Wikipedia talk:WikiProject North Dakota

"People from..." question

I have a question pertaining to how we list ND people in categories. When we list someone in one of the city-specific categories like Category:People from Grand Forks, North Dakota, should we leave it at that or should we also list them in the main Category:People from North Dakota category also? I've never really known how I should handle that. --MatthewUND^(talk) 08:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I should mention that I personally like having a person in both the main and the subcategory. --MatthewUND^(talk) 08:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say both for now. If the main category gets too large we can start pulling out some of the less significant people. --AlexWCovington (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If Category:People from Grand Forks, North Dakota is a sub-category of Category:People from North Dakota, standard convention dictates that the person should just be listed in the city-specific category, since by the category tree, they are automatically included (even though they are under another category directory) in the main category.

Simplifying (I think I confused myself there!), just in the city-specific category.... NDCompuGeek 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with what you're saying, NDCompuGeek. However, I've seen it done both ways for other states. The thing is, I'm thinking if we take all of those people away from the main category, we are going to end up with a very skimpy main category and very big subcategories. I'm just not sure. Another thing...for categories like Category:North Dakota musicians, I think the people listed in their should almost certainly also be listed in the main category as well. I see these occupation-type-categories almost more as a type of "overlay" than a subcategory. I guess this is like how we are doing Category:North Dakota politicians...we have them (for the most part) in both the occupation category/overlay and the main ND category. --MatthewUND^(talk) 23:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, hows about a check of ideas then?

1. For categorizing people by location, they should go into as specific a category as possible ("People from north 16th street in Minot, North Dakota", for a slightly facetious category). This may create large sub-categories with a relatively small main category, but by the categorial conventions, this is fine.
2. For categorizing people by occupation, again they should go into as specific a category as possible, but in addition to the location category ("North Dakota musicians who play the tuba on the corner of 16th street in Minot", same facetious categorization). This way, the individual is categorized both by location and occupation.

I think this is a good summary, but whaddya think? - NDCompuGeek 03:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think #1 makes good sense and that's pretty much what we have going right now. I used to think that everybody should be in the main category and in more specific location categories, but I now see that is a bit redundant. I need a little clarification about #2 though. For instance, are you saying that somebody like Johnny Lang (for example) should go into Category:People from Fargo, North Dakota and Category:North Dakota musicians, or are you saying he should just go into one category called Category:Musicians from Fargo, North Dakota? I personally think it would be a little too much to have occupation specific subcategories for each location category. They wouldn't ever have many articles in them...just how many people would ever end up in Category:Artists from Minot, North Dakota for instance? I'm not sure if that's what you're saying or not. Also, I don't think that is really something you find in other state's categories so I'm not sure we should be doing that here. I'm all for using specific location categories, but I'm not too hot on having occupation subcategories for each of those location categories. It seems best to me to lump all musicians, artists, writers, etc into statewide categories. --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Bismarck State College

I'm asking people to keep a watch on the Bismarck State College article. Recently, someone calling themselves the webmaster for the college [Bjork53 (talk · contribs)] has been making edits to the article which are little more than copy-and-pastes from this page at the college's website. Anytime I try to revert the additions, the "webmaster" gets really ticked off and reverts it back to his version. He seems to think that, since he is the school's webmaster, he thus own's the school's Wikipedia article. Take a look at the messages he has left for me and those I have left for him. Perhaps some WPND editors would be interested in trying to rewrite the article and expand it in legitimate ways (not relying on copy-and-pastes from the school's website!). He doesn't seem to think I have any right to touch it... --MatthewUND^(talk) 08:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Copy paste issue at Burlington, North Dakota

Hi folks,

There is a copy paste problem with Burlington, North Dakota#History section, in that the text has pretty much come, word-for-word from the municipal web site of Burlington, North Dakota. See Talk:Burlington, North Dakota#History section for details. This is a very early edit of R9tgokunks, and who, I suspect, was probably operating under the commonly held belief that any work by federal, state, or municipal governments are in the public domain. Indeed, the editor even helpfully furnished the web link which made comparison straigtforward. Sadly, the public domain provision applies only to the Federal government; published works of state and municipal governments enjoy full copyright protection. There is a pretty clear need to rewrite the section; I'm hoping there may be expertise from members of this project to do just that. Unfortunately, I hail from Brooklyn, New York, and my expertise on Prospect Park seems inadequate here. Take care. — Gosgood 15:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for commenting on this. I think the best thing to do is to remove the material from the Burlington article until somebody gets the chance to rewrite it. --MatthewUND^(talk) 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Lewis and Clark

Hey WPNDers, I just noticed that we have two articles about the same thing: North Dakota Lewis & Clark Interpretive Center and North Dakota Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center. The second one has been around the longest and is the longer. Which spelling should we go with? --MatthewUND^(talk) 06:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Second, looks good! Tazz 06:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now made the first page into a redirect for the second. --MatthewUND^(talk) 01:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

New articles

Dear Wikipedians, a list of possible North Dakota-related articles found by bot is available at User:AlexNewArtBot/NorthDakotaSearchResult. Colchicum 15:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a fabulous tool. I'm going to add a link directly on the main WPND page. --MatthewUND^(talk) 00:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"External link" vs"External links"

Just a note to fellow WPNDers that I've recently noticed a different trend in style on Wikipedia. I used to be under the assumption that a links section should be called "External link" if it contained only one links and "External links" if it contained multiple links. However, I've been noticing lately that the trend is now to always call such a section "External links"...even if it only has one link. This goes the same for "Note"/"Notes" sections and "Reference"/"References" sections. The Manual of Style also now lists plural section headers as the preferred choice. I think this probably is a good trend because it adds uniformity and ease of updating to these list sections. Just thought I would mention this so you guys don't get confused if you see people changing "External link" to "External links" in ND pages. --MatthewUND^(talk) 00:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

NavBox

In order to make the code for the WPND main page cleaner and easier to edit, I've spun off the "NavBox" on the top right corner of the page into a template: Wikipedia:WikiProject North Dakota/NavBox. --MatthewUND^(talk) 00:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:North Dakota State Government

I just made a new navigational template for state government. Take a look: {{North Dakota State Government}}. I just thought it would be good to make something like this. Let me know if you think it would be a good idea to add it to state government articles. --MatthewUND^(talk) 03:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter?

I realize we're a relatively small project (~25 members), but with these 25 members, we are doing so much! I'd like to think that all 25 of us are active (something that most other projects can't say).... In any case, what about a newsletter to keep us abreast of the project news and what's going on with ND-related articles? This is something that I may be able to help out with, if our fearless leaders would consider authoring it... (hint-hint)! - NDCompuGeek 17:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Still, I wonder if just posting routine updates on this talk page would be just as effective. Then again, I have a feeling that a few WPND members don't keep close tabs on this talk page. If we did put together a newsletter, what kinds of things do you think would be good to include in it? This is an interesting idea. --MatthewUND^(talk) 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

←← Following the layout of other newsletters (specifically WP:MILHIST, WP:GERMANY, WP:MUSINST [a work in progress], among others), I believe the major common components are:

• Editor's corner
• Project news and reminders
• Article assessment statistics (and possibly editorial comments)
• Current proposals and discussions
• Awards and honors
• Spam opt-in / opt-out notice

Mind you, this is a small sampling of what's out there.... - NDCompuGeek 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just finished putting together the first issue of the WikiProject North Dakota Newsletter. Let me know what you think. I don't expect to be the editor just because I put the first issue together. If anybody else wants to be the editor that's fine with me. If no one else wants to, I'll be happy to do the job and put the newsletter out about once a month. Let me know what you think about the features I put in the first issue. --MatthewUND^(talk) 07:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I just completed the initial round of assessments for all pages that are a part of WPND. Now, when you look at the talk page of any North Dakota-related page, you should see an assessment within the WPND banner at the top of the page. Visit Category:North Dakota articles by quality to see how all of the pages have been assessed in the initial assessment. Visit Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/North Dakota articles by quality statistics to see the breakdown of assessments. The individual assessments are based on the guidelines found at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Obviously, any WPND member should feel free to change individual assments if they disagree with them. This intial round of assessments was just an effort to see where we are as a project and what areas we need to work on. I should note that these assments are based on the length and quality of each article, not the importance or priority of the article's subject. Priority is a whole other way of assessing pages. We could do priority assments in the future, but that is a much more potentially biased form of assessment that would first need to be discussed. I'm glad to have this initial assessment round - which included me individually assessing over 1200 pages - completed. I have tried to assess pages fairly and accurately. --MatthewUND^(talk) 23:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow - 1200 pages! Nothing like a small state to generate a lot of articles! Gawrsh, I'm even more proud to be from North Dakota!! - NDCompuGeek 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Purpose and scope"

In an effort to clarify just what WPND is for, I've rewritten the old "Scope" section. The new "Purpose and scope" section now reads:

The purpose of WikiProject North Dakota is to enhance and expand North Dakota-related content on Wikipedia. This includes improving both the quality and quantity of such content. Quality is improved by making appropriate additions to and revisions of existing articles. Quantity is improved by the sensible creation of new articles for worthy subjects. A list of pages currently monitored by WikiProject North Dakota can be found here.

Just like everything on WPND pages, this can be altered in any way that other WPND members see fit. Let me know if you think this sounds like a decent statement and feel free to change it if you wish. --MatthewUND^(talk) 06:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

North Dakota portal?

I've noticed that most other (OK - a lot of other) states also have a portal to highlight "their" state. Might anyone be interested in a ND portal? I'm already babysitting a portal (Portal:United States Air Force) and am highly involved in coordinating a project (Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments), so I don't think that I would have the time. However, if someone else was to "manage" the portal, I'm sure I could at least assist setting it up.... - NDCompuGeek 01:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A newsletter and a portal? So much to do, so little time to do it in! I don't have too much experience with portals, but that is certainly a good idea. I'm still interested in the newsletter idea. I think the first thing to do with that would be to find other WikiProject newsletters so we could base our's off of what other projects have done with that idea. Do you know of any WikiProject...specifically state WikiProjects...that have newsletters we could look at? --MatthewUND^(talk) 08:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

←← For the Newsletter question, see my reply above. As for portals, from my experience, they're basically a "one day per month" kind of thing. I'm always scanning for stuff to put into the USAF portal, but I have to update it to be ready for the monthly change-over (which, according to my calculations, only occurs once per month...:-)). Once they initial layout is set up, it's just a matter of updating, and when time allows, tweaking the layout a bit here and there. Of course, free time is a precious commodity, I understand, thus the collaborative efforts of the project to back-up the portal.... - NDCompuGeek 17:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Great first newsletter, Matthew... Kind of made me jealous... :-) Anyway, if you want me to go forward on the ND portal, I can start getting the framework together for the outline of the portal. In my experience (limited though it may be), the background information and "skeleton" of the portal is actually more difficult to put together correctly than the content itself. Of course, the content is much more important, but much easier to find and insert once a good framework has been built. Anyway, I guess I'm saying "Volunteering for duty, boss. What's your orders?"! - NDCompuGeek 03:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You liked the first newsletter? Great! Please offer any constructive criticism you can think of. I think we should try to put out a newsletter about once a month. Now that I've got the basic template set up, it should be fairly easy to make future newsletters. As far as the portal goes, I would love to see you work on that. I'm not overly familiar with portals, but you seem to be so you would be a great person to devise the ND portal in my opinion. One question, do we need to propose the portal before we go ahead and build it? --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ND counties origins

I have noticed that most of the ND counties lack information about their origins in their infoboxes (Founded - information needed). I have found that this information is easily available on the official ND state website. I thought that project participants may find it useful and fill in the infoboxes. (I cannot go over each of the over 100 counties and fill the information myself). Regrads. Qblik 04:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Meetup?

Another totally unrelated question for all of the ND WikiProject: might anyone be interested in a meet-up for NoDaks (something named "WikiNoDak" or something equally as inane)? I was thinking about Minot, but there's always something going on here and logistically it may be a bit difficult, so out of fairness to all (and to stress the fact that it's the capital), what about Bismarck? It's not too awfully far from anyone (well, anywhere in the state is within a day's driving distance, but that's another matter entirely), somewhat geographically central, on I-94 (and US-83 and a plethora of other highways and biways), and could offer some good meeting locations.... Input please? - NDCompuGeek 03:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Grand Forks is a Featured Article candidate

Just a note to let all WPND members know that Grand Forks, North Dakota is a current Featured Article candidate. Visit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grand Forks, North Dakota to see what people are saying and to let your voice be heard. The article has been greatly improved since it was first nominated. Milkthecows (talk · contribs) worked very hard on adding references to the article and deserves a ton of credit for that. I'm rather doubtful that this nomination will pass, but I think it is very likely that a future one will. The article has really been improved and, I think, now deserves FA status. --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)