Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oklahoma/Tulsa

WP:TULSA	Talk WikiProject Oklahoma OU Task force Recognized content Tulsa, Oklahoma Categories Templates Assessment Newsletter Stub articles Article alerts Articles for Deletion Requests Unreferenced BLPs Active members list

Task-force Tulsa
Shortcuts WP:TULSA WP:TUL Welcome to the Task-force Tulsa discussion page. Please use this page to discuss issues regarding Tulsa related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions. Thank you for visiting!

Archives

1

2011 Project Proposal

The proposals on the existing page are several years old. In an attempt to revitalize activity on this project, perhaps we need to revise the list of proposed pages. The table below lists some topics that could be addressed. Bruin2 (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed New Tulsa Project Topics
Topic	Notability	Comments
Tulsa County Fairgrounds or Expo Square	-	Fairgrounds article should incorporate Expo Square
Mohawk Park	Said to be the largest municipal park in the U. S. Contains Lake Yahola, the terminus of the Spavinaw pipeline (Tulsa water supply).	Separate article has been created for Lake Yahola.
Lake Spavinaw	Created to provide a reliable, high-quality source of water for Tulsa and other nearby cities. Pipeline to Tulsa was the longest raw water supply line in the U. S. when completed in 1924.	Done
Richard Lloyd Jones	Founder, editor and publisher of the now defunct Tulsa Tribune. Also founded All Souls Unitarian Church (Tulsa, Oklahoma). Owner of Westhope. An editorial in his paper allegedly triggered the Tulsa Race Riot in 1921.	-Done
Eugene Lorton	Owner and editor of the Tulsa World. The paper is still owned by the Lorton family	-Done

I urge other Tulsa Task Force participants to add to or delete from the above table according to their interests. After a reasonable comment period (e.g. 01 FEB 2011), I recommend replacing the existing list on the main task force page with the edited table.

Note that I have kept two topics that I consider historically notable from the existing list. I don't have enough information about the others to judge whether they are notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Bruin2 (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The old list on the project page was:

Tulsarama or Buried Plymouth Belvedere, Tulsa County Fairgrounds or Expo Square, Mohawk Park, LaFortune Park, Schusterman Center, OU-Tulsa, Eastland Mall (Tulsa, Oklahoma), Promenade Mall (Tulsa, Oklahoma)

Tulsa Coliseum page

Content from Avey's Coliseum page have been merged with the Tulsa Coliseum page. Avey's Coliseum page has been marked for deletion to eliminate this overlap. I have also removed the link between Avey's Coliseum and the Oklahoma/Tulsa project page. Bruin2 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this. Avey's Coliseum is still a legitimate search term and the editing history of the page should be preserved. It would be better to blank and redirect the page (which, by the way, you can do yourself).--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestion. I finally got around to getting this completed. Bruin2 (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for this project to be supported by WikiProject United States

It was recently suggested that WikiProject Oklahoma and the Tulsa task force be included in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there have been very little activity on either the main project page or talk page. Before any action is taken I want to ensure that the members of the project concur with this action. Please feel free to contact me if there are any comments or questions. --Kumioko (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please clarify what is meant by having this project supported by WikiProject United States? I can't speak for other project members, but I would welcome support from almost any willing and knowledgeable party. I disagree that this project has had very little activity, at least for several months, though I do not know what criteria Wikipedia uses to define inactive projects. Have you only reviewed the main and project pages for Oklahoma? I have focused primarily on the Tulsa sub-project, so I will speak only to that part of the Oklahoma project. Specifically, several new articles have been posted for the Tulsa Task Force. There have been edits to many older articles and a few classification upgrades have been proposed. I agree that one could get a different impression by looking only at the WP:Oklahoma/Tulsa page, where there are a number of old posts that probably should be removed. Please note that posts within the project page sections are not picked up on the Project Page History. The History for the main Tulsa, Oklahoma page shows quite a lot of edits during 2011. Bruin2 (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well to answer the how was it determined to be slow question Ill answer that one first. Different people have been dropping me notes in the form of EMAILs, talk page messages etc about different projects they felt might be dormant, or semi active. To say a project is in active in no way goes against the editors who are working on the articles. Just that the project is slow. In some cases people are ok with WPUS supporting them and in other cases not so much. In this case I looked at the project page and at the talk pages of the Oklahoma project and at Tulsa. Tulsa does seem to have some activity but thats mostly geared towards maintenance and not so much on the talk page. To how it will be supported. That can depend on what the members want.

First let me say that the project page with members stay basically as they are with the members able to dictate how things happen, scope of the project, etc. Its not going to be absorbed or dissolved in any way and speaking on scope won't change unless the members want it too. The main change would be that the WikiProject banner would be replaced with the WPUS banner. Which shouldn't be looked at as a badge of shame towards the project. You can take a look at Category talk:Visitor attractions in South Carolina to see an example of what it would look like. All the projects would use the full capability of the template and have a standardized group of parameters (Needs infobox, image, attention, geo coordinaates, etc) it also reduces the number of banners cluttering up the talk page of the articles, allows various bots to do their business, etc. and standardizes the US related projects so all the projects use the same article classes.

Since WPUS is a bigger project with a lot more members, it has a newsletter, a monthly collaboration, multiple bots that run actively through the articles for various things (as can be seen on the members page) with more being setup as we go along. This means that it will be seen by a lot of people in a lot of ways and edits to the articles will be continuous improving the articles in various ways. I have also been making sure that certain project specific bots are setup on the project pages (like popular articles, Article alerts, recognized content, etc.). Up till now we have mostly been concentrating on building up the projects infrastructure but soon we are going to be starting to do some drives to build up articles, create new ones, etc. I hope this helps. With all that said if the project members aren't interested in support that's fine. This is just a suggestion and knowone is forcing anyone to do anything. Sorry for such a long explanation but i hope it helps. --Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been open for 11 days so far with only one comment. Does anyone have any comments or concerns about this suggestion? --Kumioko (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refreshing project page

The project page has become rather dated, since many announcements, etc. are now several years old. It seems to be creating an impression to some viewers that the project is either inactive or semi-active. I propose to remove announcements that are more than one year old, so that we are highlighting recent items. Bruin2 (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following deletions have been made to refresh the project page: Bruin2 (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: *The article for the city of Tulsa will be featured on Portal:Oklahoma during the month of June. Okiefromokla•talk 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the following Old Article promotion notices:

Tulsa, Oklahoma - Feature article candidate, nominated by Okiefromokla. Status: Promoted, May 12, 2007.
List of tallest buildings in Tulsa promoted to Featured list on January 10, 2008. Rai-me 04:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Portal:Oklahoma - promoted to Featured Portals on March 14, 2008 nominated by CPacker.

Deleted the following old New Article promotion notices:

I might suggest also setting up one of the talk page archive bots. This will make sure that the talk page comments are automatically archived aftger a certain amount of time. Many projects use 60 or 90 days. You could also automate the recognized content (or other things) with JL-bot. --Kumioko (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]