Talk:Tulsa, Oklahoma/Archive 3

message: The population density does not seem correct. Normally, the density is less per km² than m². I calculated the density to be 801.58 km² and 2122 m². Because I do not know these to be the correct numbers, I do not want to change the main page. I could not find any information backing these figures, so if the correct numbers are found please add them. 204.117.197.4 15:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population Density

message: Eh, another list. I won't delete it yet as I want to assume good faith on behalf of the anon contributor. However, I don't see a need for a list of Tulsa's tallest buildings as no other city article has one. I won't be against including a parenthetical description of a few of Tulsa's tallest buildings (since Tulsa's tallest building is also Oklahoma's tallest building) in another section such as, oh, I don't know, cityscape? I'd like to hear some opinions from other contributors as well before I take action.--NMajdan•talk 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought you might like to know that the anon IP user who added the list can be quite persistent. We have been reverting the addition of a similar list added to Brisbane for the last week or so. Not only does the user readd the list, but they revert back to the version losing any subsequent edits by other users. Rimmeraj 21:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallest buildings list 

message: On an episode of I Love Lucy, Tulsa is mentioned.
This is possibly the most tenuous and contrived entry I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I haven't removed it from the article as I haven't seen the I Love Lucy episode (nor the series actually) so if anyone knows if the "mention" is notable or just one in passing by a character then please note it here. 172.141.159.129 00:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please, just be bold and delete it. I think that whole section needs to go cause it borderlines on WP:OR.--NMajdan•talk 01:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tulsa in popular culture 

message: How this article say that Tulsa is the most inland ocean going port in the US?  First, there are many cities further inland that have ports on the Mississippi river system (St. Paul, MN for instance), Second the depth of the waterway to Tulsa is only 9 feet and handles barge traffic, which I would hardly call ocean-going.  The official website for the Port of Catoosa does not make this claim.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonwilson (talk • contribs) 
:I found another reference to make this more clear. Okiefromokla•talk 18:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you just contradict yourself? This article needs major help. Some of it is great content, some of it, not-so-much. However, Tulsa's role in Rail Transportation may be worth mentioning in the article.--NMajdan•talk 22:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transportation 

message: I reverted several edits because I felt adding local pseudo-celebrities and bands that fail WP:BAND would further degrade an already below-average article. If the editor who made the changes wishes to defend his edits, please feel free to do so. After all, nobody owns this article.↔NMajdan•talk 17:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's reverts 

message: This section has gotten long again...
Shouldn't the Cityscape section be a short summary of the The Neighborhoods of Tulsa, Oklahoma article? Isn't that why there even is a Neighborhoods of Tulsa article? Well, the Cityscape section has gotten to be very long and repetitive of the Neighborhoods of Tulsa, Oklahoma article all over again. We should shorten it and combine some material from the current Cityscape section into the The Neighborhoods of Tulsa, Oklahoma article. I think we should shorten it to maybe a few paragraphs, or, at the very least, less than half the section's current length. What do you guys think? Okiefromokla 21:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: too long cityscape section

message: I have done a lot of editing, as you might see by looking at the history lately. The Tulsa article may seem considerably different than it did before, maybe a lot better, hopefully. I shortened it a bit and condensed a lot of stuff, adding a few important things and changing the picture layout and even adding pictures. Everyone likes pictures. What I really think the article needs now is more citations and a lot more. We have less than 15 right now. More documentation and more facts are needed, but lets concentrate on not making the article any longer but simply rewriting or deleting things that arent really needed. Shortening and calrifying will make all the difference. And please, I stress: please no more useless information like listing every single park in the city of Tulsa PLEASE. Okiefromokla 06:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tulsa Article facelift

message: Ok, I striked out some of those things NMajdan listed that I have just accomplished and I left notes for people to look at if they want. (See above list)... I can envision such problems like how the History and Government sections can't get any bigger without original research as their main articles are very skimpy. I suggest the priorities for this article right now be more references, and since the article is bigger we desperately need more pictures, like a climate relevant picture, a picture of city hall under government, and a transportation-relevant picture such  on of the Port of Catoosa, a Tulsa bus stop, or perferrably, if anyone has a picture oh a highway interchange where you can see downtown in the background. That would be great. Just some suggestions, you know. References and pictures and expansion of the Government section are big priorities in my mind, as well as improper spacing of reference marks... again, all of that is listed in the above list. I don't know if we need a peer review just yet since now we know what we need to get done. When the majority of these suggestions are completed then maybe we can go for Good Article status at the least. However, have you seen the San Jose article? This Tulsa article is better, in my opinion... Okiefromokla 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "History" section can be improved with additional research not just original research. But, yes, the priority is more references but I still think the above things need to be addressed before the article is nominated for GA. I've done my share of GA, FA and PR reviews in the past and the above points I would want addressed before approving for GA myself. I'll try to go take some pictures of City Hall and the bus stop downtown if I get the chance. And yes, a peer review should be done after the above issues are resolved and before a GA nomination. You did a great job on the article today. Its amazing how much better it looks just after you lengthened the "History" section and converted the "Popular culture" section into prose.↔NMajdan•talk 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do what I can. Thanks.Okiefromokla 02:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took some photos of downtown. I still have some post-processing to do but I'll upload them as soon as I can.↔NMajdan•talk 20:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, because I was about to go take some pictures of downtown also. You saved me a trip. Did you get pictures for the sections of transportation, government and climate, or something along those lines?Okiefromokla 20:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got a decent picture of the Courthouse, a not-so-decent picture of City Hall, a pretty good picture of the bus stop downtown (transportation), and some random buildings. I've uploaded the City Hall and Courthouse photos to the Commons and I created a new article for Tulsa on the Commons as well. So keep an eye on that page as thats where I'll add my photos as I get them processed (have to lighten up the images and rotate some of them). I'll let you insert the images in the article where you think appropriate.↔NMajdan•talk 21:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have completed most the suggestions on your list, Nmajdan, and fixed a few things I thought needed to be fixed. We could always use more citation, and of course the article needs more work, but I think its time for a peer review and then an attempt to get this article to Good Article or Feature Article status. I'm not sure which one it should be put up for, but I am fairly confident its at least at or near GA status, as it compares nicely to others I have looked at in this category. Since you're the only one really collaborating with me on this, I'd like to see any more suggestions you may have, but if they are nothing significant I'm thinking its Peer Review time.Okiefromokla 21:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, feel free to put it up for WP:PR anytime. I know we'll get hit on the lack of citations in the "History" section (only one); the license on :Image:Tulsahistoricpostcard.jpg is wrong; and some of the other stuff I mentioned aboved. But the article vastly improved compared to it a month ago. You should be proud of the progress. In my opinion, it is very close to GA. If I were you, I would spend some time improving the citations, especially in the "History" section. But that is the only thing I would say needs to be improved before PR. I proudly won't chime in on the PR as I basically did one above. Good luck! This page is watchlisted so I'll continue to keep an eye on it.↔NMajdan•talk 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OK, working on it...

message: I ran AndyZ's automated peer review on the article and here are some suggestions:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
*See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 12 miles, use 12 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 12 miles.[?]
*When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**is considered
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 38 additive terms, a bit too much.
*The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, ↔NMajdan•talk 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, some of that is useful. I'm not sure how we could make the table of contents much shorter though, I'll put some thought into it. Okiefromokla 21:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't know either. The only thing I can think of is getting rid of the "Transportation" and "Roads" subsections and merging them as two paragraphs under the "Infrastructure" section (which is another issue - I don't really like to see a heading with no content before another subheading).↔NMajdan•talk 21:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't like it either. I never would have thought of putting a subheading under a main heading until I got the idea from looking at the other feature articles, and all of them have a lot of that. I thought it would encourage people to expand those sub-sections and make it easier to see how the article flows... But I still don't like it.. so whatever we do with it is fine with me.Okiefromokla 22:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated peer review

message: Ok, so there aren't any feature city articles that have a massive external links section, and frankly it was annoying the heck out of me to have a million external links of every single museum, preforming arts group and newspaper mentioned in the article. So I deleted all but the official city website, visitor info, the chamber of commerce and vision 2025. I meant to copy and paste all the deleted links into here but I accidentily copied something else in the mean time... sorry! Of course, if somebody has a problem with not having an eternal links section the size of Alaska then you can always look under the article's history to see what I deleted.Okiefromokla 03:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: I changed back the pictures in the geography section to their original pixelation without realizing that you had already changed them to the standard 180 px, NMajdan. I'm not trying to "own" this article or anything so I wanted to discuss it in here - do you think we should take the pixelation out of all the pictures to make them all the default? (without specifying, it goes to 180px or somewhere around there). I think it looks nice to have them all basically the same size on the article so let me know what you think. I just changed them back because I thought it looked better, but thats what the discussion page is for. Oh, and if by any miracle someone else looks at this and wants to say anything then I'm not just talking to NMajdan, of course. :P Okiefromokla 15:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the thing with images - they look different to everybody. I have a 1024x768 monitor which a vast majority of people have. To me, the article looks cluttered with images. In everybody's user preferences, they can define the default thumbnail size. So, if somebody is using an 800x600 monitor, they can set a small thumbnail size and if somebody else is using a 1900x1200 monitor, they can define a large thumbnail size. However, if a size is specified, then that overrides the users' preference. I understand the issue on some pictures, including those that are much longer than they are tall. But I still prefer to leave sizes off so the users' preferences determine the size.↔NMajdan•talk 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, ok. That makes sense. Well it's not a big deal. To me with the pixelation off it looks like the article doesn't have enough pictures. Looking through the feature articles, it doesn't appear that the reviewers have made an issue of the pixelation of the pictures, as some specify 250px and others have no specification. I did go through and change them all to not specifying pixelation, though - just because I didn't know you could pick your own picture size that way. The only one I think shouldnt be that way is the "Tulsa as seen from Turkey Mountain" picture. With my screen resolution and defualt pixelation that picture is so tiny you can hardly make out what it is. So I left that, and hopefully the uniquely horizontal size of the picture will look alright in most resolutions by default... As you can tell by looking in history I'm always pretty odd about the pictures - I move them around and change their size a lot on this article. It never seems to look just right. So i'll just let the picture issue go. The only thing is now it's obvious that we still don't have as many pictures as the feature city articles. We could use some more. Okiefromokla 21:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pixelation?

message: Just to update, if you haven't noticed: the Tulsa article now has more references than all of the featured city articles except San Francisco, Houston and Detroit. That's five out of eight of the feature articles that Tulsa has more citations! If Tulsa became a feature article right now - it would (arguably) be better organized, more coherent, better cited, better written, and more comprehensive than several of the other feature city articles - namely San Jose, Ann Arbor, and Marshall, Tx, specifically. I really think this article has a chance at being a feature article - I'm just waiting for more takers on the peer review. Sigh... Okiefromokla 02:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is definitely taking shape. I, too, would like a more thorough peer review. But, I say give the current one until around the first of May and then nominate for FA. You'll definitely get feedback there. And don't be disheartened if it doesn't pass the first time - few do. I am very much looking forward to getting this article featured.↔NMajdan•talk 17:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update(maybe bragging)

message: I noticed a new paragraph regarding a new statue was added to the lead. Per WP:LEAD (namely WP:LEAD#Suggestions), the lead should be an overview of the content of the article. Everything mentioned in the intro should be expanded on, or at least mentioned, in the rest of the article. The new addition should be moved from the lead to somewhere in the article itself.↔NMajdan•talk 20:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I modified the lead a little and made only a brief mention of the statue and its importance. I also moved that paragraph to the history section as it seemed the only place it could really be mentioned in the article without seeming out of place. However, I would like to suggest that it may be appropriate to add a section entitled "monuments" (or something) under culture. It IS a pretty big deal that Tulsa, Oklahoma is going to have the world's tallest freestanding monument, taller than Mother Russia AND the Statue of Liberty. But Tulsa ALSO has the world's largest praying hands statue, the Golden Driller (which probably needs a place to be mentioned in the article anyway) and many many small statues along the riverparks trail. Is it appropriate to add such a section, or does that seem like bloistering and advertising the city to you? Or if you have a better place to mention these things, let me know, because I am at a loss. Okiefromokla 21:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nevermind. I figured it out.Okiefromokla 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note about the Lead and most recent contribution 

message: You know what would be great? A portion of main street has been renamed "Avenue of the sister cities" and on a street corner there is a pretty cool looking pole with signs pointing towards all of Tulsa's sister cities and the distance they lie from downtown. Its also in a really nice looking renovated area of downtown if the actual avenue could be caught in the background. If anybody is downtown be sure to stop by and take a few pictures and we'll use the best one in the law and government#sister cities section. No rush though.Okiefromokla•talk 23:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be a little more specific in the exact location of this sign?↔NMajdan•talk 18:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is on the corner of 5th and Main, at least thats what a Tulsa Schools website I just looked at said. Okiefromokla•talk 04:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Great picture of city hall. Seriously, I'm impressed, and I used to work on a newspaper around a lot of photographers. Unfortunently, we may not be able to keep the new picture up for long, as Mayor Taylor is trying to move city hall. If you ever get the chance to take a picture, she's moving it to the Wiltel building next to the BOK Tower. It's the one with glass siding. The move hasn't happened or been approved yet, but when it does happen I'll have to switch the picture back. Good job, though. Okiefromokla•talk 16:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea for a picture

message: You never told me this would be this hard. This latest person to give a long list of requests seems to not have read the article very well. He seems to want to make the article what it used to be - an excessive list of every single detail and place in Tulsa. This person also seems to be flat out wrong in his complaints - for example, he says half of the history section is from 1980 to present - this is completely not true - its about 1/10 to 2/10 of the history section. I left a comment on his page but what he needs to do is take a look at the other FA cities because most of his requests would degrade from the consice information and overview feel of the article. Its extremely frusterating when people suggest things that are not neccisary or say things are wrong about the article that are not. While some of his requests are reasonable, most of them are not. His requests are not neccisary for a FA quality article. Am I the only one who feels that this latest long list of demands is not good!? Okiefromokla•talk 18:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Earlier when I said "don't be disheartened if it doesn't pass the first time," this is what I was referring to. Getting an article FA status is not easy. This is about what I expected. I've nominated two articles for FA and both have failed. I'm batting a big .000 so don't feel bad. Its been a busy day at work for me so I haven't had time to read the latest comment althought I did see it. The other FA reviewers like seeing that you are making progress on requests. You don't have to agree with or comply with every suggestion as long as you can make a strong case. If you disagree with a comment, respond to that comment on the FA nomination page and see if other reviewers have an opinion. I honestly can't imagine that Raul expects every suggest to be implemented. But, you do have to vouch for your position at the very least. But, as I said, the comments should be left on the FA nomination page where other reviewers and Raul can view them.↔NMajdan•talk 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New FA Requests...

message: I think its great to have a picture of some aspect of Tulsa religion in the demographics section, as it now talks about religion. I'm not too familiar with licensing protocol on Wikipedia but the prayer tower picture I put up appears to be accepted for use - provided that the photographer is credited. The photographer is credited in the talk page for the picture, but if this means that he must also be credited in the caption of the picture on the actual article, I don't think i want the picture on the page. If you know about this either way, please let me know. (Or if the author must be credited in the caption, please just delete the picture, as I probably won't be able to do it tomorrow.) In the mean time, it looks nice. ThanksOkiefromokla•talk 02:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I could be misunderstanding the  license, I do not think the caption needs to credit the photographer (since the photographer is already credited on its own Wikipedia page).  --Kralizec! (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prayer Tower Picture

message: The new heath care section has a picture Cancer Treatment Center's building. I work at St. Francis and, weather permitting, should be able to get a decent picture of it by this weekend (I work Fri, Sat, Sun). I always license my images as straight GFDL, so there would no license problems. As the largest hospital, and as a primary care hospital, I think that St. Francis would be a better choice for an image. (As the oldest hospital St. John would be a good choice also.) However, I recognize that I might be biased and won't insert a new picture without some feedback here. 
On a different note, should Tulsa Regional (Or whatever it is called these days) and the specialty hospitals be mentioned (Orthopedic Hospital of Oklahoma, and Spine)? Dsmdgold 03:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to take as many pictures as you wish. Even if they aren't used in the article, they can still be used at commons:Tulsa, Oklahoma.↔NMajdan•talk 11:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, if you can get a good picture of St. Francis, perferably one that shows at least a large part of the complex, then I for one would like it in the article. I had a picture of the cancer treatment center that I put on there and I thought it was good because it was easy to show the whole front of the facility because of how it's built. With a lot of these hospital complexes its not easy to show the whole front of the facility or the whole thing unless its taken from the air or from a long way away.Okiefromokla•talk 17:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a semi-decent pic of St. Francis, although a better one may be easy to come by - time permitting. ↔NMajdan•talk 17:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the cancer treatment center picture is still better, in my opinion. We should wait for a better picture of St. Frances, but in the mean time i really think the cancer treatment center works perfectly and so there really shouldn't be any rush.Okiefromokla•talk 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that any picture I can get of St. Francis is going to better than that one Nmajdam has. The only way I can see a better picture is either form the air, or wait until winter when the leaves are of the trees in front. (By then the Children's Hospital exterior will be finished as well). Dsmdgold 22:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hospital Picture

message: The medical section starts out "In 2005, there were .921 hospital beds per capita in the city." With a population of 387,807, this translates to 357,170 hospital beds in Tulsa, which is bit larger than reality. Is this suppose to read 921 beds, or 1 bed per 921 residents, or what? Dsmdgold 04:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the source was talking about something different. I put it there yesterday but I must have misread the table. Good job on catching it.Okiefromokla•talk 17:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hopsital Beds

message: The caption for the Tulsa movie poster read "The 1949 movie "Tulsa" played on the drama of the Tulsa Race Riot." I haven't seen the movie, but the IMDB plot summary reads:
:It's Tulsa, Oklahoma at the start of the oil boom and Cherokee Lansing's rancher father is killed in a fight with the Tanner Oil Company. Cherokee plans revenge by bringing in her own wells with the help of oil expert Brad Brady and childhood friend Jim Redbird. When the oil and the money start gushing in, both Brad and Jim want to protect the land but Cherokee has different ideas. What started out as revenge for her father's death has turned into an obsession for wealth and power.
So I have changed the caption to read "The 1949 movie "Tulsa" played on the drama of the Tulsa oil boom." Dsmdgold 14:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tulsa Movie Poster

message: Let me know what you think about the new OK Aquarium picture in the outdoor recreation section. Its taken at night so I was reluctant to use yet another night picture since the article already has a few. But I thought the article would benefit from another picture depicting outdoor recreation. Again, let me know if you want to keep it in there, or, if you can, please supply a better outdoor recreation picture! Okiefromokla•talk 19:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OK Aquarium picture

message: Congratulations are definitely in order to OkiefromOkla. Great work on the article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nmajdan (talk • contribs) 03:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, you better believe the Tulsa article will be up next on the Oklahoma Portal.↔NMajdan•talk 03:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Your help throughout this article's entire history is, of course, very very appreciated. Thanks for being my wikipedian guide with my questions regarding this article, and all your help. Its very appreciated!Okiefromokla•talk 05:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article! 

message: ...does exist. Its just not on some maps and there are no signs that say I-444 downtown. But it does exist. Take a look at this traffic map from the City of Tulsa website.↔NMajdan•talk 13:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problems leaving it as 64 and 75, that is why I didn't revert you (although I did revert the guy that changed it from 444 to 44 because that was flat out wrong). I was just informing everybody that 444 does exist but given how it is left off of most maps and never talked about, it can probably be left out of the article.↔NMajdan•talk 13:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interstate 444 

message: Is there any desire at all to create a wikiproject for things relating to the Tulsa Metropolitan Area? Input? Okiefromokla•talk 17:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be against a separate WikiProject but I think a Tulsa task-force or workgroup under WikiProject Oklahoma would work.↔NMajdan•talk 02:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto what Nmajdan said for me.  --Kralizec! (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me know if we want to go this route and I'll look into setting it up. I've never set up a task force before so I'll have to look into it myself, but it shouldn't be too difficult.↔NMajdan•talk 13:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay? Nay?↔NMajdan•talk 14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with what a taskforce or work group would consist of. But I would be in favor of it. If enough people got involved it could eventually become a stand-alone wikiproject, I suppose. So, yay. There are plenty of articles that could be part of this "work group" (If I'm assuming correctly what it is) and plenty of tulsa-related articles that still need to be created, so we would have plenty to do. Okiefromokla•talk 21:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A workgroup is preferred over an entirely new WikiProject if a majority of the articles of the workgroup/wikiproject would be applicable under the parent wikiproject. I would say most of our articles would also be tagged with the WikiProject Oklahoma banner so this would help keep clutter down. It is 4:15 now so I'll try to start working on this now but I probably will not finish until tomorrow at the earliest. I have to modify the WP Oklahoma banner code and create some new categories.↔NMajdan•talk 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Although, it should be noted that there is a wikiproject for many cities and they seem to manage it without too much overlap. (see "Category:WikiProject Cities of the United States" [could not get it to wikilink]). Cities that are similar to Tulsa's size or smaller have wikiprojects, such as Erie, PA, Shreveport, LA, Louisville, KY, Columbia, MO, Youngstown, OH, etc. So it isn't unprecidented to have a wikiproject for a city even though there is a wikiproject for the state. Looking through these wikiprojects I get a pretty good idea of a broad range of articles for which the equivilant article for Tulsa exists. Sports teams, businesses, buildings, parks, suburban cities, historical articles, neighborhoods, climate, geography, transportation (etc.). Many of those probably wouldn't overlap with Wikiproject Oklahoma, or at least they don't overlap in the current city wikiprojects. Okiefromokla•talk 15:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its also the preferred method because it helps reduce clutter on talk pages. An article on the geography of tulsa would go in both the state wikiproject and city, in my opinion. I have created the technical stuff for the task force. I'll leave it to you to create the actual page. I have everything linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Oklahoma/Tulsa, which is the standard format for other task forces. I have also tagged a couple articles and generated the statistics, the list, and the log. So from here on out, those will be updated every other day.↔NMajdan•talk 16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get around to creating the page as soon as I can, which, I stress, should be soon. So what you're saying is a bot will add tulsa-related pages to this workgroup? (as there are only 8 pages so far). Or, am I going to have to add them manually? Also, is there going to be a banner to put on the talk pages of the articles under the work group or one that can be created? I'm happy to make it as long as I know basic rules for doing so, but I'm pretty green with that kind of stuff.Okiefromokla•talk 19:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the articles have to be manually added. All you have to do is add |tulsa-task-force=yes to the WikiProject Oklahoma banner and it adds it to the task force. I'll help out next week. This is a method to keep banner clutter down as well. Articles with the above code will have "This article is supported by the Tulsa task force." added to the WP Oklahoma banner. Any ideas for an image to represent Tulsa? Should be clear what it is even when small (15px or so).↔NMajdan•talk 21:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the golden driller for the task force image? anybody got a good pic and some photoshop skills? -steventity 22:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great. The pic we have now is too dark and wouldn't look good if shrunk down considerably.↔NMajdan•talk 00:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually I have no idea on a picture to represent Tulsa. I'll give it some thought. Okiefromokla•talk 02:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject...... Tulsa?

message: If there is ever a need to delete a part of this article due to its length, it should be something that doesn't take away from the article's current feature quality. Therefore I think its important to discuss a portion of the article if we were to delete it, and if it ever came to that, I nominate this paragraph from the infrastructure section (see article for unabridged version of paragraph, which is much longer):
"Through its entire duration through Tulsa, historic Route 66 is a drivable road with motels and restaurants reminiscent of the route's heyday era. Interstate 44 and the Skelly Drive Bypass crosses Tulsa through midtown from east and west, while its sister highways, Interstate 244 and Interstate 444, make up the inner-dispersal loop surrounding downtown and wrap through the northern part of the city, . . . The Creek Turnpike splits away from Highway 169 from the South and Interstate 44 from the East, bypassing most of the city of Tulsa and the suburb of Broken Arrow, eventually reconnecting with Interstate 44 in Catoosa to the east and Jenks to the west."
We could create a new article entitled "Transportation in Tulsa" and use this paragraph as a base to start the article, as it is simply a description of the highways in Tulsa. Such an article could also include descriptions of the roads, which was on a previous version of the Tulsa article that can be recovered. Please give us your thoughts on the eventual deletion of this paragraph, or nominate another part of the article, thanks. Okiefromokla•talk 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article on Transportation in Tulsa, Oklahoma is started, that section in this article could definitely summarized a shortened a bit more.↔NMajdan•talk 21:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will focus on making a Transportation in Tulsa, Oklahoma article, for sure. As for user IP# 198.187.154.33, all I can say is you're preaching to the choir. More details were added during this article's recent feature nomination due to requests by reviewers. Granted, the history section is long, but I believe all the information in that section is important, and of the information that I do not believe to be important, feature reviewers requested it, so I cannot take it out. The cityscape section might be able to be shortened, I'll have to take a look, but I am certainly open for suggestions. It goes without saying you're free to edit wherever you wish, but because this is a featured article, I hope we can work together to make sure significant changes keep this article at featured quality. Okiefromokla•talk 22:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Long article, nomination for deletion

message: In "Arts and theatre" and "outdoor recreation", I deleted detailed descriptions of philbrook and gilcrease as well as some similar descriptions of certain parks. Hopefully its more like an overview in those sections now. Please let me know if you object to these deletions in any way, or feel it takes from the article's featured quality. Okiefromokla•talk 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Museums and parks

message: The addition today regarding planned expansions of the trail systems was removed because the sources provided did not have the information supposedly being cited. One source was a map and the other was a webpage and neither had what needed to be cited in the article. However, I would like to give the editor a chance to provide accurate sources if he or she would like to re-add the information. This is a featured article so lets make sure information is sourced corretly. Okiefromokla•talk 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of June 9th

message: I'm a wikipedia noob, and I wouldn't dare touch the Tulsa article, but I was wondering if you guys think there's any value in adding my pic (I'm a bit biased) to the article somewhere. Tim Morgan 15:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you took that picture right by where I work. I don't know if it can be squeezed into the article, but you could always add it (and any Tulsa pic you take) to the Tulsa article at the Commons. But there are a bunch of images of Tulsa that we need (for instance, see List of Art Deco buildings in Tulsa, Oklahoma).↔NMajdan•talk 16:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet. Thanks for the help. I would like to get back downtown and take some pics. Maybe I'll try to do some art deco buildings. --Tim Morgan 21:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downtown Buildings Picture 

message: OK, so I went looking for a source so i can cite the 46th largest city statement, but I found that according to census.gov, Tulsa is ranked 44 in population. That got me thinking -- in the lead, are we referring to size on the map, population, or what? Tim Morgan 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a dork. I just realized there's a link to the List of Cities by Population article, so it's pretty obvious. Though, now I'm off to figure out why the list on Wikipedia doesn't exactly agree with census.gov Tim Morgan 21:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never realized that was the case. We need to fix that if its true. The List of Cities by Population may be based on census information for a different date than the census information you found. There is also a source listed for that list. Even so, the reference on the list article could and should be used here as well. Okiefromokla•talk 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Turns out the list by population is using current estimates on census.gov, whereas I was looking at 2000 census data. Tim Morgan 18:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size/Population and Citations 

message: There wasn't enough space in the edit summary to explain why I deleted the recent addition so I will do it here. For one, the article is very long already - any longer than it is right now and we have a serious problem. In addition, it was unsourced. I ask that information of that kind be sourced - if you're obviously looking at something in order to write the correct information in the article, just take a second to cite what you're looking at, please. If you're too lazy, even just put a url in brackets like this: [url], and I or someone else will cite it correctly. Secondly, the same paragraph was put in twice - the lead, which was not appropriate (Please review WP:LEAD), and also the outdoor rec section. Since this is just one plan for the river in a long line of river plans that haven't materialized, I felt it wasn't noteworthy to put in an encyclopedia article about the city of Tulsa just yet. (I did move it to the history of Tulsa, Oklahoma article, though). However, when this plan is more concrete than simply "having the mayor's support" and something is going to happen, then a brief one (or two) sentence mention could be added somewhere along with a source. The more detailed description of the plan should be in a separate article, such as History of Tulsa, Oklahoma, or some other appropriate article, since, again, the article is already too long. If anyone disagrees with me, by all means, speak up. Okiefromokla•talk 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete agreement here. It looked like the added material was copied verbatim from another source without a citation. Besides, that sort of thing seems to fit better in the history article. Tim Morgan 18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions (June 28 2007) 

message: Could someone please look over the article closely and discuss some specific suggestions on what to remove to make this article shorter? My goal is to get this article down to 85KB or below, but the key is to do it without detracting from its quality. Please, don't just say "shorten history section"... I need specific examples of what to remove. Lets make sure the deletions add to this article's quality. Thanks! Okiefromokla•talk 18:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it need to be shortened? Sure, it probably shouldn't get any bigger but it is a Featured Article which means several editors agree that it is among the best Wikipedia has to offer. If this thing ever goes for an FAR and length is an issue, then we should definitely look into it. But shortening it for the sake of it may not be the best course of action. Unless you are removing info from this article that is covered in another article. Just my opinion. I'll try to read the article in depth tomorrow to see if there is any cruft that could be removed.↔NMajdan•talk 21:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this article is among the longest of all FA cities - sometimes by far - so I wanted to get it below 90 KB at the very least in order to be in line with the rest. Since I couldn't figure out anything else to remove, I wanted to see if anyone else had any ideas. Its certainly isn't a major problem; just trying to make sure this article is concise and relevant as possible. If there's a concensus that its already concise enough and doesn't need to be shortened at all, then that's fine too. Okiefromokla•talk 00:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, despite reassurances, I am still a little uncomfortable about the article's size. I will give a few examples; no other featured city article has a neighborhoods section that actually goes through and describes the different areas of town in any detail (see Detroit#Neighborhoods as an example). The other section that might be reduced is the history section - I know it was a request by a FA reviewer to keep a detailed account of the Tulsa race riot in this section, but it seems long and could shave off a lot if it were reduced to a breif summary of what it is now. Those are my suggestions. Am I just nitpicking? Anyone care to agree or disagree or jump in here? Okiefromokla•talk 19:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S: We could also delete the "Popular Media" subsection all together but move the first few sentences about the Tulsa Sound and Tulsa's musical background into the lead for the culture section. The main "Tulsa in Popular Media" article was already deleted because it was determined that listing the movies, books and songs about a city failed notability, and I tend to agree. Okiefromokla•talk 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, just to update, its now down to 84 KB. Okiefromokla•talk 19:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortening Article

message: I haven't seen a scrollbar on a reflist on any featured article. And I couldn't find anything on a Wikipedia guideline page about it. So Is it proper or generally considered acceptable? Okiefromokla•talk 23:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Example? I haven't seen this yet.↔NMajdan•talk 14:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A scrollbar and what looks like an inbedded frame was put around this article's ref list. I'm not sure if all browsers would be able to see it Okiefromokla•talk 17:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, haha. You already added it to the article. Guess I should've looked there first. I like it. So much so, I created a template that accomplishes the same thing. . Still need to make documentation.↔NMajdan•talk 18:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it wasn't me who added it. I was just suspicious because I had never seen that before. I think I'm actually indefferent to it. We can leave it up. Good job with the template. Okiefromokla•talk 19:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. And since there isn't anything that specifically mentions this in any wikipedia guideline, it should be ok with other editors. Now that I think about it, it might be growing on me. Okiefromokla•talk 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I hope it hasn't quite grown on you yet. This has previously been discussed and rejected my various editors. This was brought to my attention when the template I created was discovered. See here for the discussion.↔NMajdan•talk 22:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I think I still like the traditional way better anyway... I don't handle change well. Okiefromokla•talk 21:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, after reading others' problems with it, I agree with them. We shouldn't use it.↔NMajdan•talk 21:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the new reflist scrollbar proper?

message: I have some reservations about this whole situation and have had reservations of mentioning it since the move was first brought up:
*I propose that instead of having a confusing caption talking about some "one technology center" that will be moved into we actually get a picture of One Technology Center (which I will do within the next few days if no one else wants to), and just say "tulsa city  government functions will move to one tech center... etc"  rather than "this is the old city hall... the new one will be moved into..." It seems better that way.
*Also, in the past, I have removed mentions of city hall within the actual article for a variety of reasons:
*::Every city has a city hall; who wants to read in an encyclopedia that Tulsa has a city hall?
*::No one unfamiliar with Tulsa knows what One Technology Center is, so it has no meaning to say the tulsa city hall will be moving or will move to "one technology center." Think about it: youre reading about Portland, Oregon and the article says the portland municipal court will move from 1344 Feline Avenue to 3848 Umbrella Drive in 2009... It means nothing to the average person and doesn't tell you much anyway. In a nutshell, I question the notability of mentioning city hall at all in the article. 
So the question I ask is, is the caption is enough, or do you want to keep the mention of the move in the article? Okiefromokla•talk 22:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S.: Sorry I removed the recent addition but it needed to be cited, so I'll wait until the issue is discussed here before finding a citation for it. Okiefromokla•talk 22:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested a photo of One Technology Center to go in that spot from someone... :-)  I don't think I have a problem with discussing City Hall, especially when it's a major move and major news for the city.  Our article is not only geared at people outside Tulsa, it's also aimed at people INSIDE of Tulsa, and I think that the city hall move is "in-bounds".  I love that we're being this deliberative though, I think it's absolutely wonderful.  - Philippe | Talk 00:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been waiting for someone else to say something but apparently it's not going to happen. I still feel that Wikipedia articles are geared towards people who have no idea about the topic. But my main argument still rests with my first comment on the subject, which is that mentioning a city's city hall in an article about a city is not noteworthy as every city has a cityhall, regardless of if it is moving or not. Of course, I am open to compromise, and if you want to settle with a single sentence about the location of city hall and a brief mention of its move (rather than a multi-sentence description of how the city hall is moving), I can live with that. Okiefromokla•talk 19:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be mentioned that the move already has a detailed description in the main Government of Tulsa, Oklahoma article. Okiefromokla•talk 19:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: City hall move to One Technology Center

message: This is an excellent article.  Since it's a featured article, I don't want to change it significantly, and I notice that you are wishing to remove some parts to make it smaller.  Is there any thought about adding a famous natives section?  I was wanting to add Doug Marlette to the article since he lived in Tulsa.--Gloriamarie 18:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a List of people from Tulsa, Oklahoma. It may be appropriate for such information to go there. Okiefromokla•talk 18:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous residents/natives?

message: Regarding this sentence in the lead:
The Tulsa Port of Catoosa, at the head of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, is the most inland riverport in the U.S. with access to international waterways.
The first reference states it as the most inland riverport. However, I noticed that Tulsa Port of Catoosa's website bills itself as "one of the largest, most inland river-ports in the United States!". Is it the most inland port? P.Haney 23:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the other ref there.  Okiefromokla•talk 23:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noted that and was wondering about the conflicting account from the port itself. I guess a better question to ask would be "How do you define an inland river port?" This is bordering on original research but wouldn't a port on the Upper Mississippi River be more inland? P.Haney 23:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well a quick google search with this extact wording: " "most inland port" in the united states -wikipedia " turned up only responses for the port of catoosa. Some of the highlights are  (Tulsa world),  (a K-12 school's article on the arkansas river),  (U.S. Coast Guards National Commodore's website)... etc. Those looked like the most reliable ones I found right off the bat. Okiefromokla•talk 00:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the port doesn't give itself enough credit. The reason I was confused because the distance from Tulsa Port of Catoosa to the sea appears to be around 1045 miles, 445 of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System and 600 miles from the Arkansas and Mississippi confluence. Ports in the Twin Cities are about 1800 miles away, around 850 miles from  the Ohio and Mississippi and 950 miles from the the Lower Mississippi river . Also ports in Duluth, Minnesota are about 2,300 miles from the sea via the Saint Lawrence Seaway.   P.Haney 01:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... weird. I'm not sure what to say. The only stuff I can find says the Tulsa port is the most inland in the US. I don't claim to have any knowledge about ports or waterways, but it seems extremely unlikely that so many separate sources ranging from the government (coast guard) to newspapers have it wrong. Maybe they know something we don't... Okiefromokla•talk 01:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After some more thought I think that the only problem is my definition of "inland". Merriam-Webster defines it as "of or relating to the interior of a country". I was focusing more on the distance from the ocean rather than the location within the United States. Seeing as the ports I mentioned aren't really close to the interior of the United States, the sources have it right. My bad. P.Haney 18:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Did not know that. = Okiefromoklatalk to me 02:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most inland riverport? 

message: I changed the term "Caucasian" to White, as some people may find Caucasian, offensive, as it implies someone is from the Caucasus Mountain region.  Thanks.  Iamanadam (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Race and ethnicity in the United States Census uses the term "white" instead of "caucasian," this is probably something we should have changed some time ago.  Good catch! --Kralizec! (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Racial Terminology

message: Not a single mention of The buried Belvedere??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.181.252 (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to Tulsa’s Buried Belvedere Sees the Sun Again?  While a very interesting story, I am not sure it is notable enough to warrant inclusion in this article.  --Kralizec! (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Buried Belvedere

message: As of 2015-16, the city of Tulsa is less than 50% White: an estimated 18% Latino, 16% Black, 10% Asian and 10% Native American (there could be 15% if you include part-Native Americans), plus 12% mixed race, 5% Middle Eastern (there was a wave of Arab and Iranian immigrants to Tulsa, partly due to the oil industry) and 2% Pacific Islander of Marshallese origin (see Marshall Islands). The city has many Burmese, Vietnamese and Hmong immigrants lately, and until 2010, Mexican immigration was in high levels. About 5 or 6 thousand Jews live in Tulsa, where they have a local museum of Jewish Arts and History. 2605:E000:FDCA:4200:24F3:157C:31F4:1568 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tulsa is diverse