![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Huntster, thanks a lot for preparing the tabs, that looks so much more sophisticated! (Sorry for messing with the pages while you were doing stuff, I was too excited.) Orlady, thanks a lot for picking some more anniversaries! Looks like all that is needed are a some more biographies and two or three articles, maybe.
Once that is done, we might see to get the selected articles and the bios to about the same length. That is, all articles roughly the same length as the other articles and all bios approximately the same length as the other bios. That would improve the stability of the portal layout and help eliminate empty spaces at the end.
When should we remove the "Under construction" signs? doxTxob \ talk 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I
boldly removed the "under construction" signs, since the criterion for that is that the portal be completely browsable and have no "red links" for the section content page. On that basis, it's been ready for a long time!
More content is still needed, of course.
I do think that the "In the News" section is not working out (we aren't finding a lot of items to add to it), and I think it should be mothballed. --
Orlady (
talk)
01:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The following lists contain redundant material.
Maybe the information could be consolidated in one list. I will put it on the TN Project to do list.
Take care, doxTxob \ talk 06:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I have successfully merged County seats in Tennessee into Counties in Tennessee. This leaves County name etymologies to be merged which I should have done sometime tonight or tomorrow. After that if we want to establish the county list as a featured list then we will need to write up a decent header and fill out the remaining four columns Established, Origin, Population, and Area. I will see what I can do to fill those in but my time is limited right now as finals close in. ~ Dan9186 November 28, 2007 16:55 (UTC)
I have completed the merging of the three lists now. The two old lists have been set as redirects and the new list only lacks a small amount of info, all of which can be found on the Tennessee Blue Book PDF. I've also taken the liberty of removing the old lists from the portal so that only the appropriate one shows. I will also change the To Do list such that it reflects the recent changes. This should put the counties list very close by the way to being a featured list. We have all of the information readily available and it doesn't need much more. We might be able to get two featured lists back to back if all goes well. Also thanks for the help Orlady, I've been watching as some of your additions come up on the list and definitely appreciate every bit of it. -- Dan9186( T • E • C) November 29, 2007 04:39 (UTC)
I was looking at the lists of other states and noticed the seats and etymology lists for other states are still intact even though the county list displays all of the same information in a format now similar to the Tennessee county list. Currently, I had replaced the other two lists with redirects to the county list when the information was completed on the one single list. My question is now that we have improved the county list do we want to maintain the other two lists or leave them as redirects? -- Dan9186( T • E • C) December 3, 2007 04:01 (UTC)
I have placed all of the information in the table that was missing. What else needs to be done? I know it needs a heading and I think Orlady may have some changes she would like to see in the etymology on a few, but other than that the list shouldn't be that far off from FLC. There are some defunct counties, would those be notable enough to list? Since the list is relatively close to what it needs to be featured I would kind of like to see a push to get it done. Anyone else's thoughts? -- Dan9186( T • E • C) December 31, 2007 23:39 (UTC)
A nice introduction can make a big difference. The historical constellation of counties, defunct counties and the indian treaties are good topics to complete it and if you say that there are various treaties regarding Indian land, that might even justify a separate article about the topic. doxTxob \ talk 06:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe many Tennesseans know the importance of this site. It is where Tennessee got its name. My biggest concern is that someone has changed the title of the page to something hardly searchable in the database. When anyone searches for Long Island, naturally, it pulls up Long Island, New York. No one would ever search for Long Island (Tennessee) or Long Island, Tennessee. First, it is not a city. Second, everyone knows the site as The Long Island of the Holston River.
There was other valuable information on the page but someone scaled it down to nearly nothing. Incidentally, The Long Island of the Holston was the first historic site to be named for Tennessee. I believe the name should be changed back to The Long Island of the Holston River and that someone should definitely add more information to the page (e.g. The Battle of Long Island Flats and its significance). —Preceding unsigned comment added by HaroldKarey ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Any photographers (and by that, I mean anyone with a digital camera) that can make it to Nashville this Sunday at 6 pm, to photograph the final show of Jump5?
Details here: http://nashville.craigslist.org/crg/505941578.html
Let me know! -- Zanimum ( talk) 18:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
While overhauling the Pinson Mounds article, I noticed that previous editors had copied several sections ad verbatim from the state park's website. I checked all 42 articles regarding Tennessee's state parks, and found that 8 had substantial material that had been copied ad verbatim from the parks' respective websites. The articles are: Big Cypress Tree State Park, Big Hill Pond State Park, Chickasaw State Park, Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park, Nathan Bedford Forrest State Park, Pickwick State Park, and Panther Creek State Park. The parks' official websites can be found here.
Pinson is fixed, and I'll re-word the others shortly, but I was wondering how often this sort of thing occurs. Does Wikipedia have a policy regarding copying-and-pasting material from other websites into an article? Bms4880 ( talk) 22:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Back when we were discussing images for the list of cities and towns, Orlady came up with Image:Crossvillesign.jpg. I just spoke to my patrol lieutenant, who has apparently spent quite a bit of time in Crossville, and he said that this particular sign is still standing, albeit in a significantly degraded state. He believes it is at or near the intersection of Lantana Rd/Knoxville Hwy and Main St/Hwy 127 ( map here). I was thinking, this would be a heck of a day trip to try and find this sign, and frame a photograph in the same manner as that old picture Orlady found. Might have to do this sometime soon. -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You'll be happy to know that the good people of Crossville have restored the sign to its original glory and moved it to the courthouse lawn: Image:Crossville-sign1.jpg. Bms4880 ( talk) 17:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't quite make sense of the sign's directions. The bottom arrows point to Jamestown and Byrdstown, which almost certainly indicates North on US-127 (or 127's predecessor). The top seven arrows point toward towns in Middle Tennessee, which probably indicates US-70. The problem is that Knoxville, Kingston, and Harriman, which are on (or very near) US-70, should be in the direction opposite the Middle Tennessee towns, rather than (as the sign indicates) the direction opposite the Byrdstown area.
It's possible that the sign was located at the junction of 70N and 127 (Mapquest or Yahoo-Map to Elmore Rd in Crossville) rather than the 70/127 junction, but I'm pretty sure the latter is the traditional junction (Scott's Tavern was located at the modern intersection of Main St. and Stanley St.). Bms4880 ( talk) 21:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
On the Carter County, Tennessee page, something doesn't make sense to me; the early history section is written such as to make Tennessee a part of the Province of North Carolina continously...
As part of North Carolina counties
* Clarendum; * New Hanover Precinct (1729-1734); * Bladen County (1734-1749) - current county seat is Elizabethtown, North Carolina); * Anson County (1749-1753); * Rowan County (1753-1777); * Burke County (1777).
...but that doesn't make sense with the first sentence of the next section;
"Carter County was the first permanent settlement outside the original 13 American colonies."
It can't be in North Carolina but outside the colony of North Carolina can it? Doesn't the Proclamation of 1763 come into play? Looking for clarity... Berean Hunter ( talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I propose that photos of all Tennessee county courthouses be added to their respective article, and possibly the corresponding county seat article. This would serve to beautify the article and serve as a visual representation of the county. A handful already have courthouse photos:
Anybody want to help contribute? -- Ichabod ( talk) 02:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The following county articles now have courthouse photos:
I count 48, which puts us just over halfway to the goal of all 95. Most of the remaining counties are located along the state's Kentucky border in the north and northeast and a few along the Alabama and Mississippi borders to the southwest. Davidson, Hamilton, and Madison also lack courthouse images, likely due to their large couty seats where the courthouse isn't the most prominent or even central structure. Bms4880 ( talk) 00:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The following counties do not have courthouse photos. Contributors may want to cross them off once a photo is taken and uploaded. -- Ichabod ( talk) 01:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The Tennessee county navigational boxes could use some expansion, especially by those who are familiar enough with the counties to distinguish between cities/towns and census designated places. I've made a few and intend to do more as I find the time. -- Ichabod ( talk) 21:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The advantage of navboxes is to improve the navigation within a defined topic. {{ Rogersville, Tennessee}} is a good example for a town or city and the recently created navbox for {{ Memphis, Tennessee}} is a good example for a metro area covering counties in three states. In my opinion a navbox is a help required for a topic of such extend that it is split into different articles and has articles about related topics that are not necessarily linked to or mentioned in the article itself. That keeps related articles close to each other, linked to each other and adds more information than is present in the article itself, something that Wikipedia cannot deliver with other means as topics are sorted alphabetically. It might be a good idea to do a search on Wikipedia for articles related to that county and if there are enough articles to fill the box, that county (or any topic) would need one. Take care, doxTxob \ talk 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If any of you get the chance, would you mind clicking on this Old version of the Roan Mountain article and let me know if the photos create large gaps or unnecessary whitespace, especially in the "Peaks" section? Just scroll down past the revision info. Thanks. Bms4880 ( talk) 22:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm doing what I can to advertise User:LaraLove/Bathrobe Cabal/Meetup. Should be a good time, I hope. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I have nominated the List of counties in Tennessee for Featured List status.
After the merge of etymologies and county seats into this list (plus some major polishing) the list is pretty comprehensive. That would be a nice featured list for Tennessee.
The discussion of the topic takes place here: Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_counties_in_Tennessee. doxTxob \ talk 03:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I know the Sugarlands article is my baby, but I'm not sure it deserves a "High" ranking on the importance scale. If no one disagrees, I recommend reclassifying as "Mid."
I'm also wondering how to classify state forests and state archaeological sites. Do we give them blanket "Mid" or do we rate on a case-by-case basis? Bms4880 ( talk) 00:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Tennessee articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
![]() |
3 | 10 | 9 | 22 | |||
![]() |
1 | 12 | 13 | ||||
![]() |
2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |||
![]() |
2 | 5 | 25 | 83 | 3 | 118 | |
B | 9 | 40 | 79 | 233 | 19 | 380 | |
C | 10 | 29 | 196 | 883 | 106 | 1,224 | |
Start | 39 | 439 | 3,621 | 488 | 4,587 | ||
Stub | 7 | 123 | 3,972 | 750 | 4,852 | ||
List | 8 | 33 | 142 | 3 | 65 | 251 | |
Category | 8 | 4,593 | 4,601 | ||||
Disambig | 4 | 38 | 42 | ||||
File | 6 | 194 | 200 | ||||
Portal | 1 | 1 | |||||
Project | 17 | 17 | |||||
Template | 1 | 562 | 563 | ||||
NA | 6 | 158 | 467 | 631 | |||
Other | 4 | 1 | 42 | 47 | |||
Assessed | 21 | 134 | 916 | 9,134 | 5,917 | 1,431 | 17,553 |
Unassessed | 12 | 80 | 92 | ||||
Total | 21 | 134 | 916 | 9,146 | 5,917 | 1,511 | 17,645 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 58,311 | Ω = 5.21 |
The core purpose of ratings as I, personally, understand them is best reflected in the assessment grid. It presents the status off all articles in the scope of a certain project. For newbies the grid can be useful, too. You can sort of pick your skill level if you aren't so accustomed to the process. If you are an editor you can identify problem articles easily and try to move as many articles to the top left corner of the grid. (What's that single "No importance" article doing there?)
The assessment scheme is commonly used and propbably as often discussed. Not long after User:ArkansasTraveler had kicked off the TN project I had the idea to introduce ratings and with much help from User:Huntster the assessment page was started. I have compared the template provided by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team to other versions in use and decided to stay close to the most common standard (not the lowest, the most common and accepted). With help of Huntsters ideas the definitions were revised very slightly.
As for the ownership of articles or projects let me assure you that I do not care. I was the one who suggested to rephrase the formulation in the project banner from "This article is part of project TN" to "This article is in the scope of project TN", because the former version did sound like ownership of the articles by the project. I'll come back to that banner later.
In the process of preparing the assessment page I became aquainted to a good degree with the common accepted standards as well as with the articles identified to be in the scope of the TN project. I rated the majority of articles by quality and (all that must have gone unnoticed) more than 1,500 articles by importance, identifing top, high and mid importance articles and lots of low ones already. All were rated for quality and 65% for importance. I do not mention this to brag, I mention this to let you know that I have seen every TN project related article, every one of 2,500 at least 3 times, many of them more often. I did not read all of them but quite some. Nevertheless I have some sort of overview of the TN related artciles, without suggesting that that would entitle for something. It is also worth to mention that some commotion is about the last 35% of articles that were left unrated. Yawn: Mostly low and mid ones and a ton that probably everone would agree on.
Changing the rating scheme for importance or quality is a task too important to be solved in a state project. The rating scheme is used in many Wikipedia project with adaptions and smaller adjustments. I am not opposed to change, change is good, they say. If I look at Wikipedia as the casual reader, I would want it done in a fashion that the information of the State of Tennesssee is as easy to find as the information for any other state or better. That does not depend on the number of articles but on a similar organisation and sorting process for the articles. I do not even deny that there might be better systems but I count every single project on Wikipedia as one consensus vote in favor of the current system. There might be better ones but if the TN project starts a revolution it would only cause more confusion among readers and editors, also. As maldefined the instructions may be, at least you can rely on their maldefinitions.
Some editors are in several projects and it would make it difficult for editors to rate articles at all if every project used their own standards. And for readers it would be the same problem, it would even be worse for them because they might have no idea about the disagreement. If there are valid concerns about the rating system that could be addressed to the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, because they issued the basic standards in use.
There is one positive news item to mention, though. There were no complaints from readers or editors whose babies were upgraded from "No importance" to "Low importance".
Dang, there were complaints about the Battle of Athens, that's the one with no importance. Good move to remove the rating, my mistake to overrate! But that way articles can be identified that need attention. In that colorful square up there. That is a use of the ratings that I wanted to demonstrate to argue in favor of the usefulness of the complete rating system with all grades present and all grades used according to the most common standard available now. doxTxob \ talk 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
How about we change the wording on the Project banner from "Importance" to "Priority". Not the categories and assessment page, just on the banner template, that's done in a second and if they hate it, it can be undone in a second, one edit. Would it be less offensive if it read that your "baby" is of Low priority as compared to Low importance? Or even No importance. doxTxob \ talk 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
On a quick note that was mentioned about me way above. I have lost no interest in the project I have the matters of school and a new house have taken some priority as of late. That being said, reading through the above discussion it seems that we may wish to consider the importance and function of the system.
As far as I can see it there are two possible uses for the "Importance" system. One is where we have random users of Wikipedia who look through the project and use the importance levels to decide what they wish to read about. The second use would be of our own, using it as a directed, joint effort to improve the quality of articles. I would think that starting here and deciding what exact purpose the system serves us is the best choice for this. For now I have no clue how everyone else views this but it is my personal feelings that the system is or should be a tool for frequent editors. Now this does lead to a question of how many levels of importance are needed and would be something else to discuss about all of this.
Either way I hate to see something that should ease our cooperation cause such bitter exchanges. I hope that all of this will not leave any lasting scars on the progress of the project. It wouldn't be a project without those who contribute so much. -- Dan9186( T • E • C) January 22, 2008 23:49 (UTC)
Hear ye, hear ye! List of cities and towns in Tennessee has been selected to be a February List of the Day, to be featured on two separate days during February 2008. See User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/voting/200802 for the record of voting for February featured lists. Thanks to all who contributed to this list. -- Orlady ( talk) 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The Bays Mountain article's history section appears to be copied ad verbatim from the park website's history page. I guess it's possible that Bays Mountain park copied the Wikipedia article, but whoever wrote the Wikipedia article's history section doesn't appear to be well-versed-- they linked to the wrong James Needham, linked to a William King disambiguation, and some of the other links were hastily done. Also, the short paragraph on moonshine stills looks brochure-esque.
Is there any way to figure out for sure which site did the copying? Bms4880 ( talk) 20:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please create a page on this city? I came across the place in an article about the recent tornado [1]. They don't seem to have an official website but there are many google hits [2] and even a map [3]. I'm a little busy to find more info atm though. Zigzig20s ( talk) 22:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed April 6-8, 2006 Tornado Outbreak and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributor of the article along with another WikiProject. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 09:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
A List of National Historic Landmarks in Tennessee list-article is in progress, and is nearly complete in terms of creating at least a stub article for each of the National Historic Landmarks in the state. Help editing descriptions for the sites, in the list-article, and editing the articles about the individual NHL articles, and photographs, is needed! doncram ( talk) 04:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that vandals have been loose here. (I reverted some other vandalism by the most recent editor.) I've reverted some of the more recent edits, but I'm not sure whether I've gone too far or not far enough. Could someone who knows more have a look, please. -- Peter cohen ( talk) 11:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC) (Also posting to the RC project.)
I have nominated this article for Featured Article Review. Please come and review it, and help it retain FA status! Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 22:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ku Klux Klan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia article about this? I searched with several keywords, but I wasn't sure if it had an official name. Bms4880 ( talk) 02:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm improving the Alan Kulwicki article toward FA. He died in an airplane crash flying from Knoxville to Bristol. It would be helpful if the article wikilinked to that main highway between Blountville and Bristol where the plane crashed if anyone knows the actual location. Royalbroil 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently workshopping an article on the protohistory of Tennessee, and I'm looking for a copyright-free image of De Soto's travels in the southeast. I checked the National Atlas and did a general search on the web, with no luck. If anyone knows of one, let me know. Bms4880 ( talk) 00:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
This is being posted at this project page based on the recommendations of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Turn to others for help. There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Andrew Jackson#Search for Consensus -- Jackson and the "Final Solution.
The issue is whether an article in a Swedish language newspaper quoting a professor of comparative religion constitutes a reliable source justifying linking Jackson’s Indian Removal policy with Hitler’s Final Solution attempt to exterminate the Jewish race. There is a wealth of credible, academic material available to offer valid and harsh criticisms of Jackson’s policy without resorting to the extremes of comparisons with Hitler.
In any event, I would appreciate anybody with an opinion on the subject to weigh in at the Jackson link above. As the matter stands, there is only one editor supporting retaining the language, but I am not sure that a consensus for removing it currently exists (many in opposition are IPs or infrequent editors). Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Since this hasn't already been posted here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Nashville.
Hope to see some of you fine folks there. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Per the brief discussion between Huntster and I on the Nashville talk page about a month ago, I'm going to propose that we remove the notable resident sections from all of our linked pages for the following reasons: many of them are incorrect - no one ever verifies these, there is no definition as to what makes a resident "notable" (as some do not have Wikipedia articles), and it reaks of trivia. If there are exceptionally notable residents, they can be added to the prose with proper citations. Otherwise, they don't need to be in the articles. See the exceptionally convoluted one on Franklin, Tennessee. -- Smashville BONK! 16:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It appears to me that Montgomery Bell Tunnel and Harpeth River State Park are both about the same tunnel (which is a National Historic Landmark). However, I've never been to the place discussed, and I don't have any firsthand knowledge. Does anyone know? Are they one and the same? -- Orlady ( talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Miller's Department Store is unreferenced and may be original research. Can someone familiar with the company and source material about the company add references? If it's notable, there should be mentions in local specialty books and in local news outlets. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 22:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 2783 articles are assigned to this project, of which 477, or 17.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 08:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Nashville Sounds to become a Featured Article. I would appreciate support and/or constructive comments from members of the project. You may view the nomination here. - NatureBoyMD ( talk) 19:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this really a state park? It looks to me to be a private golf course. If you have information on it, please comment on the talk page. -- Orlady ( talk) 20:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I've requested a move of article The Hermitage (Tennessee) to rename it from "The Hermitage (Tennessee)" to "The Hermitage (Andrew Jackson home)". Please discuss at its Talk page. Notice provided also at wp:Requested moves and at wt:NRHP. Thanks. doncram ( talk) 21:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding the following information for this article:
1. The year the park was established
2. The company that owned/operated the strip mine upon which the park was established
Any info. will be helpful. Bms4880 ( talk) 18:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Tina Turner has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really familiar with making requests for semi-protection, but are there any reasons we shouldn't request semi-protection for the Polk article? It's vandalized several times per day. Bms4880 ( talk) 16:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I just added a stub article at Knoxville City-County Building, because it was a red link on another page. The only thing I was able to find about it was the address. Perhaps a local can fill it in. -- rogerd ( talk) 18:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to overhaul and expand this article tomorrow, and I was wondering if there is a Wikipedia rule against the use of eye dialect. Several editors have been using it for examples in the "Sample Vocabulary" section. As far as I can tell, linguists and researchers in the field frown upon its use, and I'm going to delete or re-word most of the examples, but I thought it odd that multiple editors were doing this. Bms4880 ( talk) 23:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
149 articles in Category:Tennessee articles missing geocoordinate data do not have geographic coordinates. Coords are useful for making the article appear on Google Maps & many other mapping services; and they allow our users to click through to see the article subject location on a map. There's a short guide to on how to add geocodes to articles ... it really is very easy to do. I hope you'll take some time to ensure that Tennessee is as well represented as it can be on wikipedia by fixing up the listed articles. thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Please help expand Tennessee coal sludge spill, and if you're in Tennessee, get photos. Badagnani ( talk) 20:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Huntster, thanks a lot for preparing the tabs, that looks so much more sophisticated! (Sorry for messing with the pages while you were doing stuff, I was too excited.) Orlady, thanks a lot for picking some more anniversaries! Looks like all that is needed are a some more biographies and two or three articles, maybe.
Once that is done, we might see to get the selected articles and the bios to about the same length. That is, all articles roughly the same length as the other articles and all bios approximately the same length as the other bios. That would improve the stability of the portal layout and help eliminate empty spaces at the end.
When should we remove the "Under construction" signs? doxTxob \ talk 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I
boldly removed the "under construction" signs, since the criterion for that is that the portal be completely browsable and have no "red links" for the section content page. On that basis, it's been ready for a long time!
More content is still needed, of course.
I do think that the "In the News" section is not working out (we aren't finding a lot of items to add to it), and I think it should be mothballed. --
Orlady (
talk)
01:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The following lists contain redundant material.
Maybe the information could be consolidated in one list. I will put it on the TN Project to do list.
Take care, doxTxob \ talk 06:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I have successfully merged County seats in Tennessee into Counties in Tennessee. This leaves County name etymologies to be merged which I should have done sometime tonight or tomorrow. After that if we want to establish the county list as a featured list then we will need to write up a decent header and fill out the remaining four columns Established, Origin, Population, and Area. I will see what I can do to fill those in but my time is limited right now as finals close in. ~ Dan9186 November 28, 2007 16:55 (UTC)
I have completed the merging of the three lists now. The two old lists have been set as redirects and the new list only lacks a small amount of info, all of which can be found on the Tennessee Blue Book PDF. I've also taken the liberty of removing the old lists from the portal so that only the appropriate one shows. I will also change the To Do list such that it reflects the recent changes. This should put the counties list very close by the way to being a featured list. We have all of the information readily available and it doesn't need much more. We might be able to get two featured lists back to back if all goes well. Also thanks for the help Orlady, I've been watching as some of your additions come up on the list and definitely appreciate every bit of it. -- Dan9186( T • E • C) November 29, 2007 04:39 (UTC)
I was looking at the lists of other states and noticed the seats and etymology lists for other states are still intact even though the county list displays all of the same information in a format now similar to the Tennessee county list. Currently, I had replaced the other two lists with redirects to the county list when the information was completed on the one single list. My question is now that we have improved the county list do we want to maintain the other two lists or leave them as redirects? -- Dan9186( T • E • C) December 3, 2007 04:01 (UTC)
I have placed all of the information in the table that was missing. What else needs to be done? I know it needs a heading and I think Orlady may have some changes she would like to see in the etymology on a few, but other than that the list shouldn't be that far off from FLC. There are some defunct counties, would those be notable enough to list? Since the list is relatively close to what it needs to be featured I would kind of like to see a push to get it done. Anyone else's thoughts? -- Dan9186( T • E • C) December 31, 2007 23:39 (UTC)
A nice introduction can make a big difference. The historical constellation of counties, defunct counties and the indian treaties are good topics to complete it and if you say that there are various treaties regarding Indian land, that might even justify a separate article about the topic. doxTxob \ talk 06:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe many Tennesseans know the importance of this site. It is where Tennessee got its name. My biggest concern is that someone has changed the title of the page to something hardly searchable in the database. When anyone searches for Long Island, naturally, it pulls up Long Island, New York. No one would ever search for Long Island (Tennessee) or Long Island, Tennessee. First, it is not a city. Second, everyone knows the site as The Long Island of the Holston River.
There was other valuable information on the page but someone scaled it down to nearly nothing. Incidentally, The Long Island of the Holston was the first historic site to be named for Tennessee. I believe the name should be changed back to The Long Island of the Holston River and that someone should definitely add more information to the page (e.g. The Battle of Long Island Flats and its significance). —Preceding unsigned comment added by HaroldKarey ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Any photographers (and by that, I mean anyone with a digital camera) that can make it to Nashville this Sunday at 6 pm, to photograph the final show of Jump5?
Details here: http://nashville.craigslist.org/crg/505941578.html
Let me know! -- Zanimum ( talk) 18:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
While overhauling the Pinson Mounds article, I noticed that previous editors had copied several sections ad verbatim from the state park's website. I checked all 42 articles regarding Tennessee's state parks, and found that 8 had substantial material that had been copied ad verbatim from the parks' respective websites. The articles are: Big Cypress Tree State Park, Big Hill Pond State Park, Chickasaw State Park, Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park, Nathan Bedford Forrest State Park, Pickwick State Park, and Panther Creek State Park. The parks' official websites can be found here.
Pinson is fixed, and I'll re-word the others shortly, but I was wondering how often this sort of thing occurs. Does Wikipedia have a policy regarding copying-and-pasting material from other websites into an article? Bms4880 ( talk) 22:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Back when we were discussing images for the list of cities and towns, Orlady came up with Image:Crossvillesign.jpg. I just spoke to my patrol lieutenant, who has apparently spent quite a bit of time in Crossville, and he said that this particular sign is still standing, albeit in a significantly degraded state. He believes it is at or near the intersection of Lantana Rd/Knoxville Hwy and Main St/Hwy 127 ( map here). I was thinking, this would be a heck of a day trip to try and find this sign, and frame a photograph in the same manner as that old picture Orlady found. Might have to do this sometime soon. -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You'll be happy to know that the good people of Crossville have restored the sign to its original glory and moved it to the courthouse lawn: Image:Crossville-sign1.jpg. Bms4880 ( talk) 17:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't quite make sense of the sign's directions. The bottom arrows point to Jamestown and Byrdstown, which almost certainly indicates North on US-127 (or 127's predecessor). The top seven arrows point toward towns in Middle Tennessee, which probably indicates US-70. The problem is that Knoxville, Kingston, and Harriman, which are on (or very near) US-70, should be in the direction opposite the Middle Tennessee towns, rather than (as the sign indicates) the direction opposite the Byrdstown area.
It's possible that the sign was located at the junction of 70N and 127 (Mapquest or Yahoo-Map to Elmore Rd in Crossville) rather than the 70/127 junction, but I'm pretty sure the latter is the traditional junction (Scott's Tavern was located at the modern intersection of Main St. and Stanley St.). Bms4880 ( talk) 21:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
On the Carter County, Tennessee page, something doesn't make sense to me; the early history section is written such as to make Tennessee a part of the Province of North Carolina continously...
As part of North Carolina counties
* Clarendum; * New Hanover Precinct (1729-1734); * Bladen County (1734-1749) - current county seat is Elizabethtown, North Carolina); * Anson County (1749-1753); * Rowan County (1753-1777); * Burke County (1777).
...but that doesn't make sense with the first sentence of the next section;
"Carter County was the first permanent settlement outside the original 13 American colonies."
It can't be in North Carolina but outside the colony of North Carolina can it? Doesn't the Proclamation of 1763 come into play? Looking for clarity... Berean Hunter ( talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I propose that photos of all Tennessee county courthouses be added to their respective article, and possibly the corresponding county seat article. This would serve to beautify the article and serve as a visual representation of the county. A handful already have courthouse photos:
Anybody want to help contribute? -- Ichabod ( talk) 02:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The following county articles now have courthouse photos:
I count 48, which puts us just over halfway to the goal of all 95. Most of the remaining counties are located along the state's Kentucky border in the north and northeast and a few along the Alabama and Mississippi borders to the southwest. Davidson, Hamilton, and Madison also lack courthouse images, likely due to their large couty seats where the courthouse isn't the most prominent or even central structure. Bms4880 ( talk) 00:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The following counties do not have courthouse photos. Contributors may want to cross them off once a photo is taken and uploaded. -- Ichabod ( talk) 01:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The Tennessee county navigational boxes could use some expansion, especially by those who are familiar enough with the counties to distinguish between cities/towns and census designated places. I've made a few and intend to do more as I find the time. -- Ichabod ( talk) 21:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The advantage of navboxes is to improve the navigation within a defined topic. {{ Rogersville, Tennessee}} is a good example for a town or city and the recently created navbox for {{ Memphis, Tennessee}} is a good example for a metro area covering counties in three states. In my opinion a navbox is a help required for a topic of such extend that it is split into different articles and has articles about related topics that are not necessarily linked to or mentioned in the article itself. That keeps related articles close to each other, linked to each other and adds more information than is present in the article itself, something that Wikipedia cannot deliver with other means as topics are sorted alphabetically. It might be a good idea to do a search on Wikipedia for articles related to that county and if there are enough articles to fill the box, that county (or any topic) would need one. Take care, doxTxob \ talk 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If any of you get the chance, would you mind clicking on this Old version of the Roan Mountain article and let me know if the photos create large gaps or unnecessary whitespace, especially in the "Peaks" section? Just scroll down past the revision info. Thanks. Bms4880 ( talk) 22:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm doing what I can to advertise User:LaraLove/Bathrobe Cabal/Meetup. Should be a good time, I hope. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I have nominated the List of counties in Tennessee for Featured List status.
After the merge of etymologies and county seats into this list (plus some major polishing) the list is pretty comprehensive. That would be a nice featured list for Tennessee.
The discussion of the topic takes place here: Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_counties_in_Tennessee. doxTxob \ talk 03:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I know the Sugarlands article is my baby, but I'm not sure it deserves a "High" ranking on the importance scale. If no one disagrees, I recommend reclassifying as "Mid."
I'm also wondering how to classify state forests and state archaeological sites. Do we give them blanket "Mid" or do we rate on a case-by-case basis? Bms4880 ( talk) 00:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Tennessee articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
![]() |
3 | 10 | 9 | 22 | |||
![]() |
1 | 12 | 13 | ||||
![]() |
2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |||
![]() |
2 | 5 | 25 | 83 | 3 | 118 | |
B | 9 | 40 | 79 | 233 | 19 | 380 | |
C | 10 | 29 | 196 | 883 | 106 | 1,224 | |
Start | 39 | 439 | 3,621 | 488 | 4,587 | ||
Stub | 7 | 123 | 3,972 | 750 | 4,852 | ||
List | 8 | 33 | 142 | 3 | 65 | 251 | |
Category | 8 | 4,593 | 4,601 | ||||
Disambig | 4 | 38 | 42 | ||||
File | 6 | 194 | 200 | ||||
Portal | 1 | 1 | |||||
Project | 17 | 17 | |||||
Template | 1 | 562 | 563 | ||||
NA | 6 | 158 | 467 | 631 | |||
Other | 4 | 1 | 42 | 47 | |||
Assessed | 21 | 134 | 916 | 9,134 | 5,917 | 1,431 | 17,553 |
Unassessed | 12 | 80 | 92 | ||||
Total | 21 | 134 | 916 | 9,146 | 5,917 | 1,511 | 17,645 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 58,311 | Ω = 5.21 |
The core purpose of ratings as I, personally, understand them is best reflected in the assessment grid. It presents the status off all articles in the scope of a certain project. For newbies the grid can be useful, too. You can sort of pick your skill level if you aren't so accustomed to the process. If you are an editor you can identify problem articles easily and try to move as many articles to the top left corner of the grid. (What's that single "No importance" article doing there?)
The assessment scheme is commonly used and propbably as often discussed. Not long after User:ArkansasTraveler had kicked off the TN project I had the idea to introduce ratings and with much help from User:Huntster the assessment page was started. I have compared the template provided by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team to other versions in use and decided to stay close to the most common standard (not the lowest, the most common and accepted). With help of Huntsters ideas the definitions were revised very slightly.
As for the ownership of articles or projects let me assure you that I do not care. I was the one who suggested to rephrase the formulation in the project banner from "This article is part of project TN" to "This article is in the scope of project TN", because the former version did sound like ownership of the articles by the project. I'll come back to that banner later.
In the process of preparing the assessment page I became aquainted to a good degree with the common accepted standards as well as with the articles identified to be in the scope of the TN project. I rated the majority of articles by quality and (all that must have gone unnoticed) more than 1,500 articles by importance, identifing top, high and mid importance articles and lots of low ones already. All were rated for quality and 65% for importance. I do not mention this to brag, I mention this to let you know that I have seen every TN project related article, every one of 2,500 at least 3 times, many of them more often. I did not read all of them but quite some. Nevertheless I have some sort of overview of the TN related artciles, without suggesting that that would entitle for something. It is also worth to mention that some commotion is about the last 35% of articles that were left unrated. Yawn: Mostly low and mid ones and a ton that probably everone would agree on.
Changing the rating scheme for importance or quality is a task too important to be solved in a state project. The rating scheme is used in many Wikipedia project with adaptions and smaller adjustments. I am not opposed to change, change is good, they say. If I look at Wikipedia as the casual reader, I would want it done in a fashion that the information of the State of Tennesssee is as easy to find as the information for any other state or better. That does not depend on the number of articles but on a similar organisation and sorting process for the articles. I do not even deny that there might be better systems but I count every single project on Wikipedia as one consensus vote in favor of the current system. There might be better ones but if the TN project starts a revolution it would only cause more confusion among readers and editors, also. As maldefined the instructions may be, at least you can rely on their maldefinitions.
Some editors are in several projects and it would make it difficult for editors to rate articles at all if every project used their own standards. And for readers it would be the same problem, it would even be worse for them because they might have no idea about the disagreement. If there are valid concerns about the rating system that could be addressed to the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, because they issued the basic standards in use.
There is one positive news item to mention, though. There were no complaints from readers or editors whose babies were upgraded from "No importance" to "Low importance".
Dang, there were complaints about the Battle of Athens, that's the one with no importance. Good move to remove the rating, my mistake to overrate! But that way articles can be identified that need attention. In that colorful square up there. That is a use of the ratings that I wanted to demonstrate to argue in favor of the usefulness of the complete rating system with all grades present and all grades used according to the most common standard available now. doxTxob \ talk 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
How about we change the wording on the Project banner from "Importance" to "Priority". Not the categories and assessment page, just on the banner template, that's done in a second and if they hate it, it can be undone in a second, one edit. Would it be less offensive if it read that your "baby" is of Low priority as compared to Low importance? Or even No importance. doxTxob \ talk 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
On a quick note that was mentioned about me way above. I have lost no interest in the project I have the matters of school and a new house have taken some priority as of late. That being said, reading through the above discussion it seems that we may wish to consider the importance and function of the system.
As far as I can see it there are two possible uses for the "Importance" system. One is where we have random users of Wikipedia who look through the project and use the importance levels to decide what they wish to read about. The second use would be of our own, using it as a directed, joint effort to improve the quality of articles. I would think that starting here and deciding what exact purpose the system serves us is the best choice for this. For now I have no clue how everyone else views this but it is my personal feelings that the system is or should be a tool for frequent editors. Now this does lead to a question of how many levels of importance are needed and would be something else to discuss about all of this.
Either way I hate to see something that should ease our cooperation cause such bitter exchanges. I hope that all of this will not leave any lasting scars on the progress of the project. It wouldn't be a project without those who contribute so much. -- Dan9186( T • E • C) January 22, 2008 23:49 (UTC)
Hear ye, hear ye! List of cities and towns in Tennessee has been selected to be a February List of the Day, to be featured on two separate days during February 2008. See User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/voting/200802 for the record of voting for February featured lists. Thanks to all who contributed to this list. -- Orlady ( talk) 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The Bays Mountain article's history section appears to be copied ad verbatim from the park website's history page. I guess it's possible that Bays Mountain park copied the Wikipedia article, but whoever wrote the Wikipedia article's history section doesn't appear to be well-versed-- they linked to the wrong James Needham, linked to a William King disambiguation, and some of the other links were hastily done. Also, the short paragraph on moonshine stills looks brochure-esque.
Is there any way to figure out for sure which site did the copying? Bms4880 ( talk) 20:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please create a page on this city? I came across the place in an article about the recent tornado [1]. They don't seem to have an official website but there are many google hits [2] and even a map [3]. I'm a little busy to find more info atm though. Zigzig20s ( talk) 22:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed April 6-8, 2006 Tornado Outbreak and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributor of the article along with another WikiProject. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 09:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
A List of National Historic Landmarks in Tennessee list-article is in progress, and is nearly complete in terms of creating at least a stub article for each of the National Historic Landmarks in the state. Help editing descriptions for the sites, in the list-article, and editing the articles about the individual NHL articles, and photographs, is needed! doncram ( talk) 04:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that vandals have been loose here. (I reverted some other vandalism by the most recent editor.) I've reverted some of the more recent edits, but I'm not sure whether I've gone too far or not far enough. Could someone who knows more have a look, please. -- Peter cohen ( talk) 11:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC) (Also posting to the RC project.)
I have nominated this article for Featured Article Review. Please come and review it, and help it retain FA status! Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 22:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ku Klux Klan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia article about this? I searched with several keywords, but I wasn't sure if it had an official name. Bms4880 ( talk) 02:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm improving the Alan Kulwicki article toward FA. He died in an airplane crash flying from Knoxville to Bristol. It would be helpful if the article wikilinked to that main highway between Blountville and Bristol where the plane crashed if anyone knows the actual location. Royalbroil 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently workshopping an article on the protohistory of Tennessee, and I'm looking for a copyright-free image of De Soto's travels in the southeast. I checked the National Atlas and did a general search on the web, with no luck. If anyone knows of one, let me know. Bms4880 ( talk) 00:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
This is being posted at this project page based on the recommendations of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Turn to others for help. There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Andrew Jackson#Search for Consensus -- Jackson and the "Final Solution.
The issue is whether an article in a Swedish language newspaper quoting a professor of comparative religion constitutes a reliable source justifying linking Jackson’s Indian Removal policy with Hitler’s Final Solution attempt to exterminate the Jewish race. There is a wealth of credible, academic material available to offer valid and harsh criticisms of Jackson’s policy without resorting to the extremes of comparisons with Hitler.
In any event, I would appreciate anybody with an opinion on the subject to weigh in at the Jackson link above. As the matter stands, there is only one editor supporting retaining the language, but I am not sure that a consensus for removing it currently exists (many in opposition are IPs or infrequent editors). Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Since this hasn't already been posted here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Nashville.
Hope to see some of you fine folks there. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Per the brief discussion between Huntster and I on the Nashville talk page about a month ago, I'm going to propose that we remove the notable resident sections from all of our linked pages for the following reasons: many of them are incorrect - no one ever verifies these, there is no definition as to what makes a resident "notable" (as some do not have Wikipedia articles), and it reaks of trivia. If there are exceptionally notable residents, they can be added to the prose with proper citations. Otherwise, they don't need to be in the articles. See the exceptionally convoluted one on Franklin, Tennessee. -- Smashville BONK! 16:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It appears to me that Montgomery Bell Tunnel and Harpeth River State Park are both about the same tunnel (which is a National Historic Landmark). However, I've never been to the place discussed, and I don't have any firsthand knowledge. Does anyone know? Are they one and the same? -- Orlady ( talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Miller's Department Store is unreferenced and may be original research. Can someone familiar with the company and source material about the company add references? If it's notable, there should be mentions in local specialty books and in local news outlets. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 22:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 2783 articles are assigned to this project, of which 477, or 17.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 08:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Nashville Sounds to become a Featured Article. I would appreciate support and/or constructive comments from members of the project. You may view the nomination here. - NatureBoyMD ( talk) 19:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this really a state park? It looks to me to be a private golf course. If you have information on it, please comment on the talk page. -- Orlady ( talk) 20:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I've requested a move of article The Hermitage (Tennessee) to rename it from "The Hermitage (Tennessee)" to "The Hermitage (Andrew Jackson home)". Please discuss at its Talk page. Notice provided also at wp:Requested moves and at wt:NRHP. Thanks. doncram ( talk) 21:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding the following information for this article:
1. The year the park was established
2. The company that owned/operated the strip mine upon which the park was established
Any info. will be helpful. Bms4880 ( talk) 18:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Tina Turner has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really familiar with making requests for semi-protection, but are there any reasons we shouldn't request semi-protection for the Polk article? It's vandalized several times per day. Bms4880 ( talk) 16:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I just added a stub article at Knoxville City-County Building, because it was a red link on another page. The only thing I was able to find about it was the address. Perhaps a local can fill it in. -- rogerd ( talk) 18:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to overhaul and expand this article tomorrow, and I was wondering if there is a Wikipedia rule against the use of eye dialect. Several editors have been using it for examples in the "Sample Vocabulary" section. As far as I can tell, linguists and researchers in the field frown upon its use, and I'm going to delete or re-word most of the examples, but I thought it odd that multiple editors were doing this. Bms4880 ( talk) 23:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
149 articles in Category:Tennessee articles missing geocoordinate data do not have geographic coordinates. Coords are useful for making the article appear on Google Maps & many other mapping services; and they allow our users to click through to see the article subject location on a map. There's a short guide to on how to add geocodes to articles ... it really is very easy to do. I hope you'll take some time to ensure that Tennessee is as well represented as it can be on wikipedia by fixing up the listed articles. thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Please help expand Tennessee coal sludge spill, and if you're in Tennessee, get photos. Badagnani ( talk) 20:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |