Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennessee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Tennessee Portal Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennessee is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Watch Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Template Usage]
Project	This page is part of the WikiProject and does not require a rating on the Project's quality scale.
	Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

Archives

Dec 2006 - Oct 2007 Nov 2007 - Dec 2007 Jan 2008 - ...

Shortcut: WT:TN

Contents 1 Tennessee Portal 1.1 Status quo 2 Lists of TN counties, county seats, etymology 2.1 Old lists 2.2 Finishing Up 3 Long Island (Tennessee) or The Long Island of the Holston River 4 Nashville photog needed for Wikinews 5 Plagiarism 6 Fun little note 6.1 Update 12/22/07 6.2 The signpost's location 7 Carter County, Tennessee 8 Courthouse Photos 8.1 Progress, 4/2008 9 Tennessee County Navigational Boxes 10 Roan Mountain -- excessive white space 11 A Nashville-based meetup coming up soon 12 List of counties - featured list nomination 13 Importance assessments 13.1 Overview of articles 13.1.1 Positive news 13.1.2 Project banner 14 Featured List of the Day 15 Bays Mountain — possible plagiarism 16 Castalian Springs, Tennessee 17 April 6-8, 2006 Tornado Outbreak GA Sweeps Review: On Hold 18 List of National Historic Landmarks in Tennessee 19 Roman Catholic Diocese of Knoxville 20 James K. Polk 21 FAR nomination 22 Tennessee-Georgia border dispute 23 Location, anyone? 24 De Soto map 25 Andrew Jackson and Hitler 26 Wikipedia Takes Nashville 27 Notable Residents

[edit] Tennessee Portal

[edit] Status quo

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)

1) If enough material is eventually collected a second line of tabs could be added (actually, just one more and I can make a row of two and a row of three). 2) When I have time, I'm going to try and see if the boxes can be dynamically load-balanced; that is, shift the smaller boxes left or right depending on how much white space is left. I don't know if it is even possible, but the fact that {{reflist|2}} can do this gives me hope. If it does work, then rewriting the articles and bios would be unnecessary. 3) It'll be under construction until everything is fully fleshed out, and even then, maybe not. Heck, look at Portal:Hawaii...it is quite nice and they still use the construction category. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) I have tried a version with the Tennessee lists in their own tab and the Wikimedia in their own tab. These tabs are really a neat way to get more overview of the topic. Much more information is immediately available by scrolling or clicking. And the core information is right on the first screen. I like that. That makes them six tabs now, if you want to try two rows. (2) If it would be possible to balance the size of the boxes, that would be something. I have moved the "in the news" box to the right side for now. The selected article and bio look good on the left side, that provides for more room also. Would be nice not to have to check the length of the selected article or bio. (3) C'mon. I have seen portals that were not half as neat as this one and they were not under construction. But, you are right ... although, before fleshing out more it would be nice to have some more flesh in there. doxTxob \ ^talk 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I had fun picking anniversaries for the list. Thanks for getting it started. I think it would be nice for a third person to add some more, as a third person is likely to have a third perspective on what's interesting/important to commemorate. Maybe there are some Revolutionary War-era dates (from Sycamore Shoals and/or Watauga), or the Bristol sessions, or more Civil War occurrences (such as the Knoxville Campaign), or the inauguration of the state lottery, or the founding of other educational institutions, or more birth anniversaries, or more sports dates... --Orlady 21:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Or the bombing of Clinton High School in the aftermath of its being the first southern school desegregated under court order. Unfortunately, that article keeps being eviscerated. --Orlady 21:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A third perspective would be great. Do you know anyone who would like to contribute? The controversial topis are interesting anniversaries, it might make people want to look up the facts. (I did not know that the material for the Hiroshima bomb was produced in Tennessee. Interesting!) If we happen to have too many anniversaries there is a solution for that, too. On a few portal pages I have seen a "what happened on that day" box with daily anniversaries. That's going to take a while, though, to collect them. doxTxob \ ^talk 04:06, 3 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)

If you want to remove them, just comment that section out and shuffle the other sections to accommodate. I never watch the local news, so I wouldn't be able to keep it up to date, but perhaps someone will want to take up that task in the future. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 13:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of TN counties, county seats, etymology

The following lists contain redundant material.

• Counties in Tennessee
• County seats in Tennessee
• County name etymologies

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 placed a merge proposal on each of the three pages and have placed a discussion on the Talk:List of counties in Tennessee. There is a link within the discussion as well that might provide some help in formatting the merged list to a standard. I will try to begin work on merging the lists soon but I do not know how much I will be able to get done so I wanted to add some stuff to involve as many people as possible. ~Dan9186 November 26, 2007 01:37 (UTC)

Great work! Thank you so much for starting the talk pages/discussion and for your efforts on merging the lists of TN counties. All the lists have something in common, they all refer to Tennessee counties, but three are too many lists about the same topic, if presented in a collection of the best TN related lists. One list would be great, it would be perfect! All info about TN counties in one list. A few days ago the Portal:Tennessee was started, also featuring lists about TN topics. That could be the next list to reach featured list status for Tennessee and be linked to on the new Portal:Tennessee. You are invided to contribute quality information to Wikipedia Portal:Tennessee. doxTxob \ ^talk 04:38, 26 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)

Nice work (so far), Dan9186! Looking at the list, it occurred to me that an additional information element to be included in the article (perhaps in the lead section) is "former counties." I am aware of Tennessee County and James County, Tennessee, but there may be others. --Orlady (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2007 (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)

[edit] Old lists

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 would leave them as redirects as they were placed on the merged lists by you, like it is currently. Keeping the lists not redirected, in my opinion, might encourage editors who do not know about the discussion to add information to the wrong list. That might make it even more difficult in the future to consolidate information. As far as I have seen, the etymologies are linked to from an infobox of county name etymologies, so the article itself should not be deleted. Good question to ask, though. Maybe we forgot something. Is there a reason not to redirect the list articles? Any other opinions? doxTxob \ ^talk 05:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DoxTxob. Once a combined list is created, best practice is to redirect the stand-alone lists, for reasons given. --Orlady 05:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like the best course of action to me I wanted to make sure that I wasn't the only one. I guess do we need to double check over the what links here for those two lists to make sure everything is decent? -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} December 4, 2007 07:42 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the links to the redirect pages from the "What links here?" should be corrected to point at the new list, so that the old lists are not linked to, to avoid double-redirects. That would be what I would do. doxTxob \ ^talk 22:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finishing Up

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)

Nice job on the list. I would list the defunct counties as a separate table below the main list. Bms4880 (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking to include them, too. So the list would not only refelct the present but also give a clue to the past. I have put one sentence of definition "What is a county?" in the introduction. It looks good enough for me to be a candidate for featured list status. Very nice work! doxTxob \ ^talk 01:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) Added a different more colorful image to the article showing the population density as well as the counties. A little bigger than the old map but with more information. (2) I also added the birth- and death dates for people in the etymology column where they could be retrieved from existing articles. That was one point of criticism I saw on the featured article discussion for List of Counties in Ohio. Few of the people Wikilinks in the TN list, however, link to disambiguation pages, that could be fixed by either picking the right person from the list of names or unlinking. I did not make notes, so I can't tell which were the ones, maybe I'll go over the list again and fix that soon. Any volunteers, feel free, however ... (3) In that Ohio discussion the question is raised what "Indian Lands" means, that term is used in the TN list as well in the "Formed from" column. They rephrased it to "Refactored from non-county territory" (What?), which is disguising the facts rather than revealing them. "Indian Land" is the right term in my opinion. Indians have been killed or relocated in order to take their land and make US counties from it. Either in a note below or with help of an article, "Indian Land" could easily be explained in plain terms without hiding facts and including the term "Indian Land". In my opinion, that is... (4) In the Ohio discussion the question was asked about the Ohio counties when admitted to the Union. Can that be determined easily and included? doxTxob \ ^talk 02:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through the list and removed the disambig links where no proper article could be found. Also, I see no problem with "Indian land", as that more properly describes the area. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 05:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My mental list of "Wikipedia to-do items" includes "expand the introduction to the TN counties list article to (1) include information about the counties formed before Tennessee became a separate territory and (2) explain the various Indian treaties that allowed new counties to be carved out of 'Indian land.'" The story of the Indian treaties is important and interesting, IMO. My first source for the Indian treaties discussion was going to be the "Treaties article" in the Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture. (However, that article says "Sullivan County was part of Virginia until 1779", which disagrees with other sources that say it was part of North Carolina.)

Regarding defunct counties, I am aware of only two: Tennessee County was renamed (it wasn't exactly abolished) and James County was merged into Hamilton County. Do any of you know of others? Additionally, one of the references I looked at contained a vague statement to the effect that other counties were authorized but never created....

I have no schedule or plan for tackling my mental list of "Wikipedia to-do items," so you won't be stepping on any toes if you decide to add the information. ;-)

--Orlady (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2008 (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)

Indeed, each one of those treaties deserves its own article. --Orlady (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The major land cession treaties regarding Tennessee, IMO-- Treaty of Hopewell (1785), Treaty of Holston (1791), the Tellico treaties of 1798 and 1805 (I discussed these briefly in the Tellico Blockhouse article), Calhoun's Treaty (1819), and the Treaty of New Echota (1835). There may be a dozen or so smaller treaties and private purchases. The TEHC article you were using looks like a good source, even if it has a glitch or two. Bms4880 (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long Island (Tennessee) or The Long Island of the Holston River

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)

Well, the article title was renamed to a standardised format; that is, specific location with the state in parentheses. It is used all over Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean the former name isn't just as valid. Remember though that the old name still links to the article as a redirect, so it is still useful in searching for the article. Another point is, shorter is usually better ;) Second, the material was removed because it was copyrighted text apparently taken verbatim from the source. We cannot do that here. If you really want to preserve the original meaning of the material, it would behoove you to do some research and find additional sources for any key points. Just make sure those sources fall within Wikipedia guidelines, primarily Verifiability. Perhaps some of the other editors have additional suggestions and views? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 09:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If there are concerns about no one ever searching for Long Island (Tennessee), why not create a disambiguation link on the Long Island (New York) page since it would be the most common of the two? Or if there is enough need for a dab page instead. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} December 8, 2007 00:06 (UTC)

This may have been solved, but it is listed on Long Island's disambig page. --AW (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nashville photog needed for Wikinews

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)

[edit] Plagiarism

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)

Indeed, Wikipedia does have a policy: Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Also see Template:Copypaste. Articles that are copy-and-pasted sometimes are speedy-deleted onsite as "copyvios", even though the copyright owner may not have complained (and might even have been the one who cluelessly copied their web content into Wikipedia). Revising the article to eliminate the problem, as you did with Pinson Mounds, is the best way to address these situations when you find them (albeit time-consuming). --Orlady (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fun little note

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)

I'll be passing through Crossville during the holidays, so I can try and find it. It seems like I have been through that intersection a dozen times, but I've never noticed this sign. Bms4880 (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually just had my car checked out at the mechanics, and they told me to put 100 miles on before I come back, so this may be a good opportunity to head there myself this weekend before work. Just have to see how it goes. Hopefully my Lt. wasn't misremembering! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 18:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds exciting! From here it is a 5 hour trip. Otherwise I would probably head out to find that sign, too. If it is still there I would love to see what the years have done to the sign and the area, if it is still in the place it was erected. Nice find! doxTxob \ ^talk 20:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update 12/22/07

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)

That's amazing! However, I note with dismay that they misspelled Byrdstown on the restored version. (Just wondering: Does the name "Crossville" refer to the town's status as a crossroads?) I'm also wondering how we can use this image in the list of cities... --Orlady (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I just checked my photos, and "Byrdstown" is misspelled on the other side of the sign as well (both sides are exactly the same). This leads me to suspect the misspelling was intentional. That's odd. I'll e-mail their chamber of commerce.

If I recall (I don't have my notes with me), the WPA Guide to Tennessee (published 1930s) said the residents of the town chose the name "Crossville" due to its situation at the junction of the Kentucky Road and Knoxville Highway (now US-127 and US-70). Bms4880 (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's brilliant, thanks for stopping by. Work and various real life things kept me from going, though I might make the trip just to see it myself. I had called the Sheriff's Office to ask if it was still there, and they said it was at the courthouse. That gave me pause since my Lt. was adamant that it was at the intersection I mentioned before when he worked there.

Orlady, while I know you like the full image of the old one, perhaps a split image might work, with the old sign on the left and new one on the right. All background would be lost, but it would be an interesting display. It does bother me though that Byrdstown is misspelled...perhaps a little photoshop trickery would make it presentable. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the courthouse is probably just two or three blocks from the US-127/US-70 intersection your Lt. recalled. There is an oddly-shaped highway patrol building roughly halfway between the sign and the intersection.

I personally prefer the old photo of the sign for aesthetic reasons. If you want to make a fusion, however, I can upload a photo from the opposite angle, which shows a building (the courthouse) in the background. Bms4880 (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I love it! That signpost is really an extraordinary find! Most of the old stuff gets lost, usually. It's a very nice photo! How nice to see that old sign like it looks today. How wonderful that it is preserved! And I noticed the misspelling, too. Why does that happen all the time on signs? Don't they ever double check it? Recently, they built one of these cheapo stores here and on the temporary sign they wrote "Doller General" instead of "Dollar General", it hung there for weeks ... they could have even looked up the spelling for that hard word in their wallet. Or State Highway shields with the wrong state shape. That really happened! The company who made them used a sign from another state as a template. Of course no one noticed and they were hung up ... until citizens complained. Too funny!

Can't we rotate the two images on the List of cities, like the images on the portal and have a new selections link under the image so viewers could switch them back and forth? That is just because if all the background gets lost, there would not be many clues for the reader as for the age of both signs. Especially the cars, and the color vs. b/w. As for reduction of the images (both of them) I am still rather opposed than supportive for the same reasons as earlier. The view of the artist is important to preserve. And another point is very important to notice. If the background is removed, you only have two photos of the same signpost, the only object in both photos that has not changed much over time. The rest, however, has changed: Different time, different place but the sign today looks like new after the restauration! Removing the background would remove the essence of the images. It would remove the exciting part, everything else has changed but not the signpost. In the comparison of both phots, everything else has become the focal point. It need to be shown as completely as available.

Maybe on the image that is better to read (or better on both) we could link to the articles in an image map. I found that recently in Butch Cassidy's Wild Bunch, they have a photo with a "bunch" of train robbers and dependent on over which person your cursor is, it links to the article relating to that person. I found that pretty neat there and appropriate. That would be cool, we could not only link the cities and towns but the background objects, too. The Coca-Cola sign on the old photo could link to Coca-cola, and the car in the new image to Audi A8 and so on . That would incorporate the history in the background, rather than splitting it off. What I am thinking is that even the background of the images is too closely related to the topic Cities an Towns to be removed or cropped even. The setting of both photos documents very nicely the change that Crossville underwent incorporating the sign and the town names on it as a stable counterpart in the comparison of both photos. As for cropping, I would still favor the old image with cleaned edges like on the portal. But even if the current image is kept that would be a nice contrast as well, the old photo with torn edges and a fresh new one, neat and clean.

Let me show you two photos I recently made. Just as examples to illustrate my view against cropping in certain cases. The first image is used in the TN 180 article. That is the corner the sign sits in some small unincorporated town in the great State of Tennessee and the route starts North, ending 12 ½ miles later. Nothing important at all. Still, what's an article without a photo ... less exciting and less attractive. If someone cropped that photo, three things would happen. First, all that's left is a photo of a sign for an insignificant road, If one wanted that, it could be composed of the digital shield images they have. Secondly, depth would be lost. The sign sort of centers itself in the viewers attention, anyway. That day was foggy. Look, how the fog takes some depth away and the continuing lines and power poles give some depth back to the viewer without distracting from the sign, which is a little off the center but the clear focal point here. And third, information would be destroyed. For the article it does not really matter if it is cropped or not. Hey, it's only a road sign. But let's say that Nutbush gets destroyed in an earthquake along the New Madrid Seismic Zone, or the new superhighway I 69 forces irreversible changes to the area or a Car-Production Superplant in the vincinity, maybe they close the route or rename it. In 50 years from now, someone could go there and just make another photo from the same viewpoint and you can see the change of times. Images can not only illustrate a topic, they can make the topic more comprehensive, include more information and they can also document a viewpoint and a place and time in history. I included the background on purpose there and I would be unhappy if someone cropped it.

Here is the next one. Having inspected the cemetery and grave the weekend before, I went out on a rainy day for this photo and I wanted to make a few photos of the cemetery without cars or people on the photos. Look at the wet leaves around and the grass. I was prepared and had a towel with me to wipe the marker between each of the ten photos I took. Wet yellow leaves, wet grass and wet moss but a dry marker with seasonal colors for fall. If you are a Sherlock Holmes kind of botanist you could even try to find the grave by identifying the kind of tree she's buried under, by examining the leaves on the photo more closely. But cropped, it would be just a grave marker. I prepared myself with towel and umbrella to make this photo in the rain because I wanted it to have a colorful background.

They say that a picture is worth more than 1000 words. Most pictures have a center of attention and that's the topic of the image ... but it is the background of the picture very often, that tells the story. So cropping, in some cases, might have the side effect of eliminating valuable information from the image. It might not be useful today, but may help comparative documentation in the future. What would be the fun comparing the Crossville signs without the old truck in one photo and without the new car in the new photo? If the background is removed, there would be no story the images could tell.

Happy holidays to y'all! doxTxob \ ^talk 02:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree regarding keeping the backgrounds-- if I take a photo of a sign, I normally try to get as much of the background as possible without crunching the sign text, especially if it's a historical marker.

My first thought when I saw the old sign photo was "image map," but I didn't think they would work on Wikipedia. I used to create them with HTML, and just glancing at the Butch Cassidy image, it appears that Wiki uses some sort of coordinate system similar to (but more complex) than HTML. Bms4880 (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The signpost's location

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)

I have assumed it was one of those common situations where the intersection is slightly offset, and that US 70 and 127 ran together for a short distance. I figure this was the intersection where U.S. 127 split off to the north from U.S. 70. --Orlady (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting thoughts, and my source is adamant that it was the latter (70/127). Obviously it must have been on 127, since it is almost exactly four miles to Homestead along that route, but other than that, it must be a function of just how much the roads have changed since the original sign was erected. I could be completely wrong, but my guess is that in Crossville itself, US 70 has shifted somewhat since the original photo was taken. I just cannot find any detailed road maps from that era online. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carter County, Tennessee

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)

As I understand it, the boundaries of the British colony of North Carolina, and later the state of North Carolina, extended westward to encompass all or almost all of what is now Tennessee. In effect, it had no western boundary, but extended far beyond the frontier. Apparently, some of the western N.C. counties also extended west as far as the Mississippi River. At first, this didn't really matter because this was still Indian territory uninhabited by white settlers. Over time, however, white settlers arrived and new counties were carved out of the wilderness. Several of the earliest-formed counties of Tennessee were originally formed as counties of North Carolina (also, I think at least one was formed in Virginia). In 1790, when the Southwest Territory was organized, Tennessee stopped being part of North Carolina -- and North Carolina gained a real western boundary. I would hazard a guess that everything west of that boundary is not considered part of the original colony of North Carolina. --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

PS - See http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/archives/FindingAids/Circulars/AIC3.pdf for some of the history. --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Carter County article is poorly worded. The author is trying to say that the first permanent settlement outside of the original 13 colonies (i.e., Watauga) was formed in what is now Carter County. This settlement was formed in 1772. It was annexed by North Carolina shortly thereafter as part of Washington County, not Carter County. When Tennessee became a state, Washington County was broken up into several counties, one of which was Carter, which included Watauga. So, Watauga was originally not part of the original 13 colonies, but then became part of North Carolina, then part of the various statehood attempts that ended with Tennessee. Bms4880 (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Along with Orlady's source, see Goodspeed's History of Carter County for clarification. Bms4880 (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courthouse Photos

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:

• Cannon County, Tennessee
• Chester County, Tennessee
• DeKalb County, Tennessee
• Hawkins County, Tennessee
• Houston County, Tennessee
• Loudon County, Tennessee
• Macon County, Tennessee
• Putnam County, Tennessee
• Rhea County, Tennessee
• Rutherford County, Tennessee
• Sevier County, Tennessee
• Shelby County, Tennessee

Anybody want to help contribute? --Ichabod (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been uploading my courthouse photos to county seat articles, namely Celina, Jamestown, Gainesboro, Newport, Livingston, and Madisonville, off the top of my head. I have a few more, just haven't uploaded them yet. Bms4880 (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've begun adding your photos to their corresponding county articles. --Ichabod (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Progress, 4/2008

The following county articles now have courthouse photos:

Anderson County Benton County Bledsoe County Blount County Bradley County Campbell County Cannon County Cheatham County Chester County Claiborne County Clay County Cocke County Cumberland County Dickson County Fentress County Franklin County Grainger County Greene County Hawkins County Houston County Humphreys County Jackson County Jefferson County Knox County

Loudon County Macon County McMinn County Meigs County Monroe County Montgomery County Morgan County Overton County Polk County Rhea County Roane County Rutherford County Sevier County Shelby County Smith County Sullivan County Sumner County Trousdale County Unicoi County Union County Van Buren County Washington County White County Wilson County

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)

[edit] Tennessee County Navigational Boxes

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)

Well really and truly any county that has more than one or two cities/towns/communities in it really need navboxes put together. So from the looks of it at worst case we have 91 more counties to go. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} January 7, 2008 08:59 (UTC)

I don't know. I kind of view the situation as building/having navboxes for the sake of building/having them. All the cities/towns should already be linked to in the body of the article, making a basic, unexpanded box extremely redundant. Rather than building boxes for every county, focus on those counties that have additional material that can also be included. A good example is {{Rogersville, Tennessee}}...aside from the questionable colour scheme, this shows the real value of a navbox. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 17:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Huntster in that I don't see any particular value in those county navigation boxes. Tennessee counties are pretty small (as U.S. counties go), so the feature that makes sense in (for example) Los Angeles County, California is not useful here. --Orlady (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point. Then if it is to be more of what you're suggesting like with Rogersville, would we wish to use the actual county name or some other naming format. Also is it even worth considering the value of a navbox on the county level but rather to leave it at a city level since they seem to have more significance with the information they can provide? -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} January 7, 2008 19:45 (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)

[edit] Roan Mountain -- excessive white space

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)

No excessive white spacing was found, but I employed a few fixes to keep the section edit links from bunching up. I also moved the lower images to be just above the section headers as is recommended for display. Image gallery was also formatted to take up less space (bigger image is of course available by clicking on each). — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 03:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Nashville-based meetup coming up soon

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)

[edit] List of counties - featured list nomination

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 have requested to withdraw the nomination due to lack of support from the TN project. FYI, doxTxob \ ^talk 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? People who have worked on the article nominally should not !vote in FA-type discussions due to conflict of interest (I mean, if involved editors voted for everything they worked on, we'd not have many high quality featured articles, eh?). Just leave the nomination up and let other people make comments. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not counting the votes and I am not concerned about the votes. It only needs four of them in the process for the featured status and the list is sure good enough to get four votes, the nominator's vote counts as one. If I had not been convinced of that, I would never have nominated it at all.

I did not blame you at all, Huntster, I know your arguments are always well founded and reasonable. My bad: My words were not precise enough. So change lack of support to presence of opposition (Talkpage). Hey, if someone who is expected to be on your own team is of the opinion the list is not ready, what is the use of persuing the issue further? Maybe someone on the team collects trophies and wanted to nominate the list themselves or just had other plans with it?! Let'em.

Let's simply say I have lost the interest in following the nomination discussion. doxTxob \ ^talk 22:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Importance assessments

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."

Y Done My mistake. (Poor baby!) doxTxob \ ^talk 01:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Allow some introduction to the topic of Importance assessment first. According to the assessment instructions (found here:Importance assessment) that question potentially has four different answers. The instructions take four slightly different points of view: Expected notability for the TN population. Expectation of the inclusion in a printed encyclopedia. Expected knowledge of the topic by the State, Country and World population. The readers/raters own, subjective recognition of the topic.

What I like is that the Assessment page encourages any member of the project to add and change ratings, according to the standards. Editors should take more advantage of that. That is the mechanism provided to make sure that eventually every rating is fair and just.

To some degree, in my opinion, the importance of the importance rating is overrated. Assigning a certain degree of unclearly defined priority to an article is like sorting a to do list, starting with what needs to be accomplished first. On Wikipedia, that can make some sense but it does not have to. Don't most editors stay close to their favorite topics, whatever is first on the list. Yep, most do.

There is a current discussion of the importance assessment on my talk page which might contribute further opinions on the topic.

Now to your question. In the process of rating the articles I applied Mid to State parks and High to National parks. Which, according to my understanding of the definitions on the assessment page, would be appropriate to start with. But you can probably find as many arguments in favor of that as you can find against. As per the definitions, it is of course also possible for any project member to rate topics that stand out for some reason at a higher importance.

I am in favour of equal initial (not blanket) importance ratings as a flat line for any group of articles with a precisely defined topic, to start with. Exceptions need to be taken care of by local editors, who have the knowledge to identify those members of the group of articles that stand out in their local area. The process requires more than one step for a few topics and every project member is invited to join the effort.

Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 01:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to leave "importance" blank unless someone with knowledge of the topic has a solid reason for assigning a particular value. For that matter (to avoid needless argument), perhaps it would be sensible to assign ratings only to those articles with "Top" or "High" importance to the project (thus flagging them as having high priority for improvement), and not rate the others. --Orlady (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying to avoid an argument (that is needless in your view) does not solve it. I do disagree on assigning only High and Top importance values. My ratings have been applied according to standards on the assessment page (refer above). My reasoning I did explain with arguments, not guided by preference or my idea of what would, perhaps, be sensible. Perhaps it is not ... If I sound harsh please know that your comment implies that my ratings were applied in an unsensible fashion, which they were not. doxTxob \ ^talk 03:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The existence of established wikiproject standards notwithstanding, I question whether these importance values serve a useful purpose. It's clear that they generate bickering, but that's not useful and it has no purpose. (Nothing personal -- anybody who assigns importance ratings is likely to catch flak, because the ratings are necessarily somewhat subjective.) Also, I notice that not all Wikiprojects are assigning these types of values....

It seems to me that there is clear value in identifying the articles that deserve high priority so they will get attention, but I question whether there is any useful purpose in differentiating between "low" and "medium" priority articles. People who work on those articles will do so because they are interested in them, not because of (nor in spite of) their priority ratings. --Orlady (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I am very surprised about the commotion caused by the importance rating, very surprised. A year ago or so I rated all the identified TN related articles for quality in a few days. I expected much more of a discussion then because the articles change all the time. Like Bms4880 referring to the Sugarlands article as his baby above. I love that metaphor because that's just how it is, occasionally. An editor has put a lot of unpaid work and effort in an article and might overestimate the quality or the rating might just not reflect the true value of the article right.

What happened? Not much! Although one would expect that every TN article baby (of now more than 2,500) has many potential moms and dads who worked on them, there were not many complaints from editors of the respective articles. Why? I am not sure. I had expected that a lot of article parents complaining about a wrong rating. Maybe the definition of the quality rating is more precise or my ratings were more to the point. But I don't think so. Although definitions for the quality rating are provided, there is (and will always be) a zone of transition from one stage to the next. The same is true for the importance ratings.

Maybe just the wrong words are used, either in the definition of the Importance rating on the assessment page or in the general understanding of the rating. Or for the rating itself, it sounds more important than it is. I do not think that abolishing the importance rating altogether is necessary, it is of a limited use but it is a common procedure on Wikipedia and provides a certain, though unclear, guideline.

What keeps you, as an expert editor and local person of a certain area in Tennessee, from just changing the ratings that you do not agree with? doxTxob \ ^talk 05:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

← Okay, so there appears to be a bit of disagreement cropping up regarding importance assessments. Let's not allow this to flair into animosity though. I don't think the issue is that importance should not be assigned, but that blanket assignments should not be made, as this causes the system to lose any real value. Back when we were discussing how to define importance (see discussion), I suggested a simple way of defining it, based on how a worldwide audience might view the importance of any given article, and this was placed on the Assessment page. Nashville can obviously be considered to be internationally recognized, as would Elvis and a handful of other people, and thus rate as Top importance. Generally speaking, each county can really only be considered of importance to residents of the state, thus Mid importance. To me, these are logical ratings, but if there is disagreement with how they are implemented, perhaps we need to revisit and redefine them, though I still believe simplicity is the best method. What say you? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is disagreement and if you have the time, take a look into the history of Orlady and compare it with mine you will discover that I have never started any rude disagreements nor was I involved in any. I do not think that her way of discussing things is at all helpful for the project. She implies that my actions are unsensible and arbitrary based on her preference. That is not only very bothersome, it is also offensive and annoying. In my view that is not the way things are solved on Wikipedia. To be honest, I don't give a penny what her preferences are, her preferences don't count as argument and her chain of argumentation, see below, is not very consistent. I refuse to take part in any future communication with her. Arguing in such a fashion is unreasonable, unsensible and it spoils the fun for the rest of us. For the last year or so the TN project was quite fun. The discussions were useful and led to results, as they were based on valid arguments and not blabla. I liked the project better without Orlady and in the future I am going to concentrate more on topics that I hope she is not interested in. By the way, has anyone noticed that User:Dan9186 seems to have lost interest in the TN project, too. I wonder why?

Huntster, what you mention in your comment is exactly what I am saying, or trying to. My ratings have been applied according to standards in existance at the time the ratings were applied. If you let me know a defined group of articles that I rated wrong, according to the standards, let me know and I'll change them. If you find single articles that I rated wrong, compared to the standards, let me know, I will change them also. There is always a certain amount of mistakes. I am sorry for those.

Come on, doxTxob, admit the importance assessment is one of your "babies" :). In any case, Orlady and Huntster were just making suggestions. If they're voted down, they're voted down. Like any peer review project, you're going to have a lot of people here with different personalities presenting and making suggestions in different ways. Some may come across as rude, some may come across as offensively passive. And with something as dynamic as Wikipedia, you're going to have new members coming in and making the same suggestions again and again, or questioning a long-standing paradigm. I'm sure it gets irritating, but it's the nature of the beast. It's no reason to overreact. Bms4880 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is one thing I am not going to do and that is to reverse the ratings altogether. The assessment page allows any project member to add and change ratings with no restrictions, according to standards that have been discussed earlier. That's what I did, nothing more and nothing less. Rules cannot be changed after the fact. If you think that ratings need to be discussed first, mention it on the assessment page as a restriction and use these rules for the future. If you think that only Mid and High should be applied, add that too as a restriction for future use. Thanks for your time, doxTxob \ ^talk 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not suggesting that anything be reversed, simply that this might be something to avoid in the future. Of course you can modify those assessments in any way you please, I'm just wanting us to all work in a similar direction, rather than in opposing ones. We discuss, ostensibly what we are doing now, and figure out exactly which direction that should be. That's just how this website works. I don't see anyone attacking you at all. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, any of us could change the rating on any of these articles at any time. (I have done that on occasion.) However, I wonder if changing ratings is a worthwhile use of my time and energy, as it's not clear to me that the importance rating is making a substantive difference, outside of the high- and top-importance articles. Are others finding these ratings useful? --Orlady (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If your time is so valuable and the ratings make no difference to you, why do you waste your efforts talking about it. Your so-called "argumentation" is not consistent. The article importance rating is a Wikipedia wide institution and useful to a certain degree to find some sort of order. And that is sure not going to change just because your preferences are not according to that. doxTxob \ ^talk 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of its effectiveness, the importance assessment will have an unintended side effect— readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia who happen across an importance assessment might confuse it as an assessment of the subject's importance to the state rather than the article's immediate importance to the project. And before I became more involved in WPTN, I misread "importance" as an assessment of how strictly edits to the article would be scrutinized, rather than as a simple priority list. The importance assessment has no effect on my editing priorities, but I can't speak for everyone. Bms4880 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Can everyone try to read and understand the Assessment instructions, please. That makes sure that everyone knows what the discussion is about and we are all talking about the same thing. The assessment instructions are the basis of article ratings.

Yes, that confusion can sure happen, although there are certainly correlations of both, the priority of the subject for the project and the overall importance for the topic Tennessee. I do not see the side effect as that harmful, but I can only derive that wisdom from my observations and those are: No one else is complaining about it but project members! As I mentioned in the reply to your above comment, everyone has their baby (I like that formulation) or babies. At least some would complain. That certain things are not clear enough to everyone is not necessarily a reason to abolish something altogether.

That's like they are discussing here in Memphis currently, to lower the standards in schools, so that more children pass and they have less drop-outs. What? I am of the opinion that Wikipedia should be exciting and a place to learn for everyone. If all the standards are lowered to a degree where absolutely everyone is guaranteed to understand everything right, the quality of Wikipedia would be comparable to a Mickey Mouse comic.

The quality ratings can be misunderstood, too. In fact, they are very often. That's not a reason to abolish them altogether, is it? The quality ratings Stub, Start and B require only formal criteria to be fulfilled, the presence of certain elements, not their quality, only their presence. Images to illustrate the topic, structure elements like headers and so on. For B class the article needs to be conform with the Neutral Point of View policy and the No Original Research policy. The usefulness for the reader is an alternative criterium and the amount of editing required. These criteria are formal, the rating scale there does not require the article be checked for consistency or the material or for factuality. Only the presence of certain elements is required, the factuality of the article is not a criterium for the quality rating, according to the assessment standards. The criteria are of a kind that the quality assessment could even be automated as the mere presence of elements can be detected by a bot, too, I assume. With these arguments, one could claim to skip that quality rating process altogether, too. Or the lower three rankings. As GA and up require a peer review, at least a few people would have an eye on that. But as long as the standards exist like that they are the scale to use for rating, and as log as these ratings are available, they can be used, otherwise change it.

Overall, the quality and importance assessment are common business on Wikipedia and most of the assessments are done in a very similar fashion in different projects. With all their faults and points that could be misunderstood they still help sorting articles to some degree. Personally, I do not think that one project doing it completely different is a good idea to persue.

As mentioned earlier, I rated all unrated articles for importance according to the standards at that time and because I saw and see a use in it. That is why I have no intention to undo them. If the standards at that time were wrong, that's not my fault. As I wrote in my reply to Huntster above. If the majority has good arguments not to assign importance, then change the standards, abolish ratings, and if you desire a discussion for applying a low rating for any smalltown article, add that also. Someone might adapt the ratings according to the updated standards sooner or later. But it needs to happen in that order: Change the rules first and then act. I am sure that you would feel unfairly treated if the police measured your speed and then changed the speed limit sign to a lower limit to give you a ticket. doxTxob \ ^talk 22:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Before I conclude that I'm not wanted around here and crawl away with my tail between my legs, I want to ask one question. The standards for assessment are clearly defined (notwithstanding my being perplexed over some of the applications of those standards), but the earlier discussions do not help me understand the intended use of the importance ratings in this wikiproject. Since you say you see a use in them, DoxTxob, could you please explain that "use" to the rest of us so that we can collaborate more effectively? --Orlady (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

← Orlady: You'll come to no such conclusion and you're not going anywhere. Both you and doxTxob have put in way too much time on this project and you're both critical to its success. You both own this project just as much as the other, and you're both entitled to a 4th-grader playground outburst, such as doxTxob's above, every once in awhile.

That being said, doxTxob makes a good point— maybe the importance assessment is serving its purpose, maybe it isn't (that's difficult to ascertain), but it's important to keep it, if nothing else, for consistency purposes. I know "conformity" is an ugly word, but things can get confusing if different projects use assessment scales in different ways. In any case, you and I may not use the assessments, but even if just a few people use them for sorting purposes, then it's worth keeping. Bms4880 (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the importance assessment apparently is useful for some Tennessee project participants, a quick tour of a sample U.S. state wikiprojects indicates that it's not being used everywhere:

• Using importance: California, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin
• Not using importance: Alabama, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Virginia

--Orlady (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but I think the consistency argument still holds— those states that do use importance assessment all use the Low-to-Top scale. Bms4880 (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overview of articles

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.

[edit] Positive news

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)

[edit] Project banner

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)

"Priority" is probably a better term than "Importance," if won't create consistency issues. Again, I'm not worried offending "parents," I was thinking of the casual reader and those not familiar with Wikipedia. Bms4880 (talk) 16:52, 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)

[edit] Featured List of the Day

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)

[edit] Bays Mountain — possible plagiarism

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)

• With the help of archive.org, I can verify that Wikipedia did the copying. See this archive page from September 2000. --Orlady (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Castalian Springs, Tennessee

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)

[edit] April 6-8, 2006 Tornado Outbreak GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

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)

[edit] List of National Historic Landmarks in Tennessee

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)

[edit] Roman Catholic Diocese of Knoxville

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've done an overall cleanup of the page, nothing much, but I did have to remove the History and See City sections as they were direct copy/pastes from the Diocese websites. I do believe you caught all the actual vandalism, though. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 14:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC) (I can now unwatch this page and it.)

[edit] James K. Polk

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)

I added some requested citations-- I think there are five citation requests left to satisfy. I can't find anything hard source about his "Napoleon of the Stump" nickname or his last words. I couldn't find anything regarding his objections to expanding slavery into the newly-acquired territories (his diary is 4 volumes long), although McCormac (442-444, 628-9) implies that Polk opposed the Wilmot Proviso because he didn't think slavery had anything to do with ending the war. Bms4880 (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAR nomination

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)

[edit] Tennessee-Georgia border dispute

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)

Content about the topic has been inserted into Tennessee River. --Orlady (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! Bms4880 (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Location, anyone?

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)

Interstate 81 is the main route between Blountville and Bristol, but I couldn't find anything mentioning I-81 specifically as the crash site. The NTSB report would probably note it. Bms4880 (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The detailed report of the accident at http://planecrashinfo.com/1993/1993-17.htm does not say anything about a highway. --Orlady (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Also no mention of a highway on the NTSB report at http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12077&key=1 --Orlady (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. My map showed several state highways in the area plus Interstate 81. I'll remove the statement about the highway since its source wasn't extremely reliable and it's only a tangent to Kulwicki's article anyhow. I was looking for a better source about the cause of the accident, and the official link to the NTSB report is GOLDEN. Thanks so much! Royalbroil 04:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] De Soto map

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)

Well, the Commons has Image:Discovery of the Mississippi.jpg, which is of de Soto discovering the Mississippi River, and is located in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda. Personally, I don't care much for the image, though. Check also the de Soto gallery on Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hernando_de_Soto. I have found some etchings or such at Project Gutenberg, which is entirely public domain (published 1900): http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22116/22116-h/22116-h.htm#chap12. If any of the Commons images are of interest, toss 'em in. If you like any of the Gutenberg images, let me know and I'll take care of the "paperwork". — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Huntster. I'm currently looking for a copyright-free image of a 1584 map of "La Florida" drawn by someone named Geronimo Chaves. As far as I know, it's the oldest map showing part of what is now Tennessee. Also, do you know if these images are copyright-protected? It's on the LOC website, but it looks like some sort of exhibition.

Thanks again for your help. Bms4880 (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that a "collection" simply implies ownership, not necessarily a copyright on the work. However, if it is uncertain, it may be a good idea to contact the source/collection holder to determine copyright status. As for "La Florida", here ya go:

Image:Peruviae Avriferae Regionis Typus - La Florida - Guastecan.jpg is a version of "La Florida", apparently published in 1608 by Ortelius, but this image (from this site) is, unless I'm mistaken, the original la Chaves work created for Ortelius' 1584 Theatrum Orbis Terrarum. Because it is a Dutch publication, it should fall under a sort of international copyright law, wherein publications revert to public domain 70 years after the life of the creator. So this image is almost undoubtedly public domain, no matter who's collection is is part of. If you want to use it, upload it to Commons with the {{PD-old-70}} license.

As for the LOC images, I would imagine that they are all public domain so long as they meet the "life of the author + X years", where X is the particular rule used in the country of publication. Most use 70 years, but it does vary. Besides "La Florida", is there any images from LOC you want to use? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I've added La Florida to the Commons. I'll just stick with the 1584 La Florida for now. Thanks, Huntster. This was most helpful. Bms4880 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Jackson and Hitler

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)

[edit] Wikipedia Takes Nashville

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)

[edit] Notable Residents

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)

I don't think the notability is an issue; if they don't have an article, they shouldn't be listed. That's easy. :)

As for the general appropriateness of the section itself, I think it's a good thing, but I'm willing to admit that it can easily become unwieldy. For example, Jack White and Ben Folds both live in Nashville (actually, Folds supposedly lives less than five minutes away from me, walking), but in very different parts of town; listing absolutely everyone can be a nightmare, unless it were to be spun off to List of notable residents of Nashville, Tennessee, and very strictly enforced by sourcing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What if somehow we made a List of notable Tennesseans that was a sortable table and linked from every city/county on the WikiProject? --Smashville^BONK! 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that (having a single page). The reason I went with a city-specific page is that I can easily see List of notable Tennesseans becoming mind-boggingly massive. But I do like the idea... perhaps we should go ahead and make the page, and worry about the size when it actually does become an issue. I'm not sure if having it as a big sortable table would be the way to go, though; it might be easier to just break it down by county, with each one having its own heading (ie: List of notable Tennesseans#Davidson County, List of notable Tennesseans#Rutherford County, etc.). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps this is where a category would be better than a list? We could make the main one Notable Tennesseans, but then do the others by county? --Smashville^BONK! 20:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I'm going to do. Before we bring anything over to the mainspace, I'm going to cut the names out of the articles and add them to User:Smashville/List of Notable Tennesseans. Anyone is more than welcome to help - if the list gets too long, we can separate the larger ones out by county (there is already a List of notable Nashvillians, we could redirect List of notable Davidson County residents to it or move it)?

Creating a category will almost undoubtedly lead to a CfD, since some consider the term "notable" to be subjective (funny, since that's generally our policy for having an article, but I digress), and cats are generally supposed to be uncontroversially factual. A simple list will likely be far better (and much more easily watched by all who care), but we need to create some guidelines for inclusion before things progress too far. I'm game, however, for anything that gets rid of these unsightly "notable resident" trivia sections. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Look what I found. Why don't we just remove the notable residents sections and add the verifiable ones (the ones with sources) to that? --Smashville^BONK! 23:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: Incorporate smaller "Notable Residents" sections (usually for smaller towns) into a paragraph in the town's history section. For large Notable Residents sections, create a separate list, and then condense the section into two or three paragraphs that focuses on notable residents who spent a significant part of their lives in the city. By "significant," I mean the town should have had some sort of impact on their lives or worldview, or vice-versa. This should remove the "trivia" aspects while preserving the lists. Bms4880 (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, "local notable" sections are a potentially important part of the article for a community. Sometimes the only salient fact in an article is the name of a famous person who once made the community his home. Ideally, all of these notables would be wrapped into the article itself, as Bms4880 suggests (not necessarily in History, since some may deserve mention under other topics), but I think that's not workable. For example, consider the local boy who went on to be a Hollywood star or a sports hero. He may not have played a prominent role in the life of the community, but he is a big source of local pride, so his name is worthwhile to mention in the article. A list is a good way to do that.

Ground rules are needed. I suggest the following (others might have additional suggestions):

1. First off, the people listed should be notable. If they don't have articles yet, there should be a clear basis for their notability. (Note that including red-linked notables in local articles can be an effective way to encourage articles to be written.) In this somewhat related recent WP talk:BLP discussion, there seemed to be general agreement about using WP:BIO as a basic criterion for including in lists of notables.
2. Lists of local notables should not include people whose only connection with the town/city was attending a university or other school, or serving at a military base. (Note that this rule would greatly shorten the list for Clarksville, Tennessee.)
3. If there's no RS citation identifying the person's connection with the town and the article about the person doesn't name the town, that person should not appear on the list of notables. (This could greatly reduce the bloat in lists for places like Franklin, Tennessee.)
4. Lists should be limited to people from the specific city/town. Thus, for example, the Knoxville list should not include people from Clinton, Oak Ridge, Farragut, Luttrell, or Seymour. I realize that Nashville has unusually extensive boundaries, so you Nashvillians might prefer a single list for "Nashville" to include all of Davidson County, but the rest of the state should not be expected to emulate Nashville.
5. If the list grows to become unwieldy in the context of the article, create a separate article linked from the parent article. There is plenty of precedent for splitting off lists in this manner, including List of people from Chicago, List of people from Buffalo, New York, and List of people from Orlando, Florida.
6. To the extent possible, the list should include a brief description of the person's notability and their connection to the town.

--Orlady (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support Brian's proposal, but I just can't stand these lists anymore. In prose form, with cites and such, it becomes historical information, but these lists are nothing but trivia, and they've got to go. Why should "local pride" be a consideration for inclusion? Still trivia. I'm for nuking these things entirely.

If a list format in the individual articles is decided to be the best way to go, Orlady has made some good suggestions above, especially requiring specific citations for each person. I'm not so sure that #4 is going to be as easy as it may seem, but we'll see. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

By "vice-versa" above, I meant that either the town should have had an impact on the person or the person should have had an impact on the town (e.g., Davy Crockett may have lived for just the first two or three years of his life in Limestone, Tennessee, but his impact on Limestone is considerable). I think that's what Orlady is saying by "local pride." I still suggest an eventual goal of prose format, however. Bms4880 (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)