Talk:Jake's Famous Crawfish
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was a Collaboration of the Week/Month for WikiProject Oregon June 15–August 20, 2015. |
References
editAdditional references:
- The 100 Best Restaurants in Portland (1998-1999), Willamette Week
- WILLAMETTE WEEK'S RESTAURANT GUIDE 1999-2000, Willamette Week
- McCormick & Schmick's IPO raises $170 million Seattle Post-Intelligencer
- Jake's mecca for seafood is fine but far from fancy, Lakeland Ledger
- Gus Is Us: A Filmmaker and His City, The Oregonian (restaurant appeared in film by Gus Van Sant)
Quick blurbs as part of Portland travel reviews:
- Short Trips: Walkable downtown Portland boasts a lack of hills, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
- Portland, Ore: Perfect day-trip destination, Yahoo! News
Feel free to add more and/or assist with expanding the article! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jake's Famous Crawfish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100409112820/http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=5394 to http://wweek.com/story.php?story=5394
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Whitney and Gray Building
editI recently split Railway Exchange Building and Huber's Restaurant into Huber's and Railway Exchange Building (Portland, Oregon), and now I'm thinking Whitney and Gray Building should be created as well since this article focuses on the restaurant. @MB: Would you agree? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Orygun: I have a feeling you'd support a "split" as well? Meaning, creation of a building article separate from the restaurant entry. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with keeping the restaurant and NRHP building separate. I think this is good restaurant article, but expanding it to include the NRHP building is a mistake. As I've said before, addressing two different subjects (a notable restaurant and a notable building) together in one article makes it difficult to add new content to the article. For example, incorporating material about NRHP structure (e.g. architectural style, building’s footprint, construction materials, interior of upper floors, etc) would be difficult … and has nothing to do with the restaurant. Likewise, to expand restaurant content, would require working around unrelated structural facts about a multi-story building. Also, what happens if restaurant closes and building remains with new tenant … or if another notable tenant moves into another part of the building? Bottomline, leaving these two distinct subjects in one article would make it very difficult to improve content for either subject area … so, I agree these two subjects should be kept separate.--Orygun (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Orygun, Thanks, I've gone ahead and created a stub for Whitney and Gray Building. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with keeping the restaurant and NRHP building separate. I think this is good restaurant article, but expanding it to include the NRHP building is a mistake. As I've said before, addressing two different subjects (a notable restaurant and a notable building) together in one article makes it difficult to add new content to the article. For example, incorporating material about NRHP structure (e.g. architectural style, building’s footprint, construction materials, interior of upper floors, etc) would be difficult … and has nothing to do with the restaurant. Likewise, to expand restaurant content, would require working around unrelated structural facts about a multi-story building. Also, what happens if restaurant closes and building remains with new tenant … or if another notable tenant moves into another part of the building? Bottomline, leaving these two distinct subjects in one article would make it very difficult to improve content for either subject area … so, I agree these two subjects should be kept separate.--Orygun (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)