfully to garner more attention to the Kentucky forum at Urban Planet by posting fliers at libraries and coffee shops, where permitted. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's good to see WikiProject Kentucky and decendants are active. I've sortof moved to Wikiversity with most of my efforts, so I'm not real familiar with what's going on here. I did however notice some activity at the Kentucky Wikia which might be an offsite development area for these WikiProjects. I like the strategy of caring for Kentucky, Louisville and real-world communities as they are represented at Wikipedia while promoting Wikipedia out in the "real-world". Does Louisville have any Internet Cafes where you could put posters and start a face-to-face meetup? • Q^#o • 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideas from Meta: Marketing | Poster design group | Wikimedia urban postering campaign | Wikimedia online promotion campaign | www.cafepress.com/wikipedia

  • ...

Concentrated effort: Organizing historic places by Louisville neighborhood

Bedford and I have been talking about the need for List of Registered Historic Places in Jefferson County, Kentucky to be broken down by Louisville neighborhood, and then accordingly mentioned in their respective neighborhood articles. This may then provide an impetus for those who live in or care about specific neighborhoods to then create and/or fill out articles for these places. Any interest or suggestions for proceeding? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review / collaboration sharing between projects

Upon further reflection, it seems that WPLouisville and WP-KY are doing so few peer reviews, it doesn't make much sense to me to build any elaborate setup for that -- I can't see it as being worth the effort... yet. At some point, we could set up a bot to fill in transcludable link pages on a daily basis for the purpose of peer review sharing, but it's overkill for now.

However, we do seem to have moments when both projects need emergency collaboration, generally related to FA candidacies, Old Louisville and William Goebel being prime examples. I propose that we build an alerts system for WikiProject Kentucky. It's easy to do, and it would basically mimic what WP-IN is doing. See User talk: Bedford at the top for an example of an alert banner. Also, WPLouisville already has a similar alert system, but its messages are currently shown only in member banners -- I could easily re-use the alert data to create a second banner so that WP-KY can display it.

I imagine that WPLouisville and WP-KY could show each other's alert banners at the top of their respective project pages. Also, WP-KY members could add the WP-KY alert to the top of their user page or user talk page. We could even create a member banner for WP-KY that incorporates the alert.

What's especially cool about this idea is that this alert system can be used for any kind of top-priority collaboration.

Sound good, or not? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What if each project's peer review list were transcluded (or whatever the proper term is -- I don't edit much anymore, so I don't keep with the terminology) in the other's? If, on each project, the peer-review list is inside an includeonly block, then outside that block, the peer review lists from the other project(s) is/are added on. For example:
Louisville peer-review requests
<includeonly>
FA candidates
  • Article A
  • Article B
GA candidates
  • Article C
  • Article D
Assistance requests
  • Article E
  • Article F
</includeonly>
Requests from WikiProject Kentucky
{{WP:KY}}(or something similar, which would resolve to...)
FA candidates
  • Article G
  • Article H
etc...
hmmm? --Carl (talk|contribs) 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm is right.  :) We would need to make it easy for regular editors to edit the transcludable files without going to the transcluded file itself, via use of headings (which would have edit links next to each of them). Then, if the editor doesn't do it, we would need an administrator to actually add the peer review parameter to the project banner on the affected article's talk page. I still think we should add an alert system to WP-KY, but perhaps we could somehow create shareable peer review data after all. That is, if project members are ready to help maintain these areas. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the alert system is better than nothing, but if the flag-and-bot solution (discussed above and below) isn't too much trouble, I think I like it better. That's easy for me to say, of course, since I don't know how much work is involved with creating the bot or the flag. Acdixon 14:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, here's the deal. I'm supposed to be on wikibreak right now. I honestly don't have the time to do anything very complicated, and I don't see peer reviews being used much to date. The problem I see is the occasional emergency collaboration needed on FA nominations and the like, and the difficulty of communicating that to project members. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I definitely understand that. Since I don't even know how to do these things, my opinion probably ought not carry much weight to begin with. As I said, an alert would still be better than what we have now. Let me know if I can help. Acdixon 16:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
In a completely separate idea, is there any way to create a listing based on the presence of multiple categories (or flags, if you will)? To elaborate: if we assume that all articles important to each respective project have the project's box on their talk pages (thereby generating a flag for that WP) and that any GA, FA or other peer review will have the appropriate notice box placed on the talk page (thereby generating a flag for an active review process), is it possible to generate a list of articles with talk pages containing, for example, both the FA "flag" and the WPLou "flag"? This would remedy the whole problem altogether, as the notification of a review process would be handled simply by flagging the article for an active review.
The benefit of this idea is that all WikiProjects would be able to implement this, without having to constantly check for such things. All relevant WPs would be notified as soon as the article were flag, cross-project becomes irrelevant for this purpose if we assume all projects with a stake in the article will flag talk pages appropriately. --Carl (talk|contribs) 04:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I alluded to this before, in that a bot could probably be run to do this sort of thing, but it would need to run probably daily to be of value. And I thought it wasn't really worth it due to our current low volume of reviews. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see that now. Actually, I was hoping that this idea would be of such monumental use to Wikipedia as a whole that the codemonkeys would implement it so that a bot isn't necessary. But here's to dreaming. --Carl (talk|contribs) 05:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In the news

Kentucky DMV Introduces Game Of Chicken To Driver's Test – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested article: Camp Jo Holt

In developing the article on Kentucky in the American Civil War, I ran across a topic suitable for WPLou. Camp Jo Holt was a Union recruiting camp in Indiana, just opposite Louisville, from which Union forces operated during Kentucky's neutrality. Because it was just outside Kentucky, it didn't violate the Commonwealth's neutrality, but was strategically positioned for the day when the neutrality was broken. If no one wants to take this one on, I'll probably stub it in at some point, but I know there are a few people interested in the Civil War in this project who could probably do it better justice than I. Acdixon 13:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be spelled as Camp Joe Holt, as that looks more familiar to me and produces more entries in a Google search. But, yeah, that's a great topic to add to our requested list. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I think The Civil War in Kentucky by Lowell H. Harrison omits the "e". Sounds like a redirect will be necessary for one or the other, and both spellings should probably be noted in the article. Thanks for adding it to the list. Acdixon 14:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. I also just looked in the book "Kentucky's Civil War 1861-1865", in which Harrison is a contributor, and it's spelled "Joe". But alas, many things in the Civil War period seemed to have alternative spellings, like "Sue Munday" and "Sue Mundy". Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I presently have that book checked out as well. I think you're right as to the more appropriate spelling, as the camp seems to be named for Joseph Holt. "Joe" is generally the masculine spelling, while "Jo" generally connotes the feminine. Acdixon 14:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I created a redirect for Jo to Joe.--Bedford 05:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

New parameter to project template

I just added "needs-image=yes" as a parameter to {{WikiProject Louisville}}, which can be used in place of {{reqphotoin|Louisville}}. This will save vertical space on the talk page, and it will add the article to the same category. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Another phone interview with the C-J

I just wanted to report that, again, I've been interviewed by a Courier-Journal writer. The last time was about the Essjay controversy, but this time it was about a much tamer subject -- How Louisville-area middle-schoolers can use the Wikipedia. :) I talked about WikiProject Louisville, and what we try to accomplish. I talked about how we deal with vandalism. I talked about article history for the sake of rollbacks. I talked about the things about Louisville that young people can learn from reading our articles. I talked about how youngsters can contribute, although I hopefully stressed that it's better for the young ones to read our content rather than try to write it, and if they did write anything, it's best that they know about the subject they are working on. At least, I hope I conveyed all those things accurately. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Now advertising in Craigslist

Check out this new advertisement in Craigslist for WikiProject Louisville. Based on earlier discussions on getting the word out, I took the initiative and wrote it up. Note: I'll be happy to entertain any suggestions for improving. Alas, it isn't wiki, but it's easy for me to go in and edit it. Cheers! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Taskforces: A way to get more people involved?

I've been thinking lately that it may be useful to start looking into having coordinated taskforces for our project. One big idea I had for a taskforce would be for U of L, as we have lots of articles related to U of L, and this could be a great way to enhance student involvement in WikiProject Louisville. Another taskforce idea would be to cover historical events and properties, as Louisville's history is so rich that a taskforce makes sense. I'm sure there are other areas worthy of taskforces as well. Any thoughts? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought about that idea about a week or two ago. I was thinking more in terms of "coordinators" among the more active members who took a more-or-less vested interest in a certain category of articles, e.g., my interest in the public school system articles. These coordinators would make efforts to improve the articles in their areas (such as a "University of Louisille Coordinator" promoting the UL articles or my taking pictures of various buildings in the school system as I drive by them). --Carl (talk|contribs) 04:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeap, I was thinking that since the active members in the project were still few, that whoever wants to lead a taskforce should just go for it, and we'll start keeping track of them. Of course they should be of reasonable size. JCPS is certainly potentially large, and it's obvious a big part of that will be creating new school articles, as well as filling out many existing school articles. I might even recommend expanding this taskforce to cover all primary and secondary schools, public or private, in the metropolitan area. Of course, that's up to you or whoever the coordinator will be. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Todo list discovery added to WPLou banner

Just wanted everyone to know that the {{WikiProject Louisville}} project banner now discovers todo lists automatically, so there's no longer a need to have our own version of the todo list template. Now just use the standard {{todo}} instead of {{Todo-Louisville}}. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Today I created the template {{Louisville places}} to organize neighborhood and city articles in Jefferson County, possibly even large places like Cave Hill Cemetery and so on. I don't think any other cities do this, but it seems like something that will work with Louisville. Before I add this to all the places in Jefferson County, I'd like to get some feedback. --W.marsh 19:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Perhaps it could include possibility of Northwest, Northeast, Southwest and Southeast places. Also perhaps say "Louisville Metro" in the caption rather than "Jefferson County, Kentucky". Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I was going for just the simple ordinal directions... it might be information overload to give 8 places instead of just 4. The problem with "Louisville metro" though is I was going to include suburban cities too, like Glenview and so on... I guess those are technically Louisville Metro though. --W.marsh 19:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking the other directions could be optional, as boundaries are not always so simple. Either that, or allow link stacking on the east/west sides and side-by-side links on the north/south sides. I don't imagine there would be a frequently need for these, but it may help clarify in some situations. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I'll look into that. I'm not exactly sure how to do optional parameters now though, I'll have to figure out somehow. --W.marsh 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a matter of conditional logic to test if the parameter was provided. Some examples of this can be found in {{WikiProject Louisville}}. Look at how #if works. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying but I'm not very good at this sort of thing. --W.marsh 01:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess if it turns out there's a significant need for extra directions, I'll be happy to code it up. Just let me know if the need arises. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Well it would really help if all the directions were optional, and just the ones that a user wanted showed up in an individual application of the template. That's the reason I haven't added this to more places yet, you're right that northeast, southwest, etc. would be best in some situations. But I'm pretty baffled by the coding so if you could do it, it would probably speed the whole thing up by a few weeks. --W.marsh 03:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Let me know if there are any additional issues. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It seems to be working fine.. I've added the optional parameters to Parkland, Louisville for example, it might look a little awkward but it conveys all the information it should. --W.marsh 03:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

NRHP resource

I recently learned of an excellent way to get information on any NRHP in Kentucky. You can just call the Kentucky Heritage Council at (502) 564-7005 and ask for Marty Perry. He will e-mail you a PDF on any property you want, which contains 10+ pages of information on the property's history and historical importance, as well as it's architectural importance. They include plenty of footnotes, meaning the information in the PDF will be totally acceptable for Wikipedia as it's from published sources (the PDF itself probably counts as a published source anyway, due to the NHRP process, they're archived in various libraries on Microfilm). Most properties have 5+ pictures as well, which I believe to be in the public domain as it's through the National Park Service, a federal level agency, but don't quote me on that.

Just to avoid getting Wikipedia a bad rap with them, I remind you that this is a really cool service they don't have to provide (they could make you go to the library and print off microfilm), so please be nice to Mr. Perry. --W.marsh 22:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Einbierbitte just had this tidbit in his talk yesterday: "For others that may be curious, the National Park Service has a Weekly Update http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/nrlist.htm which it publishes every Friday with new listings, removals, additional information, DOEs, NHL designations, etc." Sounds very useful for those us diehard WPLou editors.  :) Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Exclusion process

I'm thinking we might want to have an "Articles for Exclusion" process in our project. Any subject/article significantly related to Louisville nearly automatically gets included in this project, as what happens with most other projects. However, I'm thinking there will be some articles that 1) are of low importance to Louisville, and 2) have plenty of other project coverage and/or watchful eyes without our project's presence. Tom Cruise seems to be a good example of this, and there may be a good number of other ones as well. Perhaps we should have a process by which we decide which articles we won't cover. Does this sound like a good idea? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It seems like a lot of articles on the watchlist really aren't related to Louisville history, geography, culture, etc. it's just people who lived here for a while and had no direct impact on the city (it seems like those articles get the most edits too...) I don't really see improving the article on say, Nicole Scherzinger, to use a random example from the watchlist, as something that helps improve our coverage of Louisville. Whereas, a local media personality like Terry Meiners, sure that's a topic directly related to Louisville coverage. It seems like an easy line to draw ("Did they contribute something to Louisville or did they just live there for a while"?) but I imagine there's some gray area. Hopefully that's useful... if people want to continue watching these articles that's fine, but I wouldn't miss them in the watchlist. --W.marsh 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • W.marsh, your point about clear demarcation is certainly valid as far as how we concentrate our article development resources, but on the other hand, I tend to look at all the people from Louisville as our city's ambassadors who deserve (at least) to have articles that are watched and kept free from vandalism (even if we never work on the articles beyond that). That's why I thought it would be good to identify the low-importance individuals who already seem to enjoy great coverage from other projects and watchers -- people like Tom Cruise and all of the wrestling personalities (and perhaps even Ms. Scherzinger), which seem to pop up on our project watchlist a lot, but don't really need our assistance. We could, I suppose, just have a kind of gentlemen's agreement to remove these types of individuals from our project as we see fit, or we could get formal and list them. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't want to step on anybody's toes, I can skip over items I don't really know anything about in the watchlist. --W.marsh 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
        • That's fine. Removing a few articles from showing up in the watch is still under experimentation. The writer of the WatchlistBot may be updating his bot soon to help out with this so that we don't have to totally remove articles from the project. If the bot handles it, we will be able to easily move articles in and out of our project watch without necessarily doing anything with the project banners on the excluded articles' talk pages. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Flag taken away

Apparently, the Louisville flag was removed due to copyright issues. Does anyone have any ideas on how we can bring a legal flag image in here? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

Well, I'm off to a rousing start with my FA nom of Confederate government of Kentucky – 2 oppose votes. One reviewer commented that "The lead needs to be reworked and the tone of the prose is decidedly unencyclopedic." If some of the same good-hearted souls that helped save my nom of William Goebel could take a look at this article and see what can be done, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! Acdixon 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be fruitful to ask members in the American Civil War task force of the Military History WikiProject to help out. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I've done just that. I'd still love feedback from any interested members of this WikiProject. Acdixon 16:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested, but I don't have the time to invest. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Maintenence question

I really know nothing of Wikipedia's technical side, so I'm hoping someone can answer this question. Is there any way to generate a list of articles with pending maintenence tags, within a given project? I think that one of the great things we can do as a project is keep our articles in decent shape, and being able to zoom in and make sure no articles had "citation needed" or other tags, which are relatively easy to address. A monthly report on 'articles with maintenence' tags would be really useful. I just have no idea if it's practical to create such a thing or not... if not, I will stick to just fixing them when I notice them. --W.marsh 17:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A bot could probably handle this. The complicating factors are that article talk pages get placed into multiple assessment categories corresponding to the project, while articles get placed into various categories for all the maintenance tags. The result would have to be an intersection between what's included in these two sets of categories. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Restarted nomination

Just FYI, the FA nomination of Confederate government of Kentucky has been restarted. Reviews and comments are appreciated. Acdixon 14:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion notifications

If one were to monitor the various deletion forums and find articles nominated for deletion which have been tagged on the talk page with this WikiProject's banner, where would you like to see those notifications appear?

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD nominations

Deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Louisville vs. West Virginia football game - Johntex\talk 16:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

question

Question for WikiProject Louisville. I represent Spalding University and was curious if I could edit that WikiProject Louisville Page. The SU page is a great start, but SU really has more to offer than the page really communicates. I'm a member now, but I wanted to make sure I followed the rules of WikiProject. Thanks Pelican07 13:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The main problem here is writing from your own personal knowledge, which is to be avoided. You can add whatever you like so long as it just summarizes a reliable source, like an article in a newspaper or magazine. Citing material published by the school (like a webpage, school newspaper, etc) is okay for purely factual information, but if you want to talk about how great some program at Spalnding is, you'll need to cite a third party source for that. The goal here is to avoid articles just being promotional in nature, articles need to be neutral. I Hope this is helpful, we do welcome anyone who wants to add neutral, encyclopedic content. --W.marsh 13:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I would want to update some of the information, such as the programs offered (as nursing is currently listed) as well as statisical info. I will make sure the information is objective and pulled from factual sources. Should I cite the source of my info? I understand the encyclopedic content goals and appreciate the response. Pelican07 15:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, it would be best to cite the information just so we can check it and it will be easier to update it later if need be. Include citations in the format <ref>Citation goes here</ref>, you can read WP:CITE for more information. If you just want to list major programs and statistics, the official site should be fine. --W.marsh 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Indiana Wesleyan University

The IWU article was recently vandalized by user: 199.8.26.10. He deleted the entire school "History" section and keeps vandalizing it. I tried to restore it, but I was not able to do so. Could you please investigate and restore what was vandalized? I notified editor WikiProject_Indiana, but he has not responded or taken action. Please help ASAP.

Thanks,

-manutdglory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manutdglory (talk • contribs) 05:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Thanks man.

-manutdglory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manutdglory (talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Beck's Mill GA Nom

The Beck's Mill article is currently on hold for a Good article nominee. Any help would be appreciated.--Bedford (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice article, though lacking adequate sourcing per the GA review. I posted a suggestion for a good definitive source for the article (the official NRHP documents), in its talk page. doncram (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If I knew where to find that, I would use it. The bridge next to it has joined the NRHP, and that helped some.--Bedford 20:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please help building up the Andrew Horne article

I just added an alert calling on my fellow editors to help with building up the currently "stubby" Andrew Horne article. He is now running for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate. Thanks! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Category: Museums in Louisville

Some concerns were brought to mention by TableManners about the Category in the including of museums in Indiana which area in the Louisville metropolitan area. I think they should be included and not have a separate category. Share your thoughts at Category talk:Museums in Louisville. Jahnx (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Louisville/Archive_2&oldid=1136050319"