Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennessee/Archive 1

message: I've had this in my watchlist for a while. More than happy to help get it off the ground. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't even know it existed till you tagged Murfreesboro. Of course, now I see it was just created today....  Don't know what I can do, but I'll add my name. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this Wikiproject was sorely needed. A good member to have would be User:Rlquall, that guy has probably edited every TN-related article a few times, and every one is far better for it. Danthemankhan 21:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WikiProject 

message: Yesterday, in a fit of activity, I applied  to all the pages linked to from  and all TN sports teams articles, along with a bunch of other the smaller cities.
I also whipped up a quickie userbox at . 
Wheee. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress 

message: Hello, I commend the work that has gone into both Tennessee Titans and 2006 Tennessee Titans season.  However, these article are completely unreferenced and I have tagged them as such.  Articles on Wikipedia need to compley with WP:V and WP:RS.  Please add some sources to these article so they do not get deleted.  Thanks and keep up the good work. Johntex\talk 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced

message: I am shocked by the lack of information on the city of Franklin in Williamson County. That town is filled with many historical sites from two civil war battles and many other events. I'm in school right now so I can't go to these historical places to do research right now but when spring break rolls around I will definantly write some articles about the the Civil War sites. SMBriscoe 01:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Franklin

message: Since the Knoxville, Tennessee page is an overview of the city, would it be better if I created a separate page for the historic structures rather than have them on the main page?  I could then do links from Knoxville, Knox County and Farragut.  I'm the newbie, so I could use your input.--Baxterguy 12:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow...this list definitely needs to be either moved to a separate article or significantly pruned down.  If these locations are on the National Register of Historic Places, then I would suggest removing them from this article and placing them at List of Registered Historic Places in Tennessee#Knox County, which can then be wikilinked from the Knoxville article.  This tidies up the page, and consolidates all of the Knoxville area and statewide locations in one place.  Additional historic places that are not on the National Register, if they are actually notable in some way (being old doesn't imply notability), should remain in the Knoxville article.  Also remember that it isn't necessary to create an article for every location, again, if it isn't truly notable. -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Knoxville, TN, Historic Structures

message: So what should be be focusing on? I've been adding the TN Wikiproject template to discussion pages, any other major initiatives we should be doing? Anybody notice any areas that need work? --AW 15:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, I'd suggest raising the quality and citations of the major cities (Nashville, Memphis, Knoxville, Chattanooga), then secondary cities (such as Jackson, Murfreesboro, Clarksville, Franklin, etc).  Of course, every person has their areas of specific knowledge, so just work on those things you are comfortable with.  Any contribution is great. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I do think we could use some more people though. i've brought in a couple, but the more the merrier --AW 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm more than happy to help in any way - I'm not as familiar as many on the subject, but I'm pretty handy with templates and fact checking. Ancjr 07:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus 

message: Can some of you good folk watchlist and review the content of this article. We've received a complaint and I have removed blatant pov pushing, but the article needs watched against a return and the current content checked for fairness. Thanks.--Docg 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do --AW 15:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Clinton, Tennessee]] 

message: Dear Wikipedians, a list of possible Tennessee-related articles found by bot is available at User:AlexNewArtBot/TennesseeSearchResult. Colchicum 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool! If people could tag some of them with the TN template, that would be great. I've done a few --AW 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New articles

message: Hey! 
I have joined the TN project just recently, I am glad I found it. I live in Tennessee and have started a few articles about smaller TN topics. I also have put some photos I made of TN locations into articles. This project is a good idea for people who are interested in whatever niche of TN topic and they can concentrate their knowledge and interests and discuss their issues. 
There's something I would like to ask about the formulation of the project template.
On the project template is says "This article is part of Wiki Project Tennessee".
Some other state templates read "This article is within the scope of Wiki Project state"
Are there objections to change the Tennessee project template to the second formulation "... is within the scope of ..."? Here's why I suggest it. Is "part of" sounds like or might give the impression that the very article is currently being worked on according to the Wikipedia sandards and being improved and soon it is going to be ready and finished. 
Furthermore it might discourage new Wikipedians to contribute to articles. Imagine a newly created articles about any topic. Someone might work on or even start a new article and later the tag appears saying that the article is "part of" a project now. This could discourage the contributor in two ways. First he or she might get the impression that someone else has taken over now and stop him or her from contributing or they might feel like their efforts are not recognized. Of course, there is no ownership of articles but people sure are proud of their work.
The formulation "is within the scope", however, can sound more rewarding if put on an article because, especially for new articles. It could encourage the contributor to continue because the article has been recognised as an important element in something bigger. 
Since I understand this project to be an ongoing one the second formulation would better make the point. It would suggest that the article has been recognized as one that meets the criteria of the project and is going to become subject to improval once an expert on what needs to be improved starts over on the article. The improval need not be immediate but rather ongoing, just as the project is.
As a conclusion I would say that "is within the scope" better underlines the constant process and ongoing progress in the project as well as in Wikipedia and it can encourage new Wikipedians by recognising their work. The formulation "is within the scope" has less possessive connotations and might be encouraging to new Wikipedians. 
Finally, this suggestion is just about the words, I don't want to change any project policies. Words can be very precise instruments.
I am looking forward to hear your opinions!
DoxTxob 19:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, the second term sounds better and would bring the template into standardization with other such WikiProjects (and with WikiProjects as a whole.  I have no problem with the change, and say go right on ahead :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could expand the project template. I like what Kentucky's says, for example, inviting people to join: 
--AW 18:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, unless someone objects, I'm going to make it more like the Kentucky banner. Anyone? --AW 15:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I did a little work at it here: User:Awiseman/Sandbox/Template:WPTN. I can't get the Watch All link to work though, can somebody else have a look? --AW 18:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks! I asked the bot owner about it, I guess we'll see --AW 19:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, bot is done, here is the page it makes Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennessee/Articles. So should I replace the template with the one I made? --AW 15:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good, I'll replace it today. I was away for a few days --AW 15:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I say rock it Qmax 16:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for Project Template

message: Currently there are two user categories for this WikiProject: :Category:WikiProject Tennessee members & :Category:WikiProject Tennessee participants.  It is requested that you choose one or the other and request a merge of these categories.  --NThurston 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna go ahead and say "participants", as that is the category that  uses and it has 10 pages, versus "members"'s 1. Doing it now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Category 

message: Today I went through all the links in the  infobox and added most of the images in the articles to the :Category:Images of Tennessee.
Most ... Those few (about 10% of them) that were from the Wikipedia commons did not work. I could not add the images from the commons to the category, the category link would show up in red. So I left those out. I also did not add photos of people, however famous, or maps because they belong in other categories.
1 - What kind of images should be categorised as images of Tennessee and which should not? Are there Wikipedia standards already? And if not, what standards would be appropriate?
My vote: 
Yes for landscapes, buildings, streets, skylines, parks, other views. 
No for people, maps
Unsure about satellite photos
2 - Should we put categorising images on the to-do list for the project? I guess people are going through the new articles anyway and in case they find appropriate pictures in the articles, they might as well be categorised in that same step of assessment.
My vote: 
Yes, put it on the to-do list
3 - Is it possible and would it make sense to categorise the Tennesse images in the Wikipedia commons as well?
My vote:
I don't know how to but it would probably make sense
4 - Can it be automated by a bot to get a list of recently added images in articles about Tennessee that are tagged with the project banner? This is not helpful to work through the existing articles. But for the future it would be great to get a weekly updated list of images that have been added to TN related articles. So someone could go through that list of images, evaluate them compared to the standards and categorise them.
My vote:
I don't know how to do it but it would sure be great to have it automated
Please put your vote or comment directly under the question signed with four tildes to avoid confusion in case there are many.
Take care
DoxTxob 23:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On commons add it to Category:Tennessee. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 11:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Images of Tennessee 

message: Again using  as an example (aka, blatantly stealing from it), I've upgraded our project banner  to allow for assessments of both class and importance.  Not everything has been fixed or created yet, and I'm hoping to find an automated method for building and tagging some of it, but at least all of the important categories are in place.  This should, hopefully, make it easier to assess articles and keep track of what is what.  At this time, all tagged Tennessee articles are in subcategories of :Category:WikiProject Tennessee articles, in both the class and importance subcats.  This also means that they have been removed from the top-level WP:TN categories, so things are easier to manage.  There's still a lot to do...so start assessing! -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Banner upgrade 

message: Hey, there have been a few of us wikipedians talking about starting a Chattanooga History Project, but perhaps we could just join the Project Tennessee and start a Chattanooga History Task Force instead? Thoughts? Qmax 21:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd encourage those Wikipedians to simply join WikiProject Tennessee and create the task force.  We are too few in numbers as it is, and perhaps by placing everything under the header of this WikiProject, it will encourage everyone to expand their field of contributions.  Perhaps you could just create a subpage here to organize your work? -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huntster I have little experience working in WikiProjects. Any guidance or input you could provide would be most helpful. Should those of us involved in the Chattanooga Task Force discuss specific needs here? do we (can we?) create our own talk page? Do we create to-do lists underneath the Chattanooga Task Force heading on the main Tennessee Project page? Qmax 00:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've slightly changed the front page for the WikiProject.  What I would suggest is that you establish your own page, perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennessee/Chattanooga, which will allow you to more fully discuss material, while still keeping it in line with the wikiproject as a whole.  Once that page is established, just link to it from the main WikiProject page.  This means you'll have your own talk page.  As for the last thing you mention, I'd recommend having the bulk of material on the subpage for the task force, but include a summary of current activities and a small list of your major or current target articles in the subsection for Chattanooga on the main page. These are just suggestions, as I'm not a real expert at WikiProjects myself. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a beautiful human being! Qmax 03:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shut down this task force and head on over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chattanooga. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 11:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chattanooga was integrated here specifically so that everyone would be able to more closely work together.  We only have a little over 500 articles altogether in Tennessee tagged thus far...how many are going to fall specifically under a Chattanooga WikiProject?  I just think a separate WikiProject would be bad for everyone at this stage. -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Course not. Maybe around well, 100, articles - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 12:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. We're just getting started on the Chattanooga Task Force, and it looks like we may have only a handful of active participants. I think making an entirely separate project would be a burdensome and unnecessary. Qmax 13:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chattanooga Task Force 

message: *Counties = mid important
*County seats = mid important
*Town/villages/settlements = low importance (except bigger cities)
That's how I rated them on the importance scale, according to standards and comparable U.S. state projects. So that should not be too far off. Shortens the list, too. Most of the town or city articles are articles, by the way, that only consist of some geographic and demographic imformation generated by robots or so from U.S. census data. So almost all of them are correct in the low importance category. 
I have marked the clear stuib articles as well as the clear start class articles, not many of both, though. Mostly in accordance with identical ratings that have been assigned by other projects in these dual-project cases.
Take care,
doxTxob 22:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Status Quo

message: Okay, I've completely overhauled the main page for the project, taking what I perceived to be the best from several other projects.  However, there's a number of sections that need fleshing out, primarily under the "Article status" section.  If you have ideas for further sections, etc, please list them here. -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks damn good. Only thing I'd mention is that the text in the project infobox in the top right is really small. Qmax 12:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'd fix it but I can't figure out how --AW 15:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I'll fix it, but I don't see how it is that small.  My screen resolution is 1280x1024, and I can read everything fine.  The old one took up so much space, it was awful.  But whatever, I'll revert. :/ -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah sorry, didn't mean to make a whole bunch more work for you. Just a slightly bigger font would be perfect. Qmax 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, no, no big deal.  The problem is, with the current format being used, you cannot control anything, other than "big font and full size" or "small font and narrow".  I'll eventually reformat the /To do page to add some flexibility.  I enjoy playing with templates ;) -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, sorry for blowing up the box so much... I have tried out different things, too. Either it is hard to read due to small letters or it gets too big and takes up the complete first screen when you go to the project page. Especially as the TN project is growing, it would be good to have a to-do box that can hold lots of information, but that can still be handled and read well.
How about making it collapsible? I have ssen that occasionally with project templates, when there is more than one, they are all in a box and is just shows the header of the box, then it has a [show] and [hide] option to eith show it or hide it. I have no idea how that is done, though.
Small at the side with larger letters would be great, too. Some other projects have it with small letters and with my resolution it is pretty hard to read. So larger letters are probably necessary.
Take care, doxTxob 17:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks good the way it is now --AW 18:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main project page 

message: There is a bunch of articles about Tennessee state routes. Should they be tagged with the project tag? Some state projects seem to do it (Texas) others don't. I suppose all of the state routes are part of the WikiProject Roads already. But a lot of topics are covered by more than one project, like TN politicians, they are covered by both the TN project and the Biographies project.
My vote would be yes, include. Because of the comprehensiveness. I would put the TN project banner as the last banner on the list on the talk page (the roads project is the leading project) and follow the quality ratings of the leading project and rate the importance for the TN project as low.
Any suggestions?
Take care, doxTxob 22:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd absolutely tag them.  They are an intrinsic part of the state, and they are cared for by TDOT.  Agreed with the low importance, though. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done doxTxob 22:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include TN state routes in the project? 

message: I tagged all TN state parks (about 30) from the list of state parks as mid important. Accorting to the stadards the mid importance rating was for topics reasoably noticable in TN but not necessarily outside. 
According to Wikipedia State park article: State park is a term used in the United States (...) for an area of land preserved on account of its natural beauty, historic interest, recreation, or other reason, and under the administration of the government of a U.S. state (...). State parks are protected area of IUCN category II.
A lot of the parks are historic sites. Unfortunately most of the articles are stub class.
doxTxob 22:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State parks

message: I have found a few good articles for a project review.
Four articles have been added here for importance assessment (three FA class and one GA class articles): Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennessee/Assessment#Project_review
And a nominee for a GA (good article) here, currently the article is B class: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennessee#Top-rated_articles
How can we discuss that best? Suggestion: Leave the list of requests on the project page, where it was added and mark the cases as done, when they are done. In case a discussion is needed, I would put that on the article_name/Comments page of the article itself, that's the page you get to when you click on Ratings summary page in the project banner. And on the project page I would link to the article_name/Comments page. 
Or should we discuss it here and link to the discussion from the article? There needs to be a connection of some kind between the discussion and the article, I think. At least when it is about higher quality articles or articles of a higher importance for the project. 
Does anyone have experience on how it's done best, most effectively and trasparent?
doxTxob 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for project review 

message: thumb 
I made a locator map for Tennessee. Similar ones are in use in infoboxes in state park articles (for example Warrior's Path State Park) or city articles (for example Elmwood, Louisiana). I hope this is useful, Ruhrfisch 04:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, we'll find some ways to use it.  Good graphics are too hard to come by to let pass. -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly useful map 

message: I'm adding this under the state routes because rivers were the first and for centuries most important way of traversing distances through long territories. 
We don't think much about it now, but most of the early major cities were founded on rivers, often on the same places where Native Americans had communities or trading centers.  
I think editors should look and always identify the rivers on which cities or towns were located. They were integral to history and settlement of TN and other states, to the connection of cultures across rivers, and to business interests - for instance, those states whose rivers ran into the Ohio also had business links to New Orleans and the Mississippi. --Parkwells 21:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least in terms of categorisation, all bodies of water should be classified in one of the subcategories of :Category:Landforms of Tennessee.  Yes, they are historical routes, but for our purposes, bodies of water are simply treated as parts of nature.  Now, in terms of noting which rivers run through or near which settlements, this information may be of best interest in individual town articles. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that information about rivers belongs with towns or city articles. I wasn't thinking about categorization but about referring to them in places where it can be understood what part they played in the development of the towns.--Parkwells 17:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TN State Routes and Rivers

message: In the portal there are links to separate pages for suggestions of new topics. To reduce confusion and to avoid something being missed I am going to re-direct them to this talk page, I will leave a message on the portal talk page, linking to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennessee as well. I usually hate to split discussions off the article page (or portal, in this case) but I doubt that there is going to be unmanageable correspondence. doxTxob \ talk 00:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-directs

message: I have tagged the talk pages of all the portal related pages existing so far with , this makes sure that they all can be found in :Category:Tennessee_non-article_pages, in case of an overhaul or just to keep track of it or get a quick idea about he number of sub pages there are for each topic. doxTxob \ talk 21:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging

message: This is the banner of the Portal:Kentucky and I love it. I have requested a banner for TN from the guy who produced this User:HiB2Bornot2B. One image, with flag and TN impressions in it. I would love that! doxTxob \ talk 06:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The banner is created and in the intro. I love it! It looks pretty with the realiged images, the seal and the maps. I find that a very nice combination with the text. Take care, doxTxob \ talk 23:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TN Portal banner

message: The good news is that I put the first news in the box already. Not the most exciting news, probably, but something to start with. The bad news is that this does not seem to work automatically. But as I insisted to keep the box, I am sure willing to keep that updated if no one else does. More people guarantee a wider scope, though. I think it is still very easy to maintain. I have checked some other states, it's not meant to be a news ticker, most put in one or two news items a week. I watch the news almost every day and when I see something there, I put it in the next day or so. The news items all list an externakl link to a news website. So that's the only effort, to find a weblink, put in the new news item and archive one item. (I had trouble first putting in the box, the whole page looked crooked but now it's working). Take care, doxTxob \ talk 23:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tennessee News

message: I put in a box with selected TN anniveraries. Once all the months are filled with 5 anniversaries each, the work is done. The months change automatically to the current month and the name of the current month appears in the box title. Every month has a file of its own. I have prepared the files for all months already and adjusted the links for month to month navigation. All links have been tested, all work as they should. I also have created the  "more anniveraries..." page for the link in the box, to get them all on one page. 
There are no anniversarier in the pages yet. Maybe I find some anniversaries on the weekend, or if anyone has some in mind already, just fill them in if time allows. Take care, doxTxob \ talk 23:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Selected anniversaries

message: I filled the topics box with some content, the idea was copied from the Portal:Arizona. Most of what I did so far was to replace "Arizona" by "Tennessee" lots of times. The remaining stuff might or might not be useful. The Arizonians only used categories in the topics. I am not sure about that limitation. Lists or articles would be nice as well. I left all the mess in so far, so at least the syntax is obvious and it is easier to add or replace information. I am going to improve it sooner or later. All help is welcome, as usual. doxTxob \ talk 01:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Topics box