Talk:Oregon State Capitol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oregon State Capitol article.
Article policies
Featured article star Oregon State Capitol is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 10, 2008.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Let's make this pretty

Take a look at featured article Michigan State Capitol. Gosh but that's a good looking article. (And, a similar history of having a succession of capitol buildings.) I want to this article to improve to that level. I can work on the writing, but I'm no expert on images. If anyone knows how and wants to put the work into acquiring the proper permissions to include photos of the earlier capitol buildings, especially some of those dramatic photos of the the 1935 fire, that would help a lot.

Note to self: besides some of the pieces of the columns from the 1935 capitol residing on the capitol grounds and at the history museum, there are still a couple in Mill Creek behind the Safeway. Since this is "original research", need to find a reliable source that concurs with this info. Katr67 17:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bricks from burned capitol and WPA labor used to add to TB hospital: [1] Katr67 18:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Further expansion: I'm thinking we need to find some info on the first capitol and get that section to at least one good paragraph. Then the second capitol could use a first paragraph covering its construction, design, costs, measurements. Then for the third capitol one more paragraph on the wings addtion that expands on the costs (dates, size, what exactly was added). Then under the "today" part add a paragraph or two on the grounds such as the statues, pillars, fountains, etc. Then we could probably work most of the pictures from the gallery into the article and leave it with a max of four. That's my thoughts at least. Aboutmovies 23:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll see if I can get around to adding some stuff too. Some of the more notable things on the grounds are the circuit rider statue, the Jason Lee statue, and the moon tree. Info on the wings should include who they are named after: The senate wing is the Jason Boe wing.[2] Maybe a bit on the mysterious smoldering carpet in the elevators in the old part of the building? Oh and speaking of carpet, we should talk about the specially designed house and senate carpets, and the capitol names. (These get referred to every so often during floor debate...) Want to try for good article status on this one? Katr67 17:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that this is still listed as a "stub" article, I think it is more like a "B" article...definitely no less than a start; any objections to changing it? Also a question/thought, I'm thinking it would be better to have the photos currently in the article spread throughout the article rather than in a gallery section; possibly even creating additional sections for the house and senate chambers, the pioneer and other things there are pictures of. Theophilus75 17:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
B bold, my friend! Sounds good to me… -Pete 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to change the rating. As to the pictures, see above. I'd personally like to wait on removing the gallery until the article is further expanded so the pictures don't dominate the text. Aboutmovies 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My picture plan: After the 2nd capitol section is expanded move the picture of the columns to it for a before an after. Once the 3rd capitol is further expanded move the entrance picture there. Once the current section is expanded move one of the chambers to it. Once we make the Capitol grounds section (or subsection of capitol today) move the relief sculpture and flags pictures there. Then expand the See also to include links to other Wikipedia pictures and move the close up of the Pioneer to that section. The other two pictures would then be in the See also section. I'm open to other suggestions, these are just my thoughts. Aboutmovies 18:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wings (not the band)

$12.5 million for the entire project: "A Capitol "Wings" project, completed in 1977, at a cost of $12.5 million, added further space for legislative offices, hearing rooms, support services, a first floor galleria, and underground parking." (from the leg website) Katr67 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement notes and refs

[edit] Updates

The wings are going to be closed soon for renovations. Katr67 18:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement

Hey, it's not like Aboutmovies or I own this article. If someone thinks s/he can improve it, be my guest. Katr67 06:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? What's that in response to?
For future reference: the Featured Article Candidate discussion. (why isn't this liked in the infobox??) -Pete 06:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Basically the complete inability to get any other wikiproject's input (or ours for that matter) on this article, the lack of response at the FA candidacy when I asked for a reevaluation, and yes, your last-minute suggestions, which prompted me to want to say {{sofixit}}. Sorry, it's just after working so hard on this, and then to finally hear some suggestions, well, it rubbed me the wrong way. I really do invite you to take a stab at improving the article--obviously the intro looks fine to me, but after looking at it in detail for several months, I'm a poor judge of how comprehensive it is. I'm taking a break from it, but I'll come back and do a ruthless copy edit on it at some point. I promise this isn't sour grapes because the article wasn't promoted--if the article stinks (other than the minor grammar quibbles that can easily be taken care of--and were, as far as I can tell), I wish someone had told us something constructive sooner. It's certainly improved a lot since February, and for that we should get a collective Huzzah! I still feel like we somehow did or said something wrong to invite such an underwhelming response. Or maybe our state's most famous bowling trophy just doesn't excite people as much as I think it ought. ::shrug:: Katr67 07:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, that I get it now. First, I'd like to apologize for the "last-minuteness" of my replies. I actually was compiling those in a text file on my computer, and got sidetracked last week…I wanted to look over the entire article and post my perceptions all in one chunk, but got sidetracked. Second, "sofixit" as I understand it is not directly applicable to FA's, which are intended to promote a discussion of the substantial aspects of the article…I'm happy to make the changes I suggested, and probably will, but I thought it was kind of a party foul in a FA to make a significant change instead of bringing it up for discussion. Sorry to not be more help…I definitely appreciate the quality the article has attained over time, and found the history very interesting. I've just been really busy off-wiki, and it kind of got away from me. -Pete 07:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Pete, since you have not edited the article, do you think it is at least A quality so we can change the current rating? Aboutmovies 17:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Pete, you mean this article wasn't on the top of your lifetime priority list? I'm shocked! God forbid anyone should be sidetracked by something more interesting or important in real life. :P I'm not sure it's a party foul to make changes during an FA or not, but I don't think so. I know I made several during the New Carissa's FA, but admittedly none were significant in terms of restructuring. Anyway, yeah, some fresh eyes on this would be good. Cheers, Katr67 19:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Oops, late again. Sure, I'd call this A-class. Does that make it A-class? I thought it had to be GA first. I'll switch the rating and see what happens. -Pete 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't need to go through GA as there is no formal A review process. Some projects have an A review process, but WPOR is not one of them. FYI on your FA review comment about the headers, they are that way to match the Michigan cap FA. Aboutmovies 20:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting notes

[edit] Names of flora

Making the names of the flora lowercase creates redirects and seems to go against the MOS. What's the consensus on this? Katr67 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, this wikiproject uses initial caps:
This uses mixed case for scientific names, and lowercase for common
I thought we were supposed to use initial capitals. —EncMstr 00:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The MOS says, "Common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in lower case—for example, "oak" or "lion". It also says, "Official common names of birds are normally capitalised." Many exceptions exist, and it is hard to remember them all. For example, Japanese maple and Poland China swine do not quite fit the general rule. Finetooth 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, for now I support linking to whichever version eliminates the redirects. If the article titles need to be changed, that's probably not our problem. Katr67 16:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Moon

Our planet's Moon is a proper noun--what is the reason for making it lowercase? Katr67 21:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The MOS says that "Sun, earth, and moon are proper nouns in an astronomical context, but not elsewhere." It could be argued that this is an astronomical context. I have reverted to Moon. Finetooth 16:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes it's simpler to check a word's usage in context. In the Moon article, it says "Unlike the moons of other planets, the moon of the Earth has no proper English name other than "the Moon" (capitalized)." Note moon is lower case in the generic usage. Katr67 17:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Art Deco

Architectural styles are also capitalized. Katr67 23:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found a style guide that agrees with you on this. The MOS doesn't seem to say one way or the other. However, the MOS lists several external style guides that might be consulted. I've checked two of them, The Chicago Manual of Style and the Guardian on-line guide at [3]. The Chicago Manual says that names of cultural movements are usually lower-cased and gives "baroque," "cubism," "op art," and "theater of the absurd," among others, as examples. The Guardian says, "lc: art deco, art nouveau, cubism, dadaism, expressionism, gothic, impressionism, pop art, surrealism etc but Bauhaus, Modern (in the sense of Modern British, to distinguish it from "modern art"), pre-Raphaelite, Romantic (to differentiate between a romantic painting and a Romantic painting)." The two manuals don't agree about everything, by the way. Chicago says "Gothic," but the Guardian says "gothic." (Such is life.) Still, they do seem to agree about art deco. Finetooth 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
When I edit Wikipedia, I don't worry about outside style guides so much unless I can't find the answer here. Again, it's easier to go direct--within Wikipedia, Art Deco and other styles are capitalized. If those article titles need to be changed, again, that needs to be taken up with the editors of those articles. In any case, I (and I believe the GA/FA standards) dislike redirects and the link should be piped if you insist on having it lowercase. BTW, I'm not trying to belittle your contributions--you're obviously a pro and you've done a great job cleaning up and tightening the syntax of this article (I tend to have more of a live and let live policy about that), but it seems to me you need to bend a little and make sure your edits are following in-house style (which, in the nature of the wiki, are sometimes a little nebulous), especially when it comes to wikilinks, which are one of the most important parts of Wikipedia. Katr67 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the redirect tip and the syntax compliment. It's true that I have not thought about redirects until this very moment, though I have used pipes without realizing they were redirects. I need to read about redirects to see what's going on with them and how they might affect Wikipedia style. Can you aim me in the direction of a document that clearly explains the redirects? Meanwhile, I'll change Art Deco back to caps. I have two other things to bring up; one is small, and the other is slightly bigger. The names "Justus F. Krumbein and Gilbert" appear in the "Second capitol" section and look suspicious to me, but I don't have the source material to check. Is Gilbert missing his last name, perhaps? The slightly bigger concern is that the references that are web citations don't include the author (if known), the publisher (if known), or the access date. Wouldn't it be useful to include these details? Finetooth 19:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Me again, four hours later. I get it. I really didn't know what you meant by a problem with redirects, but now I see how it works. As you said, a pipe can solve the problem. Unwanted redirects are visible on the preview. I had not noticed that before, and no one else had mentioned these redirects to me. I went back to the list of flora and found one remaining unwanted redirect, for blue spruce, and fixed it with a Blue Spruce to blue spruce pipe. I'll have to go back to some other pages I've worked on to see if I've left any more of these redirects lying around. Thank you, Katr67, for bringing this to my attention. Finetooth 03:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in September 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): Finetooth 20:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all your hard work and for taking the trouble to understand what I was on about regarding the redirs. You'll have to ask Aboutmovies about "Justus F. Krumbein and Gilbert"; that's from his research (it might be right by 1893 standards though). And yeah, some of the refs are still a little sloppy, but I expect many of the web sources don't have authors. I'll see about checking them and adding dates and publishers. Katr67 18:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I see my input was needed. The architect I believe is missing the first name, but none was given. If I recall, the firm was Krumbein & Gilbert and I found the first name for Justus elsewhere. As to the refs, it looks like that is in progress. Aboutmovies 03:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

This is a very thorough piece of work which meets the GA criteria. Well done! Johnfos 09:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The article looks good, but one minor issue is that several of the inline citations contain only a URL link, and not full citation info (author, title, publication, date of publication, date URL was retrieved, etc). It is preferable that full citation information be included, so that if the link becomes a 404 not found, it is not rendered useless. Dr. Cash 01:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep, we're working on it. Thanks for taking a look. Do you see any glaring FA obstacles, if you feel like giving an off-the-cuff impression? Katr67 02:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new round of copyediting quibbles

I can't stay away even with a self-reinforcing wikibreak. So I see an instance of "capitol" was changed to "Capitol" but I believe a previous copyedit made all stand-alone references to capitol lowercase. Although I normally despise the use of capitalization to show Great Metaphorical Significance, I think it might be OK in this instance? (Only when referring specifically to the current capitol). I won't flip out (see above) if we go with lowercase, but I will if it's not consistent. Thoughts? Katr67 20:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture gallery

Per my comments in May when the gallery was removed before, I prefer no photo gallery. I just don't think they look good. Aboutmovies 22:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

AM, sorry -- I didn't recall that there was previously a gallery, sorry to take the article backward. I'll rearrange the photos. My main interest was getting a couple more photos on the page -- it seemed mildly sparse, and the photos of the legislative chambers seem significant. Any problem with finding a home for them, in a non-gallery layout? -Pete 23:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no. One or two of those are I'm sure copyvio. The ones from the Oregon Blue Book I doubt were relaseable by an editor, mainly the Senate Chamber pic. And a copyvio picture like that is quick fail at GA, and probably at FA too. Were there any others you wanted to work in? Aboutmovies 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Side note, the only "major" work I think left is to standardize the refs, at least I can see since the copy editor review. Aboutmovies 00:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's what's in commons. Mostly alternate views of the building. If the Celilo mural license is accurate, that would be a good addition. I could go take some more pictures if the weather works out. What do you want? More statues, murals, the Oregon shrubbery, the bell, the "dirt fountain" (Breyman Bros fountain)? Katr67 02:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Here are some others that I had uploaded before, some used to be in the article. Aboutmovies 03:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mall looking away from cap

Sculpture on the east of the entrance

On the other side

He's watching me

A mural

Newer brighter version

Flags with the fountain in the background

Let freedom ring

Pioneers backside

Similar to infobox

Similar to infobox

Closer up

Used on the statue article

Senate offices if more info on them were added
The copyvio point is a good one, I hadn't noticed that. Your pics are good, it would be nice someday to get photos with crisper edges so the many names are easier to read, and the image is clearer -- but that will have to wait I suppose! Some of the others above could be included, but I don't think any of them are needed. Thanks for replacing the BB images. Good work. -Pete 01:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbert

Is the Gilbert part of "Justus F. Krumbein and Gilbert, architects," OK, or is Gilbert missing something? Finetooth 01:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State seal on floor

User:Wikilost recently added the following text to the article, which AboutMovies and I reverted:

“ The seal itself depicts an eagle superimposed over images depicting the history of Oregon. The eagle is similar to the one in the United States seal, (an eagle holding arrows in one claw and an olive branch in the other) with the notable difference being that the eagle's head is tilted toward the arrows, signifying, apparently, Oregon's preference for war.[4] ”

I see a couple different problems with this text. First, if any of it is to be included, the bare facts must be cited: in other words, a reliable source stating that the seal is on the floor, or perhaps a photo of the floor of the capitol. Second, the interpretation looks to me like original research; it's interesting, but not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Maybe if there's a scholarly article making that claim, it might be worth noting that the interpretation has been made; but it can't be presented as fact or speculation. -Pete (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've also reverted it. I think it qualifies as {{dubious}} at the least. There is no "need" to cite a source stating that the seal is on the floor as this is not contentious, per WP:CITE and WP:V ("Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." - This statement is a simple matter of fact, a common practice, and easy for anyone to verify personally; why would it be reasonably challenged?). The interpretation absolutely needs to be cited, though. That's the issue with this edit. VigilancePrime (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, on second thought you're right. Not so essential to cite the uncontroversial fact. -Pete (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've heard a similar story before, but not about Oregon, about the Seal of the President of the United States. Snopes has a note about a false urban legend about the eagle on the presidential seal being changed during wartime to face the arrows. That may be where this original misconception is coming from with this seal. Certainly not worth commenting on in this article. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Intriguing. Thanks for pointing that out! -Pete (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, this article is not the place for this "trivia/info" anyway, it would belong on the Seal of Oregon article if it were true/backed up by RS. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a resident of Oregon and had the privilege of taking the tour at the capitol a few years back while serving as a page. The tour guide pointed out the eagle and noted that it's head was turned towards the arrows because it supposedly was created during World War II. The creator must have been under the impression that the "urban legend" noted above was actually true and the tour guide also expressed his belief that tradition of turning the eagle's head is a real one. That being said, I support the earlier revisers on this section and agree that the oddity is not worth mentioning. Zephyr12 (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Intriguinger and intriguinger. Thanks Zephyr! -Pete (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I worked at the capitol and had a friend involved with the page program and he gave me the impression some of the tour guides, uh, embellished things a bit. :) Katr67 (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted image

The following image was posted to the See also section

[[Image:Oregon state capital building pioneer on top.jpeg|thumb|upright|The gold [[Oregon Pioneer (statue)|Oregon Pioneer]]]]

[[Image:Oregon state capital building pioneer on top.jpeg|thumb|upright|The gold Oregon Pioneer]]

But the display copy was: Image:OregON sucks!!!!!! on top.jpeg The gold Oregon Pioneer

This makes no sense, also the see also section is not the right place to display images. Dbiel (Talk) 00:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately when someone reverted my deletion of the image, it now, at least, displays correctly. Dbiel (Talk) 01:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism for the "suck part" but please note for the placement part that the article has made it through both GA and FA reviews. There is nothing wrong with an image being displayed at the bottom like it is. This helps to space out the images and prevent them from bunching up into each other and from dominating the text. Pictures are useful and helpful, but also optional and secondary to the text and should not dominate an article. Further, the manual of style does not say they cannot be there, as it is silent on location. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional information. I would never have deleted it on the placement issue alone. It was the way it was being displayed that was the problem. After some more research, it seems to have been a cache issue as checking the historical copies, they display correctly. Very strange. Dbiel (Talk) 01:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for trying to get rid of the vandalism. Unfortunately, this will likely not be the only vandalism that occurs, as the main page article attracts a lot of vandals. With the cache issue, I know I have that problem too with Wikipedia. Odd Aboutmovies (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram/Map

We need some sort of diagram or map showing where everything is located.Bobbyb30q (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Layout fix needed

I'm crap at layout. Can someone fix the white space after the "Third Capitol" heading? Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any white space after that heading. May be a browser-specific issue? — Zaui (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm running Explorer on a PC. Too bad EncMstr is on WikiBreak... Katr67 (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not there in Firefox. I checked using Explorer and saw it. I'll see if I can fix it. — Zaui (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's because the photo placed in the previous section was bumping into the next section - creating the white space. I moved the photo, but IE locked up on me so I can't look right now to see if it's fixed. — Zaui (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It's fixed. Thanks bunches! Katr67 (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome, <Airplane!>and don't call me Bunches.</Airplane!> — Zaui (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Art Deco?

The article states that Oregon's is the only Art Deco capitol. ("It is the only Art Deco style state capitol.")

However, the article for the Louisiana State Capitol cites it as an Art Deco building (in the side bar table to the right of the article with fast facts of the LA building, the architectural style is given as Art Deco).

Sorry, I don't know how to properly post this, but just wanted to bring it to someone's attention.

Perfect place to post, just don't forget to sign with ~~~~. Looks like you're right, though there is a cited source in the article saying Oregon's is the only one. AM? Got cite? Do the editors at the Oregonian need to be beaten again? Katr67 (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Odd the source does say its the only one, but Louisiana State Capitol says it is Art Deco, as does the North Dakota State Capitol, plus a picture of the Nebraska State Capitol is on the Art Deco page (its article says moderne). So I'm not sure how to word it at this point. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
By my original research, I'd say LA is Art Deco and ND and NE are moderne, but obviously it's a fine line. The LA capitol, at least the main entrance part, is eerily similar to Oregon's. I was thinking we could rewrite it to say "one of two (3, 4)", but we'll need a source. I bet there are more than a few The Big Exhaustive Picture Book of All 50 State Capitols (written by an actual architect) we could take a look at... Perhaps the "only" bit should be commented out for now. Katr67 (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This is getting sureal. I'm searching for a strong source, and people do think NE is art deco, in fact an article in the Lincoln paper says the architect Bertram Goodhue helped the transition to Art Deco, with a source of Wikipedia! Lots of mentions of NE and ND as art deco. I could not find anything with a set number, but this thesis at UoO might. Plus the guy also helped write a book on UoO's architecture so he may have a better understanding of architecture. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)