Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennessee/Archive 2

message: ===Status quo===
Huntster, thanks a lot for preparing the tabs, that looks so much more sophisticated! (Sorry for messing with the pages while you were doing stuff, I was too excited.) Orlady, thanks a lot for picking some more anniversaries! Looks like all that is needed are a some more biographies and two or three articles, maybe. 
Once that is done, we might see to get the selected articles and the bios to about the same length. That is, all articles roughly the same length as the other articles and all bios approximately the same length as the other bios. That would improve the stability of the portal layout and help eliminate empty spaces at the end. 
When should we remove the "Under construction" signs? doxTxob \ talk 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) If enough material is eventually collected a second line of tabs could be added (actually, just one more and I can make a row of two and a row of three).  2) When I have time, I'm going to try and see if the boxes can be dynamically load-balanced; that is, shift the smaller boxes left or right depending on how much white space is left.  I don't know if it is even possible, but the fact that  can do this gives me hope.  If it does work, then rewriting the articles and bios would be unnecessary.  3) It'll be under construction until everything is fully fleshed out, and even then, maybe not.  Heck, look at Portal:Hawaii...it is quite nice and they still use the construction category. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) I have tried a version with the Tennessee lists in their own tab and the Wikimedia in their own tab. These tabs are really a neat way to get more overview of the topic. Much more information is immediately available by scrolling or clicking. And the core information is right on the first screen. I like that. That makes them six tabs now, if you want to try two rows. (2) If it would be possible to balance the size of the boxes, that would be something. I have moved the "in the news" box to the right side for now. The selected article and bio look good on the left side, that provides for more room also. Would be nice not to have to check the length of the selected article or bio. (3) C'mon. I have seen portals that were not half as neat as this one and they were not under construction. But, you are right ... although, before fleshing out more it would be nice to have some more flesh in there. doxTxob \ talk 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had fun picking anniversaries for the list. Thanks for getting it started. I think it would be nice for a third person to add some more, as a third person is likely to have a third perspective on what's interesting/important to commemorate. Maybe there are some Revolutionary War-era dates (from Sycamore Shoals and/or Watauga), or the Bristol sessions, or more Civil War occurrences (such as the Knoxville Campaign), or the inauguration of the state lottery, or the founding of other educational institutions, or more birth anniversaries, or more sports dates... --Orlady 21:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Or the bombing of Clinton High School in the aftermath of its being the first southern school desegregated under court order. Unfortunately, that article keeps being eviscerated. --Orlady 21:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A third perspective would be great. Do you know anyone who would like to contribute? The controversial topis are interesting anniversaries, it might make people want to look up the facts. (I did not know that the material for the Hiroshima bomb was produced in Tennessee. Interesting!) If we happen to have too many anniversaries there is a solution for that, too. On a few portal pages I have seen a "what happened on that day" box with daily anniversaries. That's going to take a while, though, to collect them. doxTxob \ talk 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to remove them, just comment that section out and shuffle the other sections to accommodate.  I never watch the local news, so I wouldn't be able to keep it up to date, but perhaps someone will want to take up that task in the future. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 13:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tennessee Portal

message: Huntster, thanks a lot for preparing the tabs, that looks so much more sophisticated! (Sorry for messing with the pages while you were doing stuff, I was too excited.) Orlady, thanks a lot for picking some more anniversaries! Looks like all that is needed are a some more biographies and two or three articles, maybe. 
Once that is done, we might see to get the selected articles and the bios to about the same length. That is, all articles roughly the same length as the other articles and all bios approximately the same length as the other bios. That would improve the stability of the portal layout and help eliminate empty spaces at the end. 
When should we remove the "Under construction" signs? doxTxob \ talk 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) If enough material is eventually collected a second line of tabs could be added (actually, just one more and I can make a row of two and a row of three).  2) When I have time, I'm going to try and see if the boxes can be dynamically load-balanced; that is, shift the smaller boxes left or right depending on how much white space is left.  I don't know if it is even possible, but the fact that  can do this gives me hope.  If it does work, then rewriting the articles and bios would be unnecessary.  3) It'll be under construction until everything is fully fleshed out, and even then, maybe not.  Heck, look at Portal:Hawaii...it is quite nice and they still use the construction category. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) I have tried a version with the Tennessee lists in their own tab and the Wikimedia in their own tab. These tabs are really a neat way to get more overview of the topic. Much more information is immediately available by scrolling or clicking. And the core information is right on the first screen. I like that. That makes them six tabs now, if you want to try two rows. (2) If it would be possible to balance the size of the boxes, that would be something. I have moved the "in the news" box to the right side for now. The selected article and bio look good on the left side, that provides for more room also. Would be nice not to have to check the length of the selected article or bio. (3) C'mon. I have seen portals that were not half as neat as this one and they were not under construction. But, you are right ... although, before fleshing out more it would be nice to have some more flesh in there. doxTxob \ talk 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had fun picking anniversaries for the list. Thanks for getting it started. I think it would be nice for a third person to add some more, as a third person is likely to have a third perspective on what's interesting/important to commemorate. Maybe there are some Revolutionary War-era dates (from Sycamore Shoals and/or Watauga), or the Bristol sessions, or more Civil War occurrences (such as the Knoxville Campaign), or the inauguration of the state lottery, or the founding of other educational institutions, or more birth anniversaries, or more sports dates... --Orlady 21:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Or the bombing of Clinton High School in the aftermath of its being the first southern school desegregated under court order. Unfortunately, that article keeps being eviscerated. --Orlady 21:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A third perspective would be great. Do you know anyone who would like to contribute? The controversial topis are interesting anniversaries, it might make people want to look up the facts. (I did not know that the material for the Hiroshima bomb was produced in Tennessee. Interesting!) If we happen to have too many anniversaries there is a solution for that, too. On a few portal pages I have seen a "what happened on that day" box with daily anniversaries. That's going to take a while, though, to collect them. doxTxob \ talk 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to remove them, just comment that section out and shuffle the other sections to accommodate.  I never watch the local news, so I wouldn't be able to keep it up to date, but perhaps someone will want to take up that task in the future. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 13:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Status quo

message: Any photographers (and by that, I mean anyone with a digital camera) that can make it to Nashville this Sunday at 6 pm, to photograph the final show of Jump5?
Details here:
http://nashville.craigslist.org/crg/505941578.html
Let me know!  --  Zanimum (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nashville photog needed for Wikinews 

message: While overhauling the Pinson Mounds article, I noticed that previous editors had copied several sections ad verbatim from the state park's website.  I checked all 42 articles regarding Tennessee's state parks, and found that 8 had substantial material that had been copied ad verbatim from the parks' respective websites.  The articles are: Big Cypress Tree State Park, Big Hill Pond State Park, Chickasaw State Park, Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park, Nathan Bedford Forrest State Park, Pickwick State Park, and Panther Creek State Park.  The parks' official websites can be found here.
Pinson is fixed, and I'll re-word the others shortly, but I was wondering how often this sort of thing occurs.  Does Wikipedia have a policy regarding copying-and-pasting material from other websites into an article?  Bms4880 (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Wikipedia does have a policy: Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Also see Template:Copypaste. Articles that are copy-and-pasted sometimes are speedy-deleted onsite as "copyvios", even though the copyright owner may not have complained (and might even have been the one who cluelessly copied their web content into Wikipedia). Revising the article to eliminate the problem, as you did with Pinson Mounds, is the best way to address these situations when you find them (albeit time-consuming). --Orlady (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: I can't quite make sense of the sign's directions.  The bottom arrows point to Jamestown and Byrdstown, which almost certainly indicates North on US-127 (or 127's predecessor). The top seven arrows point toward towns in Middle Tennessee, which probably indicates US-70. The problem is that Knoxville, Kingston, and Harriman, which are on (or very near) US-70, should be in the direction opposite the Middle Tennessee towns, rather than (as the sign indicates) the direction opposite the Byrdstown area.  
It's possible that the sign was located at the junction of 70N and 127 (Mapquest or Yahoo-Map to Elmore Rd in Crossville) rather than the 70/127 junction, but I'm pretty sure the latter is the traditional junction (Scott's Tavern was located at the modern intersection of Main St. and Stanley St.).  Bms4880 (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have assumed it was one of those common situations where the intersection is slightly offset, and that US 70 and 127 ran together for a short distance. I figure this was the intersection where U.S. 127 split off to the north from U.S. 70. --Orlady (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Interesting thoughts, and my source is adamant that it was the latter (70/127).  Obviously it must have been on 127, since it is almost exactly four miles to Homestead along that route, but other than that, it must be a function of just how much the roads have changed since the original sign was erected.  I could be completely wrong, but my guess is that in Crossville itself, US 70 has shifted somewhat since the original photo was taken.  I just cannot find any detailed road maps from that era online. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The signpost's location

message: On the Carter County, Tennessee page, something doesn't make sense to me; the early history section is written such as to make Tennessee a part of the Province of North Carolina continously...
As part of North Carolina counties
    * Clarendum;
    * New Hanover Precinct (1729-1734);
    * Bladen County (1734-1749) - current county seat is Elizabethtown, North Carolina);
    * Anson County (1749-1753);
    * Rowan County (1753-1777);
    * Burke County (1777).
...but that doesn't make sense with the first sentence of the next section;
"Carter County was the first permanent settlement outside the original 13 American colonies."
It can't be in North Carolina but outside the colony of North Carolina can it? Doesn't the Proclamation of 1763 come into play? Looking for clarity...Berean Hunter (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, the boundaries of the British colony of North Carolina, and later the state of North Carolina, extended westward to encompass all or almost all of what is now Tennessee. In effect, it had no western boundary, but extended far beyond the frontier. Apparently, some of the western N.C. counties also extended west as far as the Mississippi River. At first, this didn't really matter because this was still Indian territory uninhabited by white settlers. Over time, however, white settlers arrived and new counties were carved out of the wilderness. Several of the earliest-formed counties of Tennessee were originally formed as counties of North Carolina (also, I think at least one was formed in Virginia). In 1790, when the Southwest Territory was organized, Tennessee stopped being part of North Carolina -- and North Carolina gained a real western boundary. I would hazard a guess that everything west of that boundary is not considered part of the original colony of North Carolina. --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: PS - See http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/archives/FindingAids/Circulars/AIC3.pdf for some of the history. --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Carter County article is poorly worded.  The author is trying to say that the first permanent settlement outside of the original 13 colonies (i.e., Watauga) was formed in what is now Carter County.  This settlement was formed in 1772.  It was annexed by North Carolina shortly thereafter as part of Washington County, not Carter County.  When Tennessee became a state, Washington County was broken up into several counties, one of which was Carter, which included Watauga.  So, Watauga was originally not part of the original 13 colonies, but then became part of North Carolina, then part of the various statehood attempts that ended with Tennessee.  Bms4880 (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Along with Orlady's source, see Goodspeed's History of Carter County for clarification.  Bms4880 (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carter County, Tennessee 

message: I propose that photos of all Tennessee county courthouses be added to their respective article, and possibly the corresponding county seat article.  This would serve to beautify the article and serve as a visual representation of the county.
A handful already have courthouse photos:
*Cannon County, Tennessee
*Chester County, Tennessee
*DeKalb County, Tennessee
*Hawkins County, Tennessee  
*Houston County, Tennessee
*Loudon County, Tennessee
*Macon County, Tennessee
*Putnam County, Tennessee
*Rhea County, Tennessee
*Rutherford County, Tennessee
*Sevier County, Tennessee
*Shelby County, Tennessee
Anybody want to help contribute?  --Ichabod (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been uploading my courthouse photos to county seat articles, namely Celina, Jamestown, Gainesboro, Newport, Livingston, and Madisonville, off the top of my head.  I have a few more, just haven't uploaded them yet.  Bms4880 (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I've begun adding your photos to their corresponding county articles.  --Ichabod (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is the Marion County Courthouse. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Marion_Courthouse.jpg --Tholcomb (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job.  I've added it to the Marion Co. article.  Bms4880 (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Courthouse Photos

message: The following county articles now have courthouse photos:
* Anderson County
* Benton County
* Bledsoe County
* Blount County
* Bradley County
* Campbell County
* Cannon County
* Cheatham County
* Chester County
* Claiborne County
* Clay County
* Cocke County
* Cumberland County
* Dickson County
* Fentress County
* Franklin County
* Grainger County
* Greene County
* Hawkins County
* Houston County
* Humphreys County
* Jackson County
* Jefferson County
* Knox County	
* Loudon County
* Macon County
* McMinn County
* Meigs County
* Monroe County
* Montgomery County
* Morgan County
* Overton County
* Polk County
* Rhea County
* Roane County
* Rutherford County
* Sevier County
* Shelby County
* Smith County
* Sullivan County
* Sumner County
* Trousdale County
* Unicoi County
* Union County
* Van Buren County
* Washington County
* White County
* Wilson County
I count 48, which puts us just over halfway to the goal of all 95.  Most of the remaining counties are located along the state's Kentucky border in the north and northeast and a few along the Alabama and Mississippi borders to the southwest.  Davidson, Hamilton, and Madison also lack courthouse images, likely due to their large couty seats where the courthouse isn't the most prominent or even central structure.  Bms4880 (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress, 4/2008

message: The following counties do not have courthouse photos.  Contributors may want to cross them off once a photo is taken and uploaded.  --Ichabod (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress 11/2008

message: If any of you get the chance, would you mind clicking on this Old version of the Roan Mountain article and let me know if the photos create large gaps or unnecessary whitespace, especially in the "Peaks" section?  Just scroll down past the revision info.  Thanks.  Bms4880 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No excessive white spacing was found, but I employed a few fixes to keep the section edit links from bunching up.  I also moved the lower images to be just above the section headers as is recommended for display.  Image gallery was also formatted to take up less space (bigger image is of course available by clicking on each). — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 03:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roan Mountain -- excessive white space 

message: I'm doing what I can to advertise User:LaraLove/Bathrobe Cabal/Meetup. Should be a good time, I hope. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Nashville-based meetup coming up soon 

message: The core purpose of ratings as I, personally, understand them is best reflected in the assessment grid. It presents the status off all articles in the scope of a certain project. For newbies the grid can be useful, too. You can sort of pick your skill level if you aren't so accustomed to the process. If you are an editor you can identify problem articles easily and try to move as many articles to the top left corner of the grid. (What's that single "No importance" article doing there?)
The assessment scheme is commonly used and propbably as often discussed. Not long after User:ArkansasTraveler had kicked off the TN project I had the idea to introduce ratings and with much help from User:Huntster the assessment page was started. I have compared the template provided by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team to other versions in use and decided to stay close to the most common standard (not the lowest, the most common and accepted). With help of Huntsters ideas the definitions were revised very slightly. 
As for the ownership of articles or projects let me assure you that I do not care. I was the one who suggested to rephrase the formulation in the project banner from "This article is part of project TN" to "This article is in the scope of project TN", because the former version did sound like ownership of the articles by the project. I'll come back to that banner later.
In the process of preparing the assessment page I became aquainted to a good degree with the common accepted standards as well as with the articles identified to be in the scope of the TN project. I rated the majority of articles by quality and (all that must have gone unnoticed) more than 1,500 articles by importance, identifing top, high and mid importance articles and lots of low ones already. All were rated for quality and 65% for importance. I do not mention this to brag, I mention this to let you know that I have seen every TN project related article, every one of 2,500 at least 3 times, many of them more often. I did not read all of them but quite some. Nevertheless I have some sort of overview of the TN related artciles, without suggesting that that would entitle for something. It is also worth to mention that some commotion is about the last 35% of articles that were left unrated. Yawn: Mostly low and mid ones and a ton that probably everone would agree on. 
Changing the rating scheme for importance or quality is a task too important to be solved in a state project. The rating scheme is used in many Wikipedia project with adaptions and smaller adjustments. I am not opposed to change, change is good, they say. If I look at Wikipedia as the casual reader, I would want it done in a fashion that the information of the State of Tennesssee is as easy to find as the information for any other state or better. That does not depend on the number of articles but on a similar organisation and sorting process for the articles. I do not even deny that there might be better systems but I count every single project on Wikipedia as one consensus vote in favor of the current system. There might be better ones but if the TN project starts a revolution it would only cause more confusion among readers and editors, also. As maldefined the instructions may be, at least you can rely on their maldefinitions. 
Some editors are in several projects and it would make it difficult for editors to rate articles at all if every project used their own standards. And for readers it would be the same problem, it would even be worse for them because they might have no idea about the disagreement. If there are  valid concerns about the rating system that could be addressed to the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, because they issued the basic standards in use. 
====Positive news====
There is one positive news item to mention, though. There were no complaints from readers or editors whose babies were upgraded from "No importance" to "Low importance". 
Dang, there were complaints about the Battle of Athens, that's the one with no importance. Good move to remove the rating, my mistake to overrate! But that way articles can be identified that need attention. In that colorful square up there. That is a use of the ratings that I wanted to demonstrate to argue in favor of the usefulness of the complete rating system with all grades present and all grades used according to the most common standard available now. doxTxob \ talk 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Priority" is probably a better term than "Importance," if won't create consistency issues.  Again, I'm not worried offending "parents," I was thinking of the casual reader and those not familiar with Wikipedia. Bms4880 (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview of articles

message: There is one positive news item to mention, though. There were no complaints from readers or editors whose babies were upgraded from "No importance" to "Low importance". 
Dang, there were complaints about the Battle of Athens, that's the one with no importance. Good move to remove the rating, my mistake to overrate! But that way articles can be identified that need attention. In that colorful square up there. That is a use of the ratings that I wanted to demonstrate to argue in favor of the usefulness of the complete rating system with all grades present and all grades used according to the most common standard available now. doxTxob \ talk 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Positive news

message: How about we change the wording on the Project banner from "Importance" to "Priority". Not the categories and assessment page, just on the banner template, that's done in a second and if they hate it, it can be undone in a second, one edit. Would it be less offensive if it read that your "baby" is of Low priority as compared to Low importance? Or even No importance. doxTxob \ talk 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Priority" is probably a better term than "Importance," if won't create consistency issues.  Again, I'm not worried offending "parents," I was thinking of the casual reader and those not familiar with Wikipedia. Bms4880 (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Project banner

message: Hear ye, hear ye! List of cities and towns in Tennessee has been selected to be a February List of the Day, to be featured on two separate days during February 2008. See User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/voting/200802 for the record of voting for February featured lists. Thanks to all who contributed to this list. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured List of the Day

message: The Bays Mountain article's history section appears to be copied ad verbatim from the park website's history page.  I guess it's possible that Bays Mountain park copied the Wikipedia article, but whoever wrote the Wikipedia article's history section doesn't appear to be well-versed-- they linked to the wrong James Needham, linked to a William King disambiguation, and some of the other links were hastily done.  Also, the short paragraph on moonshine stills looks brochure-esque.  
Is there any way to figure out for sure which site did the copying?  Bms4880 (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bays Mountain &mdash; possible plagiarism 

message: Can someone please create a page on this city? I came across the place in an article about the recent tornado . They don't seem to have an official website but there are many google hits  and even a map . I'm a little busy to find more info atm though.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Castalian Springs, Tennessee]] 

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed April 6-8, 2006 Tornado Outbreak and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributor of the article along with another WikiProject. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: April 6-8, 2006 Tornado Outbreak GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

message: A List of National Historic Landmarks in Tennessee list-article is in progress, and is nearly complete in terms of creating at least a stub article for each of the National Historic Landmarks in the state.  Help editing descriptions for the sites, in the list-article, and editing the articles about the individual NHL articles, and photographs, is needed!  doncram (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of National Historic Landmarks in Tennessee]] 

message: I'm pretty sure that vandals have been loose here. (I reverted some other vandalism by the most recent editor.) I've reverted some of the more recent edits, but I'm not sure whether I've gone too far or not far enough. Could someone who knows more have a look, please. --Peter cohen (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done an overall cleanup of the page, nothing much, but I did have to remove the History and See City sections as they were direct copy/pastes from the Diocese websites. I do believe you caught all the actual vandalism, though. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 14:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Roman Catholic Diocese of Knoxville]] 

message: I have nominated this article for Featured Article Review. Please come and review it, and help it retain FA status! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some requested citations-- I think there are five citation requests left to satisfy.  I can't find anything hard source about his "Napoleon of the Stump" nickname or his last words.  I couldn't find anything regarding his objections to expanding slavery into the newly-acquired territories (his diary is 4 volumes long), although McCormac (442-444, 628-9) implies that Polk opposed the Wilmot Proviso because he didn't think slavery had anything to do with ending the war.  Bms4880 (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[James K. Polk]]

message: Ku Klux Klan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR nomination 

message: Is there a Wikipedia article about this?  I searched with several keywords, but I wasn't sure if it had an official name.  Bms4880 (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Content about the topic has been inserted into Tennessee River. --Orlady (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  Thanks!  Bms4880 (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tennessee-Georgia border dispute 

message: I'm improving the Alan Kulwicki article toward FA. He died in an airplane crash flying from Knoxville to Bristol. It would be helpful if the article wikilinked to that main highway between Blountville and Bristol where the plane crashed if anyone knows the actual location. Royalbroil 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interstate 81 is the main route between Blountville and Bristol, but I couldn't find anything mentioning I-81 specifically as the crash site.  The NTSB report would probably note it.  Bms4880 (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The detailed report of the accident at http://planecrashinfo.com/1993/1993-17.htm does not say anything about a highway. --Orlady (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help. My map showed several state highways in the area plus Interstate 81. I'll remove the statement about the highway since its source wasn't extremely reliable and it's only a tangent to Kulwicki's article anyhow. I was looking for a better source about the cause of the accident, and the official link to the NTSB report is GOLDEN. Thanks so much! Royalbroil 04:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Location, anyone?

message: This is being posted at this project page based on the recommendations of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Turn to others for help.  There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Andrew Jackson#Search for Consensus -- Jackson and the "Final Solution.
The issue is whether an article in a Swedish language newspaper quoting a professor of comparative religion constitutes a reliable source justifying linking Jackson’s Indian Removal policy with Hitler’s Final Solution attempt to exterminate the Jewish race.  There is a wealth of credible, academic material available to offer valid and harsh criticisms of Jackson’s policy without resorting to the extremes of comparisons with Hitler.
In any event, I would appreciate anybody with an opinion on the subject to weigh in at the Jackson link above. As the matter stands, there is only one editor supporting retaining the language, but I am not sure that a consensus for removing it currently exists (many in opposition are IPs or infrequent editors). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Andrew Jackson and Hitler

message: Since this hasn't already been posted here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Nashville.
Hope to see some of you fine folks there. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Takes Nashville 

message: It appears to me that Montgomery Bell Tunnel and Harpeth River State Park are both about the same tunnel (which is a National Historic Landmark). However, I've never been to the place discussed, and I don't have any firsthand knowledge. Does anyone know? Are they one and the same? --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the Narrows of the Harpeth is a section of the Harpeth where two ends of a large bend in the river nearly join (naturally).  The Montgomery Bell Tunnel is a manmade tunnel from one end of this bend to the other.  It was part of Narrows of the Harpeth State Historic Area until recently (2004 or so), when this state historic area was combined with Mound Bottom and several other sites along the lower Harpeth to create Harpeth River State Park.  The Montgomery Bell Tunnel article incorrectly places the tunnel in Montgomery Bell State Park, which is further to the north in Dickson County (Harpeth is in Cheatham County).  Bms4880 (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason the article said it was part of Montgomery Bell State Park is that the National Park Service information sheet says it is part of that state park. Apparently the information sheet is out of date (my best guess is that the State Historic Area was administered by Montgomery Bell State Park). Particularly, if the article is going to contradict the information in a reliable source, the article should cite another source to substantiate its facts. --Orlady (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The article is wrong. The tunnel is not the Narrows of the Harpeth. The tunnel is at the Narrows of the Harpeth. The Narrows of the Harpeth are natural...the tunnel is manmade. --SmashvilleBONK! 13:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that.  Does "Narrows" refer to the pinch of land between the two ends of the bend, or something else? The USGS classifies it as a "gap."  Bms4880 (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now this is beginning to make sense to me! I've looked at photos and maps on various websites, and it appears to me that the name "narrows of Harpeth" is associated with a large incised meander of the Harpeth River. It's not clear whether the word "narrows" refers to the stream channel itself or to the closeness of the two ends of the meander, but I think the second possibility is more likely. In any event, Montgomery Bell's tunnel connected the two ends of the meander, harnessing 16 ft of hydraulic head as source of water power. --Orlady (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Narrows" might refer to the land between...since the river comes within 200 feet of running back into itself (of course, if memory serves me correctly...there's a huge rock hill in the way...which is what the tunnel was built through) --SmashvilleBONK! 15:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K., both articles and the Harpeth River article should now be correct.  I'll expand the Harpeth River State Park article when I get a chance.  Bms4880 (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion back in July 2008 was all very interesting.  It would be nice if the information it uncovered was reflected at all in the Montgomery Bell Tunnel article which doesn't mention any narrows at all. :) doncram (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Montgomery Bell Tunnel = Narrows of the Harpeth??

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I'll be reworking our assessment system and template next week (might work on the template tonight...we'll see), but I'm not sure I feel the need to retroactively apply these, unless someone just really wants to go out into the wilderness and start assessing. Let me know your opinions. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I'll keep the new criteria in mind when creating/modifying articles, but I don't see a need for reassessment.  Bms4880 (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there is little purpose in reassessing articles. That opinion notwithstanding, I've inaugurated the new classification level by reducing three articles from B-class to C-class (I thought all three articles were over-rated). --Orlady (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

message: *Arpad Vass - anthropologist request for over a year fulfilled - A fact from Arpad Vass appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on July 8, 2008.  SriMesh | talk 03:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Article

message: Miller's Department Store is unreferenced and may be original research.  Can someone familiar with the company and source material about the company add references?  If it's notable, there should be mentions in local specialty books and in local news outlets.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unreferenced, but the content is valid.  I couldn't have written it, but from personal knowledge and memory I can vouch for the general validity of much of the article.  The contributors probably had a source. --Orlady (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For better or for worse, Wikipedia doesn't like original research.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miller's Department Store 

message: Currently, 2783 articles are assigned to this project, of which 477, or 17.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of .) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the liberty of adding the template to the project page. The cleanup listing should be available in a few days. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles flagged for cleanup 

message: I have nominated Nashville Sounds to become a Featured Article. I would appreciate support and/or constructive comments from members of the project. You may view the nomination here. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article candidate: [[Nashville Sounds]] 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Tennessee 

message: Is this really a state park? It looks to me to be a private golf course. If you have information on it, please comment on the talk page. --Orlady (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ross Creek Landing State Park]] 

message: I've requested a move of article The Hermitage (Tennessee) to rename it from "The Hermitage (Tennessee)" to "The Hermitage (Andrew Jackson home)".  Please discuss at its Talk page.  Notice provided also at wp:Requested moves and at wt:NRHP.  Thanks. doncram (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've requested a move on The Hermitage (Tennessee), a NHL in Tennessee 

message: I'm having trouble finding the following information for this article:
1.  The year the park was established
2.  The company that owned/operated the strip mine upon which the park was established
Any info. will be helpful.  Bms4880 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Indian Mountain State Park]] 

message: Tina Turner has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:GAR]] review of [[Tina Turner]]

message: I'm not really familiar with making requests for semi-protection, but are there any reasons we shouldn't request semi-protection for the Polk article?  It's vandalized several times per day.  Bms4880 (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it deserves semi-protection. I'll go request it. --Orlady (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and semi-protected for a week...pretty obvious, no need to go through the request...obviously, if it keeps up once it comes off, I'll extend it...--Smashvilletalk 17:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection for [[James K. Polk]]?   

message: I just added a stub article at Knoxville City-County Building, because it was a red link on another page.  The only thing I was able to find about it was the address.  Perhaps a local can fill it in.  --rogerd (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised it's even notable.  It's a big rectangular building overlooking the river.  It had prime Boomsday seating if you had an office in it.  That's about all I remember.  I'll check some hardcover sources at the library tomorrow.  Bms4880 (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for saying that. I also consider the Knoxville City-County Building to be utterly unremarkable (not that I'm entirely sure which building it is). Apparently the redlink of concern was in City-County Building, which link does not exactly establish notability. --Orlady (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In this photo it's the large building in the foreground on the left that looks like a skyscraper turned on its side.  I didn't find anything on it in any hardcover sources.  A more recent text might have some info on it.  Bms4880 (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I found some additional info about it, and added to the article. --Orlady (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  I'll keep an eye out for any extra information.  Bms4880 (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knoxville City-County Building 

message: I'm going to overhaul and expand this article tomorrow, and I was wondering if there is a Wikipedia rule against the use of eye dialect.  Several editors have been using it for examples in the "Sample Vocabulary" section.  As far as I can tell, linguists and researchers in the field frown upon its use, and I'm going to delete or re-word most of the examples, but I thought it odd that multiple editors were doing this.  Bms4880 (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see absolutely no reason to keep those misspellings. After all, while the dialect's speech may be...unique, the words they represent are still spelled the same as Queen's English, and this is a written encyclopaedia. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Appalachian English]] 

message: articles in :Category:Tennessee articles missing geocoordinate data do not have geographic coordinates. Coords are useful for making the article appear on Google Maps & many other mapping services; and they allow our users to click through to see the article subject location on a map. There's a short guide to on how to add geocodes to articles ... it really is very easy to do. I hope you'll take some time to ensure that Tennessee is as well represented as it can be on wikipedia by fixing up the listed articles. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tennessee articles needing geographic coordinates

message: Please help expand Tennessee coal sludge spill, and if you're in Tennessee, get photos. Badagnani (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article