Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kentucky/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

assessment

This list is generated automatically every night around 10 PM EST.

Kentucky
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 4 2 2 1 9
Good article GA 1 2 17 2 22
B 10 39 46 24 31 150
Start 16 89 202 314 383 1004
Stub 11 17 108 383 832 1351
Assessed 42 149 375 724 1246 2536
Unassessed 2 130 132
Total 42 151 375 724 1376 2668

--Ling.Nut 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Can we auto-assess stubs into the stub category?Soldan 18:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You can ask the individual who runs the WatchlistBot to run that for you. I had it done for WikiProject Louisville and it took a few hundred assessments off our hands. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just renovated the WikiProject Kentucky template

OK, I just completed a major renovation of {{WikiProject Kentucky}}. Please report any issues to me and I'll fix them at the earliest possible moment. Thanks! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Stevie, why did you slice and dice the membership list? --Spacini 21:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No slicing or dicing. It was just moved to a subpage. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I should have paid more attention. It's much better with your changs.

--Spacini 02:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Breaking down into subpages (like WPLouisville)

I just wanted to gauge interest in breaking down the project page into subpages or departments, like what is done in WikiProject Louisville. It has turned out to be a much cleaner approach, in my opinion. Thoughts? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support elements of this change. The membership department would help the page flow, as our list is becoming unwieldy. However, I'd prefer the Hall of Fame stay up-front, as I think it encourages people to try and get more articles listed there.
While we're on the subject, It seems we've completely dropped the ball on the Focus of the Month. We need to move that section down or remove it completely. The fact that we still have nominations open for November, and no one has added one or made any significant improvements to the current noms in months makes our project look a little dead. Acdixon 16:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I can start by creating a membership department. And I agree that the Focus of the Month isn't working, as it wasn't working in WPLouisville either. What I did for Louisville was delete it off the project page, but didn't delete the focus page, in case we decide to use it later. Sound like a plan? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. We'll need to do some more work to the project page at some point, but this is a good start. Acdixon 17:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I have started doing a rough up of a possible new front page/daughter pages of the Project on my User Space. Any thoughts or suggestions would be helpful. My main concern is to shorten the pages so that they are not OMG long. The link for the draft is User:Soldan/wpkydraft. Please feel free to mark up and change things as you want. The navigation box isn't flushed out all the way for the draft, as I didn't see a need for a billion talk pages under my user space. Thanks for time and attention Soldan 15:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Is the infobox based on a design from another wikiproject? If so, that would be good for maintaining similarity between projects. I might do the same for WikiProject Louisville. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I ganked the basis for the infobox from WP: Military History. I'm gonna work more on that project in free time at work, and see what all I can come up with. Soldan 16:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I also like the infobox. Since we're planning to redesign the page anyway, let me get this part straight. Do we need to edit the scope section to mention that articles about Louisville are part of WikiProject Louisville, articles about the Bluegrass region are in WikiProject Bluegrass region, etc.? I had been using both WikiProject Kentucky and the appropriate subproject banner, but it looks like WikiProject Louisville has been replacing the WikiProject Kentucky banner, so I started doing that, using both only for highly notable items to both projects (e.g. Frankfort, Kentucky goes both in WikiProject Kentucky and WikiProject Bluegrass Region). Acdixon 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
A copyedit of the Scope section in this regard sounds good to me. In most cases, it's not necessary for both WPKY and a subproject to provide coverage for an article, with special exceptions as you say. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I will rough something up. Is it just the three of us that are active on this project? Or do we have other active voices?Soldan 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as being active on the project itself, I think it's just us three amigos. However, I have seen Dale Arnett still making Kentucky-related changes now and again. I used to see Seicer and Chris24 around a lot more than I have lately. There's also a new guy, Veracious Rey, but so far about all I've noticed from him is edits about Boone County. Acdixon 19:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully they'll start being more vocal. On regards to the project page, I am thinking of scratching the "News" section from the front page, to move it to a rear, and use our front page mainly to show our scope, some tasks at hand, and thinks like templates, including how to use them (similar to the WP Military History site.Soldan 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I could support that with one caveat. I think we need a prominent place to make announcements like the completion of the assessment system. Acdixon 19:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No qualms with that. We can put a pressing news box on the front page, but not news from say "We founded on...".Soldan 19:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding the split b/t WP Kentucky and WP Louisville and WP BR.

I do not understand why the project was split into smaller projects (WP Louisville, and WP Bluegrass Region). It seems to me that it would of been beneficial to everyone by making a Louisville Task Force, and a BR Task force, which would of in turn kept FA's and the like from those areas in house. However, it is done now, and as such I don't think we can do much about it, but if say there is ever a want for a WP Purchase... we make a task force.Soldan 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Too late for that. There's already a long precedent for city-based wikiprojects. Besides that, do we really want to manage several thousand pages in one project? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, a case can be made for not creating child projects when there's not much material to cover under them. KYOVA might be a good example here. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I see both sides here. I can pretty much understand the desire for a separate project for Louisville, but not so much for Bluegrass Region (maybe Lexington) and definitely not for KYOVA. I'm from one of those usually neglected areas of Kentucky, and I pretty much made a one-man task force for Western Coal Fields for a while. I do lament the fact that we now only have 2 Featured and 1 Good Article with the removal of the Louisville articles. We lose some more potentially Good and Featured when we take out Lexington and Ashland. Acdixon 19:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The task force basis, as is used in WP:WAR each task force acts akin to its own Project, but it all comes under the head of the Project. Basically it's the same thing as what has happened, but without neutering the state project.Soldan 20:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Definitely a great argument can be made for making regions into task forces rather than separate projects. Further, with regards to the best Louisville articles, I think it would be all right to feature them in a future Kentucky portal as part of the mix of other Kentucky articles that are featured. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That last bit actually made me feel better. I was mainly worried about the baby projects neutering the parent if you know what I mean. But if it is kosher to show off the best Louisville articles here as well, to help show off the state, then I have no qualms at all on the matter.Soldan 20:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, I guess it does make sense if they are descendant WikiProjects to feature their Good and Featured articles in the parent project's Hall of Fame. Perhaps we should note which ones come from descendant WikiProjects, though, so there isn't confusion between the numbers showing in the assessment table and the number of articles in the Hall of Fame. Who'd like to do the honors? Acdixon 20:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. I can add the ones from Louisville. I'm not sure of the best way to mark what descendant projects they come from, but that can always be easily modified. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

User is making major changes to Kentucky's category system

Just wanted to alert everyone that Hmains is making major changes to our category system. Perhaps he will explain to us what he is doing. Otherwise, we have major revert work to do. Arghh. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

violation of WP policy

Today I was subjected to the following statements by one of your members:

Please stop reworking Kentucky categories. No notice was given to WikiProject Kentucky. The way they are being changed is unacceptable. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to clear any changes with WikiProject Kentucky. If you don't, I'm reverting every change you make. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, this editor is wrong. Being in a project gives an editor no special privileges regarding editing and no special claim that all edits have to be cleared through him or his project. Is your project prepared to correct this situation? Thanks Hmains 05:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You were changing Kentucky categories without clearing through this project. It's a matter of courtesy! Do you not understand courtesy? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Further, I think you will need to state the specific policy violation in play here. Just saying there's a violation doesn't make a violation. Projects are set up to oversee sets of articles and other sorts of pages. And your changes were found to be disagreeable by one member, me, of this project. Your arguments in favor of the changes were unacceptable to me. I've broken no policy. We just have an editing disagreement. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Stub questions

Here's a philosophical question I must ask in regard to the rating of articles as "stubs". For a few of the articles I have created, I have used all available resources--not simply web searches--to write the article. Although the article may be short (e.g., Kenny Price), does that warrant a stub rating? I have contributed to several print encyclopedias and several of those articles would be considered stubs simply because the editors have limited the number of words for the article. While that is not a Wikipedia consideration, are we correctly rating articles or simply evaluating their lengths and assuming that they are stubs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spacini (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Per the assessment system, very short length can qualify an article as a stub, but if there is significant useful content, short articles should rise to start class. That being said, while doing ratings en masse, I have been guilty of making a snap judgment based on length. If you would like an article reassessed, please note it on the appropriate place on the assessment page. Acdixon 22:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Acdixon on this one. I too could be considered guilty when doing the ratings en masse to just make a snap decision based on length. However, I try to save the stub rating for those articles that have the stub tag on them, or obviously stubs.Soldan 14:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible Good Article - William Goebel

So I was bored today and made a stop at the library with my wife. I picked up a few books that had some good info on William Goebel. The previous article was 99% copyvio, so I cleaned it up with citations. I think it might be about ready for a good article nom now. Anybody care to give it a once-over for careless mistakes that might get flagged in a review before I nominate it? Acdixon 05:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked it over. It looks good.Soldan 14:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

New Article - James William "Honest Dick" Tate

In some of my recent reading, I have run across an interesting character known as "Honest Dick" Tate, a Kentucky treasury secretary who took off with $250,000 from the state's treasury in March 1888. I figure he's worth at least a stub on Wikipedia, but I don't know how to title the article. "Honest Dick" Tate doesn't seem like the appropriate title, but apparently James W. Tate is a famous poet, and there is another James Tate that is a politician, so James Tate (politician) isn't specific enough either. Suggestions? Acdixon 16:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that if he was known as "Honest Dick" Tate, then titling it as "Honest Dick" Tate would be appropriate enough. Failing that, naming it James "Honest Dick" Tate might not be a bad idea either.Soldan 16:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali nominated for U.S. Collaboration of the Week

Please vote for Muhammad Ali at Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed revamp of List of counties in Kentucky

I was thinking about the List of counties in Kentucky, and I'd like to change it to look more like this. I think the fields in the proposed list are more interesting, and perhaps more useful, as some of the data on the existing list is only current as of the 2000 census. I'm not sure how many red links we might end up with, but hopefully, not enough to prevent a featured list nomination. Please give me your feedback. Acdixon 14:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer that the Census numbers stay because it helps to understand relative populations. Further, there might be newer adjusted Census numbers (maybe from 2005?) available that could be added to the table.
It also wouldn't be unheard of to have a second table of secondary statistics for all the counties. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I love the idea of showing the county positions on the maps. Would we be the first state to have such a list? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Not sure. I haven't looked at what other states have done. So, are you proposing moving the existing list to something like List of census data about Kentucky counties and putting my proposed list at List of counties in Kentucky, or making them part of the same article, or what? We could just add a column for "2000 population" to my proposed list to get relative populations. I'm not sure how useful household data, breakdown of area by land and water, and housing unit density are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acdixon (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
Same article. The other data is almanac data, but should be useful to others. I don't think we should be excluding it, for sure. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
More like this, then? Acdixon 16:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks for working that up so quickly. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem; glad you like it. I'll try to turn this sucker out in a day or two. I'm pretty convinced we can get it through a Featured List review without too much trouble. BTW, if anyone else would like to comment, I'm still open for suggestions. Acdixon 17:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Metropolitian is not a word

FYI to Kentuckians. Your category name for Metropolitan areas is misspelled... --orlady 21:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for bringing to our attention. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Request re:project template

Hi, I was wondering if you could modify your project template so that it has a parameter to appear in a smaller version on talk pages i.e. {{WikiProject Kentucky|importance=top|class=B|small=yes}}. Otherwise if attempts are made to make all tags on a talk page small versions, your template can create quite a mess- see this version of the Abraham Lincoln talk page for an example of what I mean. Thank you, WJBscribe 13:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are asking us to change the template for issues on one talk page? The 'small' parameter makes the template code rather messy. I would prefer to avoid it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I was pointing out that most projects have set up their tag so they can have a small version. I simply offered one example. The problem of talkpages getting over-cluttered with tags is a growing one. I'm not saying there is an urgent need for a smaller version of your template, but I hope it is something you will work on reasonably soon. WJBscribe 14:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Now complete. Enjoy. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 05:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation template for WPKY

Might it be a good idea to create an "invitation template" for our WikiProject? Whenever I see an editor make constructive edits to a Kentucky-related article, I check their contribution history. If it includes a significant number of Kentucky-related edits, I try to leave an invitation to the project on their talk page. My standard blurb goes something like this:

Your recent edits seem to indicate that you have some local knowledge of Kentucky. If so, perhaps you would like to join WikiProject Kentucky, a project for the creation, expansion, and improvement of articles related to the state of Kentucky. Check out our project page, and if you like what you see, join us by adding your name to our membership list. Hope to see you at WikiProject Kentucky!

If we dressed this up with our "logo" and made it a template, it'd be easier for us to include on talk pages and might attract new editors to the project. Thoughts? Acdixon 16:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I was thinking of doing exactly the same thing for WikiProject Louisville. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I've never created a template before, but this sounds like an easy one to get started with. Do I just create Template:WPKYInvite and start editing? Acdixon 17:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. But you may want to copy in a similar example and just tweak it to your tastes. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool. How's this?

WikiProject Kentucky		 An invitation to join us!
Your recent edits seem to indicate that you have some local knowledge of Kentucky. If so, perhaps you would like to join WikiProject Kentucky, a project for the creation, expansion and improvement of articles related to the state of Kentucky. Check out our project page, and if you like what you see, join us by adding your name to our membership list. Hope to see you at WikiProject Kentucky!
Acdixon 19:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the content, but the design is more like that used for project banners. I would recommend using something that looks like a barnstar box. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The template above should be updated. Does that look better? Acdixon 19:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks great! The only thing I would change is that "WikiProject Kentucky" under the project image should link to the project. Mind if I steal your work for WikiProject Louisville? :) Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. After all, I did steal your whole assessment system page! Thanks for the help. Acdixon 20:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving by the month

We've had quite a bit of chatter throughout January on here... any problems if we 'clean the slate' and archive it for January 2007, just to keep the page clean and manageable? There are quite a few discussions I don't think we will be revisiting. Soldan 19:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Suits me. It's just been the three of us here lately, anyway. Acdixon 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)