Talk:Portland, Oregon/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Economy of Portland

Um, this is my first post (I think I'm doing this right...) and I noticed there's no "economy of" section in this article. Well, I thought I might offer a few bits of information for anyone who has the knowledge to add it to the article: silicon forest; Nike (headquartered in Beaverton); Tektronix (its location in the area helped to create silicon forest); Intel (largest employer in Portland area, or maybe state); history of steel industry and existing/remaining companies-precision cast parts, oregon steel, northwest pipe company, etc.; portland is the largest grain shipper in the nation, and the third largest port destination in the west coast; emerging biotechnology (?), although that's debatable as we don't have any major businesses in that field in the area... I don't know, just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snowden352 (talk • contribs) 02:21, August 26, 2006 (UTC)

Why is there nothing on Portland's economy? I think this information would be useful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.182.41 (talk) 17:37, January 26, 2007

Agree. A local economy section is vital to an city wiki. That is what I came to look for here, and was dissapointed when I found it missing. Someone who knows better should take the information above and begin crafting a section on the main page. Onishenko 13:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree I am compiling some information for the economy section. Should we create a seperate page for the economy as well? There is a multitude that could be written about the economy in Portland. JordanRL 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that an economy section is needed, your examples are not in Portland, but in the Portland metropolitan area. The silicon forest is mostly if not entirely outside of Portland proper. I don't really think it is appropriate to talk about Beaverton/Hillsboro/Gresham/Vancouver in this article, but it is entirely appropriate and needed in the metropolitan area article. Cacophony 01:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Econ section definately needed, as I just started the Precision Castparts Corp. artilce to remove the redlink from the Oregon artilce and thought I'd link it here too, but can't. And Cacophony is right, Portland companies only, no Nike, no Columbia Sportswear, and no Intel (unless they still have an office in downtown Portland). And while we are on this subject, could someone remove other none Portland items, such as oh the universities not in Portland. Aboutmovies 18:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is not going to go up the scale without any economy information of greater portland Area or Portland itself. Since i don't know about the economy i cant add anything but those who know should:)EdwinCasadoBaez 23:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving related pages

I am proposing that two related pages get moved: Metropolitan Area Express (Portland) to MAX Light Rail and J. E. Clark to Bud Clark. Please come discuss these on the articles' talk pages. Jason McHuff 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

band vanity

I removed a band from the list under the "Popular Culture" section a couple weeks ago, with the following comment:

removed what appears to be vanity. The wiki page on the band makes no convincing case for notability; also I have followed music in Portland for some time and am unaware of them.)

The band was just re-added at the top of the list (by a user at the same IP address as the first time: 81.216.8.15) I'm reverting again, and will explain my reasoning a little more fully: the other bands listed (Elliott Smith, Pink Martini, Sleater-Kinney) are all well-known around town, and have received considerable news coverage over a period of several years. This coverage has largely been from mainstream publications, not just music-oriented entertainent papers. Elliott Smith's music was nominated for an Oscar. Portland residents who don't follow music could be reasonably expected to have some familiarity with these bands. I am a Portland resident who does follow music, and I have never heard of this band anywhere but here. -Pete 00:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the add to make it conform to the English language, and the format of the others. The band Agalloch I've never heard of either, but their wiki page has 3 full length and several EPs. I don't think the threshold for inclusion should be "well-known around town" but either (1) well-known nationally in their genre or (2) multiple "available" recordings. It has to be something other than "Portland residents who don't follow music could be reasonably expected to have some familiarity with these bands.", since I don't think either Smith, PM, or S-K would be known by the "average" Portland resident. Philvarner 03:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Opening the door to any band with "multiple available recordings" would invite literally thousands of bands to attach themselves to the list. I could probably rattle of 20 or 30 without pausing for breath. I am certainly open to discussion about what the standard should be, but I don't think that is a good one. As to specifics, I'll concede that Sleater-Kinney might be a reach, and wouldn't oppose removing them. But Elliott Smith was nominated for an Oscar, and his suicide got front page coverage on general-interest Willamette Week and possibly other papers. Pink Martini has also had front page treatment, is involved in charitable events around town, and tours internationally. -Pete 03:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the recordings one is a good one either. I think the Seattle#Culture section is a good example we should follow. This would exclude Agalloch. I would say theirs are "nationally prominent bands in their genre". For example, Skinny Puppy isn't necessarily popular overall, but they are nationally prominent in their genre. Austin, Texas goes the other direction and lists just about everyone, even if they don't even have a wikipage. I don't think his is what the list should be. Although, there's also a lot of grey here, for example, Storm Large is prominent locally and was recognized nationally on "Rockstar: Supernova". I don't know whether she should or not, but I do think she's the marginal case which should be used to determine the threshold. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philvarner (talk • contribs) 20:00, February 11, 2007

I think Storm Large should be on there - she went far on Rockstar: Supernova, and was heavily praised there. Austin would probably have a different standard than Portland, because it's known for its music pretty much more than any other characteristic. I think "prominent in their genre" is a little dicey, simply because musical genres seem to propagate faster than bands sometimes…do we want a "prominent" house-dub-techno-industrial DJ on Portland's front page? Or an operatic-grungecore band? Another specific suggestion: if a band's wikipedia entry does not cite mainstream or national sources, it doesn't go on the page. Which isn't to say EVERY band that does goes on the page. By that standard, only the Shins and Elliott Smith would get to remain…but I'm sure citations could be found for the other bands currently on there. -Pete 06:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think any band should go on the page, this particular case shows a bias against metal music and for indie rock. And I say that as basically the biggest Elliot Smith fan outside of Portland. - Stick Fig 07:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would happily support the idea of removing all bands from this page. Short of that, I'd say the appropriate way to overcome that bias is to find a truly famous metal band from Portland…if there is one. If Portland is more of a hotbed of indie rock than metal, that would be reflected in the page - I'm not sure if that's the case, but calling for equality among genres may not fit reality. Anyway, is there anyone who feels strongly that ANY bands should be listed here? -Pete 01:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You're totally arguing in the wrong direction. Portland's got a good cultural scene and it should be reflected on the page. Just saying, "this is too tough" and removing everyone is the wrong way to go. In fact, I would be bold and put them back in if you took them out, because I think they're essential to the page.

Instead of suggesting this line of thought, go the other way and figure out how to show that Portland is home to a variety of artistic contributions. - Stick Fig 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood you. Not sure I understand even now - but, I'm not really suggesting that they all be removed, just that I would support that choice if you or somebody else made it. I think the ideal section would express something in prose, as opposed to a list, perhaps listing a few examples, but aiming more to inform the reader of trends or culture rather than a laundry list. But I'm not really prepared to write that myself, I have enough projects on my plate! Which is the main reason I wouldn't suggest removing the list. Certainly, something should be there. -Pete 02:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Portland Public Art

I have nominated Portland public art for deletion. Please visit that page and share your thoughts. I have noticed that editors of the Portland page are diligent about keeping extraneous external links off this page. The PPA page avoids that controversy by making an uninformative stub, that contains a link to the weblog. I like the blog, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote web sites. Please visit the PPA page to discuss. -Pete 08:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of good faith addition of "otheruses" template

Any reason not to have one on this article or was this just reverted because it was added by an anon? Katr67 14:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The page name is "Portland, Oregon", not "Portland" -- it is not ambiguous, so does not need disambiguating. See WP:D, and related guidelines. Joe D (t) 14:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

the alleged coin toss

Ok, I am just saying there are many, many people who believe the alleged coin toss was nothing more than an urban legend. The only sources that state this as fact are organizations made to draw tourists to the city. I could hardly call that a reliable source!

I have lived in Portland all my life, and have always questioned this alleged coin toss. I think that unless someone can find a better source than visitor's association, my comments should stand.

I don't understand what the tourist organizations would gain or lose if the coin toss never happened. However, here are some less touristy references:

• http://www.naosmm.org/confer/port-or/history.html
• http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/archive/c0007.html
• http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561539/Portland.html
• http://www.portlandalliance.com/about_portland/portland-facts.html

—EncMstr 20:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

None of those are primary sources. They do not count if they are not primary souces. I want an actual article from the time of the actual coin toss or a photograph or something.

User:Mainliner.espresso please sign your statements with four tildes (~). Wikipedia does not require primary sources (though they do of course take precedent over secondary and tertiary ones), only reliable published sources. VanTucky 20:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And I want video showing the Missoula Floods otherwise all references to it should be removed! And I also want a newspaper article covering the Trojan War too!!!! ;) Aboutmovies 00:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ecology

As far as I know, Portland has a great record and initiative in taking care of the environment and climate. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Btd-no 23:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean like the raw sewage into the Willamette whenever it rains a lot, or the toxic cotamintion that prevented the use of the back-up water wells along the Columbia, or the dioxins lining the bottom of the Willamette from pulp production? Aboutmovies 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the Willamette is one of the most polluted rivers in the US. But if you want to consider the carbon footprint, the mass transit system pu tin place by Metro is a step in the right direction. Also, consider the number of those biking and Flexcars. VanTucky 23:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess both could be mentioned in the article. I've only heard the city's side and they speak about carbon-emission reduction, mass transit and bike-commuting far above the general US levels. If it's true, it should be mentioned, if they pollute heavily in other areas that should of course also be included. Btd-no 01:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the city's industries pollute heavily currently, but they sure used to. Where's the city at as far as Superfund site cleanup? I believe there are still quite a few toxic sites along the rivers. Allied Plating on MLK, now cleaned up, was the worst Superfund site in Oregon at one time, IIRC. The owner used to discharge heavy metals directly into the Columbia, and the site affected (affects?) an awful lot of groundwater. I got to walk around on the site pre-cleanup, not sure that explains anything... Katr67 02:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Btd-no's point is close to "right," but not quite. There are three similar points that I think are more defensible, but not quite the same: (1) the state of Oregon is known for its history of environmental stewardship, notably with the Oregon Bottle Bill, protection of the coastal land, protection of salmon, etc. and (2) Portland is known for its neighborhood-oriented urban planning, largely as a result of the Mount Hood Freeway revolt and Neil Goldschmidt's redirecting federal fund to projects like MAX, and (3) Portland is known as being a very liberal city, which includes environmentalist sensibilities. (Tre Arrow's protest of the Eagle Creek timber sale comes to mind.)

The 2nd and 3rd points should definitely be touched on in the article, as they are important defining characteristics of contemporary Portland - and can be backed up by reliable sources. But saying the Portland has a "great record" would be original research or POV-pushing, and as illustrated by the discussion above, rather controversial at that! -Pete 07:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Portland's reputation largely hinges on developments within the past two decades, but that doesn't disqualify the city's current actions. Some information can be found here http://www.portlandonline.com/osd/index.cfm?c=ebijg Businesses participate in conservation as well by offering incentives to customers who bring their own bags to grocery stores, etc. The city also has placed bottle holders on the sides of most trash cans for homeless people to collect them, recycle them, and receive the bottle refund. This is all personal experience, but I think it may warrant a section in the article as the culture of conservation is unique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanaSanJuan (talk • contribs) 20:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Planning and development section

I'd like to see the "land use planning" section expanded and split off into its own article - any thoughts?

Also, it has one paragraph (quoted below) that is pretty non-encyclopedic. I think it has good info, somebody more knowledgeable than I (or with a good book on hand...) should rewrite it! -Pete 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

“ In the early 1960s, the PDC led the razing of a large Italian-Jewish neighborhood downtown, bounded roughly by the I-405 freeway, the Willamette River, 4th Avenue and Market street. It was replaced by concrete office developments that proponents find clean and modern, and opponents find antiseptic and lifeless at night. ”

knife capital of the world

In a KATU article today, it dubbed Portland "knife capital of the world". The article can be found here. http://www.katu.com/news/7361421.html 71.59.236.48 03:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Multnomah Falls

I'm not sure this is entirely relevant, but I didn't see Multnomah Falls under Geography. I thought it would be important to mention them because I always bring visitors from out of the country or state to that particular landmark. Or should I state watermark? (Laughs at cheesy joke)Gargoyle123 02:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, Multnomah Falls is 30.1 driving miles (according to Google) from Portland, and at least 15 miles outside the city limits. All the listed attractions are within the city limits. The proximity of Multnomah falls is a good tidbit for WikiTravel though. —EncMstr 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Education

The section about notable high schools seems to be growing into all the high schools. Maybe we want to rethink and rewrite that section, since "notable" in this application is somewhat subjective, and subject to endless revision by people from the schools not included? I'm not from Portland, so I don't know which schools are truly notable. Katr67 03:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that no high school is simply notable, independent of context - rather, a school is "notable for its…whatever. The "whatever" is filled in by a reference from a reliable source. Any school that you can't write and cite such a sentence for should not be included in the section. -Pete 05:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's official--all but one of the high schools have been added to the section. Rather than weed it I simply changed the wording. Katr67 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible deletion of related article

The article Portland, Oregon in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. Please take a look at the discussion, and chime in if you have an opinion. It is my belief that the existence of this page is very good for three reasons:

1. It serves a reader looking for an overview of books, films, bands, etc. with strong connections to Portland. (It could do a better job of this, but is already useful, and improves over time.)
2. It makes the job of deciding what's notable enough to include on this page much easier.
3. Related to #2, it serves as a tool, allowing us to collaborate with new editors who come to Wikipedia to promote their favorite band, author, etc., and introduce them to the cooperative spirit that makes Wikipedia work, rather than getting into unpleasant arguments all the time.

-Pete 05:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Discuss external links here

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!) Katr67 15:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Talk:Portland, Oregon/link discussion archive

Added www.portlandGuide.com

PortlandGuide.com is one of the best guide sites to the city of Portland. It should be considered as an additional resource to be included on the portland page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbagehead310 (talk • contribs) 7:58, June 6, 2007

Infobox Picture

I love the picture in the infobox and it is a Featured Picture, but I'm wondering if it would work better later in the article using the panaroma feature (see below) and find a picture that is less elongated that would work better within the constraints of the infobox? Any thoughts? Aboutmovies 17:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1000px

It just depends on the image you had in mind to replace it with. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The image has been returned to the wide format as it is there as the example of the proposed change. That's why it says "see below" so people unfamiliar with the wide image template can see what it looks like. As to a different picture I'm not really partial to any image in particular. I tried this Image:Portland&MtHood.jpg one in the infobox and it looks OK, but maybe someone knows of a better one. It's not so much about the replacement to me, but showing off the current Featured class picture in a better way. Aboutmovies 22:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this image is better as the infobox image. The one you linked isn't very good composition, the trees in the foreground like that look stupid, and the depth of field makes it look like Portland is in the Rockies or something. But whatever replacement we would use, the above image doesn't look very good as a wide image. A more...panoramic one, with more of the bridges and such, would be better. It should also be pointed out that wide images aren't used very much for the simple reason that they tend to disrupt the flow of an article too much. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I don’t care what picture goes in the infobox. As to the use of large pictures you might want to spend some time going through the FA class articles about cities, which I might suggest Vancouver, BC, New York City, Detroit, Michigan, and Minneapolis, Minnesota. They all have large pictures (not all using the wide format template) in the article breaking up the text. Thus large pictures like this are perfectly acceptable for FA class articles, and though Portland isn’t FA I would hope the editors are looking to get it there. As I said, it’s about showing off this Feature Class picture, and due to the size constraints of the infobox I don’t think that is the best place for the picture. Even working it into the body as a larger picture would be better (see above or the way NYC handles these pics). Aboutmovies 23:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look about on Commons. It is pretty tiny in the infobox, but I just dislike the wide format. A simple large size would be fine with me though. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:PortlandOR allbridges.jpg

For me, this image is the one to use as a wide format image. Awesome! VanTucky ^(talk) 00:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to join the party a bit late. I wouldn't recomend my FP as a wide picture because it really isn't that panoramic. Having it, say, 1500 px in width would make the height about 600 px. which is very tall. The bridges one above is a good choice for its showing the bridges and its nice lighting but it is inherently small, blowing it up any bigger than it is here would have less than optimal results. Two pictures I think are possibilities: this picture that isn't even in the portland artical is also an FP and illistrates the geography. And this (also mine) has a better aspect ratio. cheers -Fcb981 02:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I generally am in love with the second picture, and would surely support it. I think it gives a nice few of Downtown Portland, and of the cities development. The first one dosen't give enough information. --67.164.218.54 19:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Portland Workgroup

The new Portland Workgroup division of WikiProject Oregon is now open for business. If you would like to join and help improve Portland related articles, go to the page and sign up. Plus list any items you think need to be worked on. Then you can add this userbox to your user page: {{User WikiProject Oregon PW}} Aboutmovies 18:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Rose Quarter: Not technically in NE

As a point of order, the text in the section describing the Rose Quarter complex as being in "Northeast" is misleading. According to the city "quadrant" system, Rose Quarter is actually in the "North" quadrant, even if about 100 feet crosses the line to NE. (If you examine any good map of Portland, the "North / Northeast Boundary" is N Williams Avenue: any place east of Williams Avenue is "Northeast", anything west [inclusive of Williams itself] is "North"). According to the building's placement in the 2005 "Thomas Guide" Portland Street Atlas, Williams Ave. would land in the middle of the building, but far to the east of the bulk of the building and anything that would be considered a "entrance" for purposes of street addressing.

It is worth noting that the address for the property was (until it changed to the ambiguous "1 Center Court") 1401 N Wheeler, and streets in the complex (like N Dribble Drive) are referred to with the "North" designator, as is Wheeler Avenue itself, which cuts to the east of the complex in between the Rose Garden and the highway (according to a street sign placed on Wheeler).

At best, the current language is disputable, and should probably be struck for more "neutral" placement of the complex. --Feedle 02:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Change it, link the edit summary to here. good research. -Fcb981 23:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Took me forever to get to it, but so done. --Feedle 23:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Little Beirut???

ONE PERSON (Bush) called this city ONCE Little Beirut, and this with an absolute made-up-out-of-thin-air reason... so that's why this article deserves the redirect of "Little Beirut"??? Undo that, please! Edgware Road for example deserves it way more! 亮HH (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That one person was the President of the United States, and it's a moniker that for the most part Portlanders accepted with pride. It's made a lasting mark on the city's image, which is why it is notable. VanTucky ^talk 04:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirects are aids to navigation, nothing more. If there is another topic that people might reasonably be expected to seek when they type in "Little Beirut," then we could make a disambiguation page. Otherwise, no reason to change. -Pete (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, it seems like that was a cultural flash in the pan. I don't know if people would expect another place as "Little Beirut", but I seriously doubt they would expect Portland either. The operative question is, "Is anyone out there going, 'Dang, what city was it that they used to call Little Beirut?" I think the answer is No. The 2005 movie "Little Beirut" is about Paris. Msalt (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

G.H.W. Bush did not originate the phrase, it may have come from someone on his staff, I'm still checking. Article has same link I saw, there are other places with the nickname so a disambiguation page is probably called forAwotter (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

I'm proposing that we adopt image galleries to "de-clutter" the body of the article. As an example, Hawaii has done a good job with categorizing multiple image submissions. We could start with "Architecture" and "Transportation" sections. --travisthurston+ 00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally opposed to most galleries. My main objection to them (which is demonstrated in the case of Hawaii) is that they can break up the flow of the article. To me, pictures complement the text, not dominate, and image galleries tend to come to dominate as they grow out of proportion with the text and can often come to not have any context. On a side note, most GA and FA articles I've seen do not have image galleries, and Hawaii is not at either one of those quality levels. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we're not getting much discussion out of that... I've looked over some of the GA and FA articles and have to agree that staggered thumbs allow for better flow. It takes some skill to get that "ideal" format. :) Thanks for the tip Aboutmovies. Proposal withdrawn. --travisthurston+ 05:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Economy

Could somebody please write a section describing Portland's economy? Thanks. --70.68.26.228 (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Northwest's alphabetical streets

A recent revision says that Yeon's not an alphabet street. .... Agreed. The Y street would be York Street. Apparently they didn't have anyone with an X name, so Roosevelt Street takes its place (see this map). This raises the question: does the alphabetical grid extend to York? Maybe even to Reed? —EncMstr 20:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought "Yeon" was part of that grid, but the alphabetical order breaks down around Vaughn. My guess is that when that area was platted (1900s at the latest), the area north of Vaughn was too swampy to support development so the alphabet scheme ended there. When development did arrive in that part of NW, Roosevelt & Yeon were added without detailed knowledge of the earlier alphabet scheme. (Roosevelt points to a time no earlier than the 1920s, after Teddy R.'s death.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. On a point related only by the area of town, I've always wondered what this is. Big ol' satellite dish, visible from Leif Erikson in Forest Park. Anyone know? -Pete (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a water system demand tank. Are you sure it's a dish? —EncMstr 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a run-of-the-mill water tank. Water Department periodically pumps water into it, & gravity draws the water out for the folks on NW Thurman street, like that big house nearby (& Ursula LeGuin). -- llywrch (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Sure looked like a massive dish to me when I first encountered it, I'm pretty sure it's concave. But it's been several years. Thanks for the answer, though! -Pete (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's actually in Forest Park, isn't it? Many years ago I stayed with someone a few doors down from Ms. LeGuin and I remember walking around the tank when I walked up into the park.</off-topic reminiscence>Katr67 (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgot A Nickname?

i've lived in Portland for 14 years of my life [wich is all of my life] And The Nickname for Portland is, The City Of Roses Why is that not there? trust me i ain't making this up ask anyone who lives here and they will tell you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.196.73 (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Portland is not the Pacific Northwest's third largest city, it is the Pacific Northwest's second largest city, after Seattle. You cannot include Vancouver, British Columbia in American geographic terms. Plain and simple, Vancouver is not a Pacific Northwest city because it is situated in southwestern Canada; sort of like Los Angeles in the southwestern corner of the USA. People in Vancouver would wonder what are you thinking to say that their city is in the northwest part of their country. Why, that would be as foolish as someone in Mexico saying Los Angeles is the largest city in the Pacific Northwest just because they are living in Mexico. If you want to add Vancouver to the equation, you can accurately say Portland is the seventh largest city adjacent to the Pacific; after Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Seattle, and Vancouver. But that wouldn't be reader friendly. You cannot, however, call Vancouver a Pacific Northwest city; because that it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

While you have a point, a discussion long ago at Talk:Pacific_Northwest/Archive#Name_dispute came to the opposite conclusion. —EncMstr 01:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The point could certainly be revisited, but the place to do that would be at the Pacific Northwest article, not here. Unless you want to rephrase it as "second largest city in the Northwestern United States, which would be accurate. Personally, I think 3rd largest in PNW is the most informative though. -Pete (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And per your: "People in Vancouver would wonder what are you thinking to say that their city is in the northwest part of their country." The Canadians are often rather adamant about being in the Pacific Northwest, thus #3 here, see the above linked discussion for details. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We could put second largest city in United States Pacific Northwest, but even if we didn't and simply said "second largest in Pacific Northwest", that too would be correct because Vancouver, BC is not a Pacific Northwest city. It does not sit in the northwest portion of our country, and it does not sit in the northwest portion of their country. If you look at the Pacific Ocean as a whole, all three cities sits in the Northeast rim of the ocean; which makes Portland the third largest in that regard (which may be causing some of the confusion). But when you look at the two nations boundaries, then Portland becomes the second largest in the Pacific Northwest. I love America just as much (if not more) than anyone else, and I realize our country is the focal point of the planet, but we cannot make ourselves be the answer to everything definitive. Meaning, if we all know that San Diego and Los Angeles are not both large Pacific Northwest cities (which would be from a Mexican perspective) than by that same logic we know that Vancouver is not a Pacific Northwest city (which is from an American perspective). And I'm not so sure if people in Vancouver say they are in the Pacific Northwest (I don't think they do), but if I find 1000 people to call a cat a dog, that doesn't make it a dog. Maybe, as the person stated above, the article should read "second largest in U.S. Pacific Northwest". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read Pacific Northwest you can clearly see that the term refers to North America as a whole, not just the U.S.A. VanTucky 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I know you're saying the article "Pacific Northwest" refers to North America as a whole, but really that's my whole point. The term is American terminology, from our viewpoint. Based on the way the article is viewing it raises the question: why would just North America be counted when the ocean stretches from Alaska down to southern Chile in South America? You can't just decide you will only count North America when the ocean is bigger than that. With the definition of North and South America being counted (which would be the proper way to define it since the ocean borders both continents), that would make Anchorage, Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles all Pacific Northwest cities. Cities in Central America would be West Pacific; and in South America they would be Pacific Southwest. That would be the technical true definition of what you are describing. But remember, the term Pacific Northwest came about from Americans, not Canadians, not Mexicans, and not South Americans. It was meant to describe a region of our country. If you look at a map of the United States, the states of Washington and Oregon are tucked away in the northwest corner, ie.. Pacific Northwest. Now just because Vancouver shares some of the same characteristics as Seattle and Portland, and is just 2hrs away from Seattle, doesn't make it Pacific Northwest, unless you are defining it as all land area that borders the ocean; which, once again, would even place San Francisco in the Pacific Northwest. Are we going to call Newfoundland part of the New England states because it sits so close to our New England states? I know how tempting it is to consider Vancouver part of the Pacific Northwest, but if a kid were taking a geography test in school and was asked the second largest city in the Pacific Northwest and he put Vancouver, he would get it wrong. And he would owe it all to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[1] and [2]. Also, this article doesn't deal with this issue directly, but addresses another issue under some dispute re: Capts. Gray and Vancouver. -Pete (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Pacific Northwest" refers to the northwest part of the North American continent, in common usage. It's generally thought of as extending from Oregon to Alaska, right? I don't see what the problem is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

To the anonymous editor: the point is not what "we" think. On Wikipedia we simply represent what is reported in reliable sources. Your claim that it's a purely American term is incorrect; apart from the Canadians who led the discussion referenced above, the articles I linked to (one of which is from The Independent, a London publication) support the regional definition.

As for your hypothetical scenario, Wikipedia can't be held accountable for a teacher hypothetically formulating a stupid and misleading question. (And while it's neither here nor there, Vancouver's bigger than Seattle anyway.)

Finally...since you're obviously interested in this stuff...can I maybe interest you in creating an account (no personal info required) and/or joining WikiProject Oregon? -Pete (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll just simply say this: When describing something in geographically, the terminology you use is based off the focal point of the source you're speaking of. Meaning, Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland are really Pacific Northeast cities to be true and accurate. Why? (Glad you asked.) Because they're in the northeast rim of the Pacific Ocean, the focal point which you are speaking of. New York City is a East Coast city. Why? Because it is in the eastern section of the focal point you're speaking of, the United States. I wouldn't call New York a Northeast Atlantic Ocean city because it is in the Northwest part of the Atlantic Ocean. What I'm talking about is correct terminology, not the way we mean to describe something. So when speaking of Pacific Northwest, you are either going to consider just the USA (which is acceptable) and would be Oregon and Washington, or the entire Pacific Ocean (which borders North and South America, and would be acceptable as well). But you can't (from a correct point of view) just say you're considering North America only when the ocean is much bigger than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll simply ask you this: Have you heard of the term Eastern Seaboard? I have, it refers to places like New York, so your focal point thing doesn't really pan out, as the focal point would be the Atlantic Ocean. Similar terms would be the Northwest (you know, the Old Northwest from the U.S. Northwest Territory that including current states such as Wisconsin and Minnesota where they still refer to themselves as Northwest (see Norwest Financial for an example, thus Northwest of what focal point? On Wikipedia, we go with what the common usage is, no matter what is necessarily geographically correct. Honestly, the true Pacific Northwest under your theory would be Alaska, as that is the NW part of the focal point of the United States. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's my point. Eastern Seaboard is considered such so, because it is in the eastern part of the United States, not because those cities lie on the ocean. Even Philadelphia is considered Eastern Seaboard and it doesn't sit on the ocean. The 'seaboard' part refers to it being near the ocean. The 'eastern' part refers to it being in the eastern United States, your focal point. And to be true, Canada can have an "Eastern Seaboard" and so could Brazil, because they have eastern cities along the coast of their country. They just may not call it that. And as far as Midwest or Mountain states referring to themselves as "Northwest" at one time, that's because they were the Northwestern most part of our country at that time, when the United States was expanding westward. We gave that title based on boundaries in our own country. If that were not the case, then Calgary would have been called northwest too, and that doesn't make any sense. Plain and simple: If southern British Columbia were to become part of Washington state, then Vancouver would be Pacific Northwest. But as it stands, it is not in northwestern Canada, and it is not in the northwestern United States, so its technically not "Pacific Northwest", unless you're including everything down to Los Angeles as Pacific Northwest. We, as Americans, just call Vancouver northwest because its near the Pacific Northwest of our country. That's all it is, pure and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

File:Nordamerikanische Kulturareale en.png

Why is Eastern and not seaboard the focal point? And same with East Coast and West Coast. As to the Midwest at one time calling themselves NW, apparently I wasn't clear. They still often do, that's the point. Are you familiar with Northwest Airlines and where they are based and founded out of (again, also see [Norwest|Norwest Financial]])? If you've ever been back there it is rather odd when you hear those people referring to that area as the NW. As to Vancouver becoming part of Washington, you do realize it was all one chuck of real estate until arbitrary boundaries were added in 1846? That's why the natives are all called Northwest Coast despite the national boundaries, see map. And, again, as many people have told you, people in Vancouver (please take the time to read the blue links people provide you) do refer to themselves (i.e. self identification) as being in the Pacific Northwest. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously -- this discussion belongs at Talk:Pacific Northwest. Especially if there's a desire to incorporate the views of Canadian editors, who are very unlikely to notice this discussion here. For anyone who sees value in further discussion, please do it there. -Pete (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Pete is right, this belongs in the "Pacific Northwest" article. I'll leave saying this so there's no confusion on what I'm stating: With the phrase "Eastern Seaboard", the word "seaboard" refers to those cities being near the ocean. The word "eastern" refers to their position in the United States. Now with that same logic, let's look at the phrase "Pacific Northwest". The word "Pacific" refers to those cities being near the Pacific Ocean. The word "northwest" refers to their position in the United States. Vancouver is not in the northwestern United States, and it is not in northwestern Canada. By that token, it is not a Pacific Northwest city. *Now for a separate defintion: If you want to look at it in broader terms and are judging Vancouver's status as a Pacific Northwest city based on the entire Pacific Ocean, well that's fine, but it also makes San Francisco and Los Angeles Pacific Northwest cities as well, since the Ocean stretches all the way down to the tip of South America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a good illustration of why reliable sources are so vital to Wikipedia. It's not up to us to decide what "makes sense"; all we can do is republish stuff that's in common usage. I don't have any problem with your logic, but this region is commonly referred to as the PNW, just as New Jersey is commonly referred to as the Garden State...the relative lack of gardens notwithstanding. -Pete (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Portland Nicknames

In the main information box, it gives the following as Portland's nickname: Rose City, Stumptown, Bridgetown, PDX, Beervana, Brewtopia, Beertown, and Little Beirut Does anyone else think that for a lead info box that maybe this should just give the main one? To be honest, I've lived in Portland my entire life and have only heard of "Rose City" being the nickname and of course in online situations, "PDX". Although I don't doubt that maybe some call Portland by these other names, but would it be more appropriate to maybe list the other nicknames in the article rather than all of them in the info box? Maybe even a reason for the nicknames. Kman543210 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I have been here for 12 yrs and have never heard anyone call it "Beervana, Brewtopia or Beertown". The rest I have heard.
Can we agree to list only "Rose City" or none at all? --travisthurston05:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I did some googling, and found "Beervana" describing the brew industry and not the city as a whole. Also "brewtopia" and "beertown" are used by other cities and events and are now way unique to the Rose City. On a side note, Seattle has one nickname, LA and SF have, for the most part, "well-known" nicknames listed.--travisthurston 18:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree about less nicknames versus more. However, "Beervana" is common enough that PBS used it in a show about the history of beer in Portland.Tedder (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Unhappiest City in America - a moniker earned though its high depression, suicide, divorce, and crime rates as well as its 222 cloudy days a year? I've also seen at least one online review by a resident refer to it as America's "Theresienstadt." Judging from our high depression, suicide and divorce rates rates this might not be all that far off. None of these topics have been addressed in this piece, which to me seems a bit biased, rather than fitting the balanced standards for a Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.131.126 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames II

Recent editing activity questions some of the nicknames presented by the article. I provide this research to help resolve the issue.

Nickname	Portland-specific Google hits	Portland-specific Google search	Unrestricted Google hits	Unrestricted Google search	Portland-specific hit relevance
Rose City	131000	[3]	1430000	[4]	9.1%
Stumptown	81800	[5]	368000	[6]	22.2%
Stump town	551	[7]	7390	[8]	7.4%
Bridgetown	274000	[9]	7250000	[10]	3.8%
Rip City	7090	[11]	82600	[12]	8.6%
Beervana	9370	[13]	27400	[14]	34.2%
Brewtopia	757	[15]	27600	[16]	2.7%
Beertown	13300	[17]	124000	[18]	10.7%
Mayberry on Mushrooms	1	[19]	2	[20]	50%
San Francisco run by Canadians	2	[21]	2	[22]	100%
Little Beirut	2790	[23]	20100	[24]	13.9%
P-Town	27400	[25]	1080000	[26]	2.5%

—EncMstr (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

When looking for a citation for "Rip City" I came across the following article which discusses a lawsuit threatened by the Blazers against two Portland Businesses: Rip City Diner, and Rip City Ts: {{Citation | first = Nena | last = Baker | title = Trail Blazers say 'Rip City' is all theirs, Warn Others | date = May 15, 1991 | newspaper = The Oregonian | pages = D01 }} The following is from the article:

The Blazers contend that Rip City is not a generic expression associated with Portland -- like the Rose City , for example. ``Unlike names such as the Rose City , Rip City is not used to identify Portland outside the context of Trail Blazers basketball, Blazers' attorneys wrote in a letter to Brooks' partner, James Flad. The owner of the Rip City Diner, Ron Armstrong, was unavailable for comment Tuesday evening. ``We don't want to put people out of business, but on the other hand it's crucial that we protect our trademark, said Marshall Glickman, senior vice president of marketing for the Blazers. The Blazers said they want the two Rip City businesses to immediately stop using the phrase, and to pay appropriate royalties for past sales associated with the expression.

Another article right around the same time ({{Citation | first = Nena | last = Baker | title = Getting Riled up in Rip City | date = May 17, 1991 | newspaper = The Oregonian | pages = A01 }} further discusses the nickname lawsuits:

Nevertheless, Leonard Du Boff, a professor of law at Lewis and Clark College and the author of several books on intellectual property rights, says the Blazers have a strong case for claiming `` rip city as their own -- whether Schonely invented it or not. ``They probably didn't coin it, but they have appropriated it and have used it in connection with their product and it has come to be associated with the team, Du Boff said. Under federal trademark law, anybody else who uses the phrase can be seen as diluting its value for the Blazers, he said.

A few days later {{Citation | first = Nena | last = Baker | title = R.I.P. FOR 'Rip City' Ruckus | date = May 21, 1991 | newspaper = The Oregonian | pages = A01 }} the Blazers gave up after a bunch of bad P.R.:

The Portland Trail Blazers, hoping the great `` rip city controversy will now R.I.P., said Monday they are relinquishing all rights to `` rip city and ``red hot `n' rollin' as team trademarks. Both phrases were made popular by Blazer radio announcer Bill Schonely. The team claimed them as common-law trademarks, although they were never federally registered. The announcement was an abrupt about-face for the Blazers, who as recently as Friday were sending letters threatening legal action to those who the team thought were infringing on the trademarks. ``We believe our legal position is absolutely correct and that we have attempted to enforce our claim for the right reasons, said Marshall Glickman, senior vice president of marketing for the National Basketball Association team.``However, our fans, and virtually everyone in the media, have made it clear to us that they want the terms ` rip city ' and `red hot `n' 'n' rollin' ' to be in the public domain, for use by all.

I guess this info would be valuable in the Trail Blazers article. I will put the last as the citation for the Rip City nickname for Portland since even though they were initially claiming ownership (and the fact that it was coined by their announcer) I think the end results supports the fact that Portlanders claim it as their own nickname. Cacophony (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Economy

I added a start for an economy section per a discussion around March of 2007, (now archived). I tried to find as many initial references as I could for the information, but feel that the economy section could use some extensive peer-review and expansion. It might also be beneficial if anyone is up to doing a quick copy-edit or would like to wikify any content that I did not format ideally. (I am afterall not a frequent contributer... or not frequent enough to go without some help.) JordanRL (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

New Sections

I recently added the Economy section to the article per a discussion that took place over a year ago. I'm a bit appalled that nothing had been added in the interium, and looking at the article I think there are several potential sections that could be added to provide a better article about the city, and promote this page to FA status. Here are some topics I think might enhance the Portland, Oregon article:

• Architecture
• Shanghai Tunnels (Culture)
• Portland Development Commission [This should probably be made into its own page as well, especially considering that it's linked at least once on the article and the PDC is of relatively high importance within the city; perhaps the planning a development section under Law & Government should be broken into its own section]
• City Politics (Law & Government) [This should probably include a list of mayors, and highlights from defining political moments for the city, such as the Mult. County Income Tax, the contraversy over the street renaming to "Chavez", the stark contrast of Portland politics and politics in the rest of the state, etc.]
• Free Speech [This section needs a LOT more in it... there's a lot to say on the topic for Portland]
• Parks & attractions [This section could be expanded to include nearby recreational activites; for instance it would probably be of interest to note that Mt. Hood provides year round skiing, and the Oregon Coast provides year rounds surfing and fishing, and that both are within a one and a half hour drive from city center]
• Notable residents [This section is linked to the larger article, however a brief summary of some of the more prominent members would benefit the article.]
• Infrastructure [It would add a lot to the article to have a few subsections discussing the sewer systems, utilities, police/fire/rescue, hospitals/medical facilities (as opposed to simply medical schools), and other basic infrastructure related topics.]
• Unique Climate Situations [A very small section under climate about the Gorge Effect Weather might be pertinent, as it is a situation very unique to the city and makes predicting the weather much more difficult in Portland than many other locations, particularly in the Winter.]

These are a few of my suggestions, and not all of them might be appropriate. They all, however, would provide soemthing to the article that I think is missing currently. JordanRL (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Free Speech Clarification

User:Loodog asked for a clarification of why and/or how the Oregon Constitution provides more extensive free speech protections than the federal constitution. Per the linked article on the Oregon Constitution:

The Oregon Constitution is easier to amend than its Federal counterpart. Amending the U.S. Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in Congress and ratification by three fourths of the states. Oregon only requires a simple majority to vote in favor of an amendment once it has been referred to the voters either by a simple majority of the legislature or through an initiative petition.

And

• Natural rights inherent in people
• Freedom of worship
• Freedom of religious opinion
• No religious qualification for office
• No money to be appropriated for religion
• No religious test for witnesses or jurors
• Manner of administering oath or affirmation
• Freedom of speech and press
• Unreasonable searches or seizures
• Administration of justice

...

• Ex-post facto laws; laws impairing contracts; laws depending on authorization in order to take effect; laws submitted to electors
• Suspension of operation of laws

...

• Corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate
• Assemblages of people; instruction of representatives; application to legislature
• Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power
• Quartering soldiers

...

• Taxes and duties; uniformity of taxation (amended 1917)
• Enumeration of rights not exclusive

...

• Work and training for corrections institution inmates; work programs; limitations; duties of corrections director (adopted 1994; amended 1997, 1999)
• Rights of victim in criminal prosecutions and juvenile court delinquency proceedings (adopted 1999)
• Rights of victim and public to protection from accused person during criminal proceedings; denial of pretrial release (adopted 1999)
• Term of imprisonment imposed by court to be fully served; exceptions (adopted 1999)
• Person convicted of certain crimes not eligible to serve as juror on grand jury or trial jury in criminal case (adopted 1999)

I'm not sure how these things can be clearly conveyed within that sentence other than the link to the Oregon Constitution article, which already exists. JordanRL (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how any of these things are related to free speech being protected more in Oregon than from the U.S. Constitution. "Freedom of speech and press" is in the U.S. Constitution as well, is it not? Kman543210 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of these tangental provisions in the Oregon Constitution enumerate what the Supreme Court sees as symbolic speech, however perhaps it would be better if the sentence talked about expanded general rights in addition to speech, instead of free speech specifically? EDIT: In addition, the cited article from the Portland Mercury explains the exact wording that was intended: the Oregon Constitution classifies stripping as a form of free speech, there-by limiting the ability of municipalities to regulate them like they do in other states. JordanRL (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Oregon Constitution provides much greater free speech protection than the U.S. Constitution. Recent examples include "adult" materials and strip clubs. A 1987 Oregon Supreme court decision is explained in the NY Times. —EncMstr (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Many of my law professors mention this, but I think this is something far better suited for the Oregon article or the article on the OR Constitution, and then maybe a sentence in this article, as obviously the situation is not unique to Portland. And the whole stronger state constitution thing is not unique to Oregon (especially given the fact that our constitution was "borrowed" from Indiana's, which was likely borrowed from another state as well). Now the interpretations (that's why stripping is speech) and the work of Hans Linde on the interpretations of the state constitution are somewhat unique. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the main discussion should be moved to another article. The justices of the Oregon Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have used the "greater free speech protection" phrase so often in their written decisions, that it has essentially become a cliche in legal circles. Since the U.S. Constitution explicitly permits states to grant rights, in excess of those found at the Federal level, it would seem that linking this section of the article to the article on the Oregon constitution should be sufficient.Mickproper (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments wanted on MAX, Streetcar maps

I have made maps of the MAX Light Rail and Portland Streetcar systems and submitted them to Picture Peer Review. If anyone would like to, feel free to comment on them there. Thanks, Jason McHuff (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's some really extraordinary work Jason, thanks for sharing! -Pete (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. As a follow-up, I have sent the MAX map to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates (see the discussion on it here) and have decided to place it in the MAX article. Jason McHuff (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

use of "coined"?

It has been coined the greenest city in the United States, and second greenest in the world.

This, to me, did not appear to be the proper use of the word "coined"; I thought "called" was probably better, but I'm leaving it alone. Unschool (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Why not go ahead and change it? Coldmachine^Talk 02:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The dark side

Perhaps there should be a section detailing some of the negative/scandalous/controversial things that have happened in Portland. Just because reality isn't made out of 100% sunshine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.161 (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If it can be verified, and written from a neutral point of view then why not sign up for an account and go ahead? Coldmachine^Talk 18:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than lumping all the "dark side" stuff into one section, why not place any appropriate, verified information into the corresponding category in the article for a more balanced view? Kman543210 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep Portland Weird Festival

Perhaps a correction or addition should be made about the Keep Portland Weird Festival - "As a city with a strong tradition of bizarre festivals such as the Keep Portland Weird Festival,[31]..." The copyright for the slogan is held by Music Millennium. To my knowledge there has only been one festival under that name so far, and that was hosted by the Multnomah County Library's Central branch in Oct. 2007. The library was granted a one-time use of the slogan; this has been granted again for the 2008 festival, to be held Nov. 8th. Here's a link to the event page for reference - www.multcolib.org/events/kpw.html. 192.220.129.43 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Alison

I've never heard of this festival and I've lived here all my life. I couldn't find any sources online for it, either. Perhaps not noteworthy? pinotgris 06:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos

I removed two photos (barn, newspaper box) just now that were quite frankly unencyclopedic and didn't add value to the article. I'm also questioning the photo of a beer bottle ... perhaps a picture of the Widmer Brothers Brewery on Interstate would be a better representation for that section? Just a thought. pinotgris 06:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Length

Education should have its own article. I'm proposing this. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Any consideration to creating more subarticles for the main article? Michellecrisp (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles don't get created by vote, but by research and writing. I wholeheartedly support the creation of an article about education in Portland, and a brief summary in this article. If you want to write it, I will do what I can to help. -Pete (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a vote, thanks. But aim to notify other editors of plans to improve article. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my comment. If you want to split off the education section please go ahead. -Pete (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Crusade against redlinks

Red links aren't bad- non-notable links are bad, but red links are okay- they show that Wikipedia isn't complete. Please don't delete them without a good reason. Tedder (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, as is outlined in Wikipedia:Red link. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We simply can't have articles with many red links, Wikipedia is not a list of most or every school, entity in a city etc. See WP:NOTDIR Many red links especially those that have been there for months may be considered non notable if no article has been created. If red links are to stay there should be one or two citations indicating notability, and a citation shouldn't be the website of the red link entity itself. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the red link on Portland's chinese newspaper, many cities have weekly or daily Chinese language newspapers yet don't rate a mention in the city's article: Sydney#Media , Melbourne#Media, Toronto#Media . Whilst Vancouver#Multicultural_media and San_francisco#Media has blue links. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

First, with the other cities see WP:OTHERSTUFF as to why we usually do not take into consideration other stuff. Second, if you were familiar with Portland then you would know that not every school or entity in the city has a mention or even a red link in the article (see the history of the page for the continual removal of non-notables). With NOT, well then you should remove the entire list of schools/entities then and not just the red links, otherwise you are selectively applying the guideline. Anyways, those red links that remain are links the regular editors feel half a chance at becoming blue links. And there is no time limit, so there is no rush to create these articles. As Wikipedia:Red link is the only controlling guideline on this topic (removal of red links), we should follow it, which is to say that red links should only be removed if the article to be created would likely fail WP:N. As we've said, that is not the case with the red links you have removed. As sourcing to show notability, um well, per WP:N that gets done on that topics article. Otherwise we would need to provide multiple cites to demonstrate notability for everything on the page, plus then cites for what exactly it was used for on this page. Of course then there is also the whole thing that notability only controls article existence, not the content, and this goes for all your edits on this article (per edit summary of "we only need to list most notable ones"). That is, the most un-notable person in the world who does not have and never will have an article on Wikipedia can be included in another article. To quote WP:N: "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." Aboutmovies (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As I am not from Portland I am also applying the test that Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopaedia that anyone can read to gather concise information about a city etc. I've seen many a time non notable entities added as red links that never get converted to stubs or even citations added. you say "And there is no time limit, so there is no rush to create these articles." well I am challenging the existence of these red links, no time limit sounds ridiculous to me, red links cannot simply exist forever on Wikpedia articles, there is of course nothing stopping anyone readding redlinks with citation in future. It is always good to compare with other well developed city articles in wikipedia especially good articles and featured articles. you have misinterpreted WP:NOT yes it says not a list of everything but that does not mean remove EVERYTHING. it does mean the most notable in any city, such as the most notable museums, most notable sports played, the most notable historical events. simple. Michellecrisp (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I often do look at other FA and GA articles (for instance Hillsboro, Oregon that I worked up to GA) and many of those cities do have lists like these, they just happen to be in sub articles. If these sub articles were created, then the collection of notable people/places/things can be moved there, such as has been done with List of people from Portland, Oregon, List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon, and List of mayors of Portland, Oregon. But that still would not justify removing red links just because they are red links, per WP:REDLINKS. Apparently you think it is fine to remove red links that are uncited, but just as unsourced blue links remain? The articles themselves, such as Daily Journal of Commerce may not be sourced at all. So it seems the only criteria is that they are red links, which to quote WP:REDLINKS: Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished.

Misinterpret, well tell me what this means then in regards to the "most notable in any city": Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered).

Next, as to what would be the most notable in any city, I would find it difficult to image than you would have access to the paid archives of most US newspapers and other media that would be used to source these articles and thus per WP:N demonstrate notability. Without third-party, WP:RS, how are you judging notability? Aboutmovies (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Misinterpret? you didn't let me use WP:OTHERSTUFF argument with regard to Chinese times now you're using it here? If you have access to paid archives, it means it still can be citated. Please provide references to improve article. Also as per WP:Red link perhaps you would like to try converting some red links to blue links? Lastly, it's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that those wanting to include info need to justify its conclusion and notability with citations, perhaps you can help in this regard? Since a number of people are claiming these red links are notable, I'd like to see some citations for it. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Michelle, it's pretty funny you're suggesting that AM convert redlinks to bluelinks, as that is all he does here. He initiated a high-priority redlink list to help out the rest of us in this regard. Wiki is slow, we're all volunteers, and the redlinks will get turned into bluelinks eventually. Check this out You've actually stumbled upon a highly-active and aware WikiProject that watches this article. I agree a great deal of it needs cleanup, like the section on knitting and such, but honestly, give us a break here. You're dangerously close to templating the regulars. I think you'd get a bit further if you discussed more of your suggested changes here on the talk page. Again, it's great you're sparking us to take a closer look at this article, I personally tend to avoid it like the plague, but give us the benefit of the doubt when we tell you certain things are notable despite being redlinks. You can check out WP:ORE for more about our project. Katr67 (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to WP:OWN#EVENTS and rather than telling me it's notable, how about some evidence? by that I mean 1 or 2 reliable ctiations. I'd like to avoid original research here or in any article in Wikipedia. It is merely a suggestion to start building up some stubs from red links. That is the intention of red links. I'd appreciate if you have good faith in my edits/comments too. thanks for drawing my attention to the red link list. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Jumping in

The Yeon bit is true, and can be cited. The Houston bit is true, and can be cited. The Chinese Times is a significant paper, and should not be removed.

There's lots of room for improvement in this article, but simply deleting stuff without discussion is not the best way to get there. -Pete (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If the chinese times is significant, please provide citation to establish notability. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine. http://www.echo-media.com/MediaDetaiLNP.asp?IDNumber=14448 -Pete (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Michelle, as Katr has pointed out, you're dealing with three editors with a number of GAs and FAs under our belt, and who work continually to foster collaboration. I think we all appreciate the outside perspective on an important article that's needed improvement for some time, but a little irritated by the way you've chosen to present yourself. I would welcome the opportunity to improve this article, but am not enjoying the form it's taking thus far. -Pete (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Portland international beerfest

A Google news search reveals only 1 story when I searched "all dates". Whilst a Google search reveals mainly self published sources. So I'm putting this up for discussion, is this event actually notable? Michellecrisp (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't much, but Lonely Planet mentions it in their Portland guide. Outside Magazine called it "America's Oktoberfest". Here's a NYT article that mentions it: "and a beer festival every July". Finally, here's another NYT article from 1999: "The Oregon Brewers Festival will bring an estimated 90,000 beer fans to Tom McCall Waterfront Park". Tedder (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I found three articles in newspapers that have more than trivial coverage, plus mentions in papers from as far away as Omaha and Seattle. And that doesn't count Willamette Week articles or those from The Portland Tribune. So I would say yes, it is notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's notable enough. Oregon has been known over the last couple of decades as, probably, the most significant microbrew region in the U.S. (largely attributable to the quality of Willamette Valley hops), and the Portland beer fest is, I think, the biggest event showcasing that. I suspect that now it's getting to the point that lots of regions would compete, but I think Oregon pretty much put craft brewing on the U.S. map. I do think there's often a tendency to get too many of these industry promotion events on articles like this…but this event actually is a pretty big deal.

Also, in case there's any confusion, WP:NOTE is only an inclusion criterion for articles. Often there are subjects that merit mention in an article like this one, without meeting the criterion. (In this case, though, I think the point is moot -- if somebody wanted to write an article about the beer fest, I don't think it would be deleted.)

Thanks for looking up those articles, Tedder and AM -- I'll work at least one of them in. -Pete (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for providing references. yes I am aware of Portland's reputation for brewing. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I think we're confusing two events. I believe the Oregon Brewers Festival is the big event that's existed for a long time, and is mentioned in the NY Times articles, while the Portland International Beerfest is a more recent addition. I'm not 100% sure of that. I think maybe a single sentence mentioning all the beer events would be sufficient. -Pete (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pete- it does sound like there is some confusion. I'm certainly confused- I didn't know there was more than one event, and I can almost see that are of the waterfront from the window behind my desk. It's probably worth clearing that up in the article- if we are confused, some readers probably are too! Tedder (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to clear up the differences. -Pete (talk)

The Brewers festival brings up 111 articles on Google news search, definitely notable! Michellecrisp (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Hi, I would like to discuss merging Rip City into Portland, Oregon. Its just the explanation for the nickname. --DerRichter (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is already pretty long, how about Nicknames of Portland, Oregon in order to move even more content out of the main article? Aboutmovies (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a logical idea. Is there precedent on other city articles for this? If so they might help form the basis of the new article, and how to go about moving content etc. Coldmachine^Talk 21:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Portland, Oregon nicknames earlier, but got sidetracked by life. :-) See the first section of this talk page: A long list of nicknames were included in the article at one time. While interesting, they don't provide a great deal of information about the city, so splitting them and developing them to their logical conclusion makes excellent sense to me. —EncMstr (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favor of creating one of those nicknames pages. Do I have the authority to delete Rip City when doing this? All of the information in it is unsourced anyways. We could either add the nicknames to List of city nicknames in the United States or create List of city nicknames in Oregon because it seems like there are a lot. What do you think? --DerRichter (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're an admin, you can't delete pages. However, the better solution is to move Rip City, fix its problems, and expand with other names. —EncMstr (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of creating a Nicknames of Portland, Oregon article, and I will attest to Rose City, Stumptown, Bridetown, and Rip City all being extremely common nicknames for Portland. LinguistAtLarge (talk) 07:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the move. I'm sure there are some things that still need to be cleaned up. LinguistAtLarge (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Strip clubs per capita

The statement at Portland,_Oregon#Free_speech seems complete POV to me, also WP:UNDUE. there could be a number of contributing reasons for strip clubs...maybe demographics, maybe other liberal attitudes. one citation backing up the reason for this is not reliable enough for me. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article that describes it pretty well.[27] I don't think a section entitled free speech that only talks about strip clubs is the best way to include the info, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I remembered another free speech item and added it. I looked for, but couldn't find, anything about the Gay Pride parade which typically has many topless women and naked people marching by. Anyone? —EncMstr (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's one.[28] I'm not sure all this really goes under the heading "Free speech". Maybe it should go under liberal or something. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(pssst.... that's the wrong Portland.) —EncMstr (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

D'oh. The Portland Maine one started at Deering Oaks Park. I missed the Deering and thought it was about Portland, Oregon. I bet the Oregonian archives have something on it. Maybe I'll check tomorrow. You can to if you have a Multnomah library card.` - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked the Oregonion archive, and they do have some articles. I emailed you an article. I don't think I can copy/paste them here for copyright reasons. I think there are a few more too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Got it—thanks. But it doesn't mention anything about protected free speech. —EncMstr (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the strip clubs are due more to a free speach clause in the OR constitution and a liberal state supreme court, which isn't portland specific. It's also not clear to me why the nude bicyclists are free speech related. According to the ref, it's because of a "a well-established tradition in Portland". Is that tradition free speach? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(redent) Basically, as a Portlander, I know the strip clubs are a notable part of Portland. I also agree that the various alternative parades should be mentioned. I'm just not sold on the idea that they go under a seperate section entitled "Free speech". I'm not sure where the info should go, so maybe you're right, but it just seems a little off to me right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs)

Good points. I was trying to fill in what I perceived to be the direction of the original creator of the section. It looks like I took a wrong turn somewhere.... —EncMstr (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we have two choices as far as major sections go: "Culture and contemporary life" and "Law and government". I'm leaning to somewhere in the Culture section, although I could be persuaded otherwise. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

major sports teams

We should have the discussion here rather than by having a revert war. Basically, the discussion is whether the Portland Lumberjax, a lacrosse team, should be listed as a Major North American professional sports team. The following comments are from the reverts and edits:

• RevTenderBranson said: Deleted "and the NLL's Portland Lumberjax " and changed opening "Portland has two..." to "Portland has one..." No one considers the NLL to be a major league.)
• Coldmachine said: Technically it's a Major Indoor Lacrosse League. And by 'no-one' who do you mean?

I removed the lumberjax entry, since NLL does not appear on the Major North American professional sports teams page. Please discuss it here rather than turning this into an edit war. tedder (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up on the lacrosse page, Tedder. My inclination -- open to persuasion -- is that the LumberJax should be included. Even if the league is not considered major by national standards, they are one of very few teams that generate much interest in Portland. It is a professional league (I'm almost certain), and it gets a reasonable amount of coverage locally, so it I think it should probably stay. Interested to see what others think, though. -Pete (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, by reinserting the content you are engaging in the edit war you purportedly seek to avoid. The typical edit cycle is bold, revert, discuss. You should not have reverted the revert as this constitutes edit warring. On the issue itself: the National Lacrosse League is categorised on the 'pedia under Category:Major Indoor Lacrosse League. You seem to be confusing 'national' with 'major league' here. The two are not synonymous. The sentence states 'major league', not 'national' therefore the inclusion of the Lumberjax seems entirely logical and legitimate. Coldmachine^Talk 10:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was wrong. It seems as though the definition of "major league" is just to be the top tier league in the sport. My impression was always that the designation was only for the top tier of "big" sports. Obviously NLL does not have the following of MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL or even MLS but it is clearly the top league for indoor lacrosse in the US (and I believe Canada as well). As such I withdraw my objection to the language. Other thoughts? --RevTenderBranson (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that there is more of a notability issue than just "top of the class for a given sport". Otherwise my extreme ironing would qualify to be listed. That's why I used the Major North American professional sports teams link- it seems to be a rough indicator of notability. To put it in more wiki-friendly terms, lumping NLL with NBA appears to put WP:UNDUE on the NLL. In any case, what I like about the WP:ORE community is we can have these type of discussions without it turning into an edit war, which is obviously not what any of us were after. tedder (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this type of situation was discussed before, but I don't recall where and if it was just regarding Portland or the broader issue of which leagues are "major league". But see the Big Four at Major professional sports leagues of the United States and Canada and I believe the talk page. My personal opinion is that it Portland has one, the Blazers. I'm pretty sure this could be sourced as I believe The Oregonian has written this many times when discussing possible new teams from the NHL or MLB moving to Portland. To put it other terms, when you are watching ESPN, the NHL, NFL, NBA, and MLB are always on the ticker for their regular seasons at the bottom of the screen (I think MLS as well, but that might be a COI thing with ESPN owning the broadcasting rights), but I personally don't recall the NLL or other lacrosse leagues being listed except for their playoffs. Throw in the salary differences between the players of the Big Four and NLL, the length of time the NLL has been around compared to the other leagues, and its hard to say the NLL is in the same picture at this time. The way lacrosse has exploded the last decade, maybe it gets there, but for now its not. See also franchise values. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If notability is the concern then the National Lacrosse League article should be tagged and processed as an AfD accordingly, but this has little to do with inclusion of text here on Portland, Oregon about major local teams. And again, of course the NLL is by no means as comparatively large or its players as well paid as those of the national leagues; this is a given, and is also moot at the same time since we're not here to debate the comparative qualities of various North American Leagues. Since it seems the controversy surrounds use of the "Major North American professional sports teams" element in the sentence I propose that the text be amended as the following section on consensus puts forward. Coldmachine^Talk 09:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment the league could be notable but not necessarily the teams in the leage notable enough for stand-alone articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for consensus for change

I propose that the sentence being discussed above be amended as follows, since this accounts for the need to distinguish the NLL from actual Major North American professional sports teams and at the same time recognising that the NLL is a major league (it's categorised as such, even, on the 'pedia) and that the Lumberjax are a major team in local terms:

• "Portland has two major league professional sports teams: the NBA's Trail Blazers and the NLL's Portland LumberJax. The city is also home to a number of minor league teams."

Is there a consensus for this change? Coldmachine^Talk 09:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, can you provide a citation from a reliable source that says this? My inclination would be it would be difficult, as The Oregonian as the main paper (and I believe I have read the same from SI and on ESPN) consistently has considered Portland as home to only one. To quote a recent article "the biggest U.S. city with just one major league team" and you know they are not talking about the Lumberjax. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

'Major league' is defined as the highest level of play in a given sport, or the most important league in any given sport [29]. The NLL represents this for the sport of Box lacrosse (i.e. indoor lacrosse) which is evidenced by the fact it has "the best players in the world" [30] (whether you personally agree with that or not, it's a third party source). If you are disputing whether NLL is the highest level of play for Box lacrosse then I'd volunteer your argument falls neatly within the Ignoratio elenchi category and you may want to start by 'fixing' the wide array of articles on Wikipedia which have already made the connection we now are asked to 'prove': here, here, here, and here (for starters). It's not an exceptional claim, so it doesn't require an exceptional source. Coldmachine^Talk 13:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's all nice, but you need to read about original research, specifically synthesis. You need a source saying Portland has two. As NLL, I don't care what level they are with lacross, that's not what is being addressed here, so anything about that is as you said, Ignoratio elenchi. As to exceptional claims, no it doesn't need an exceptional source, but it does need a source saying that, i.e. what you wrote above, and what you have provided doesn't mention Portland at all. Aboutmovies (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not synthesis at all, and I've been editing long enough to know about content policies, thanks anyway. It's about 1+1=2, not 1. The NLL is the major league for Box lacrosse; that is an established verifiable fact. The Portland LumberJax are a Box lacrosse team playing in the NLL; they therefore constitute a major league team. Therefore Portland has two major league teams. How about the sentence omits the word 'two' if it's that bothersome: "Portland is home to major league teams which include the the NBA's Trail Blazers and the NLL's Portland LumberJax. The city is also home to a number of minor league teams." I fail to understand your objection to simple arithmetic. Perhaps we should open this up to a wider audience including WP:ORE and WP:LAX. I'll post an invite on the respective talkpages. Coldmachine^Talk 14:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• I here to chime in based on an invite at WP:LAX. If "major league" is the highest level of the sport played the NLL is clearly "major league". However, I do not personally believe that the NLL is commonly considered major league - that is generally for the "Big 4" (as pointed out by others above), IMO. I think this disagreement could be settled with modified wording. Why not just drop the term "major professional sports team"? I suggest replacing it with the Blazers being the most notable, followed by the top-tier sports (i.e. not big 4 : NLL & MLS - order doesn' matter) then mention the minor league sports. Is it true that the remaining minor league sports are not playing at the sports highest level? Then I suggest:

“ Portland is the home to a a number of professional sports teams. Most notably, the NBA's Trail Blazers. The city is also host to a top level box lacrosse team in the NLL's Portland LumberJax, and is currently one of six cities applying for a Major League Soccer expansion team. The city is also home to a number of minor league teams. Running is a major (should this read "popular") sport in the metropolitan area, which hosts the Portland Marathon and much of the Hood to Coast Relay (the world's largest such event). ”

Thanks. - Mitico (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is no way that the NLL can be considered a "major" sport league right now or used in a sentence that elevates it to the same importance as the NBA. That doesn't mean NLL isn't the top level division for box lacrosse it just means that there aren't any reliable sources that establish it as a "major sport" like the NFL, NBA, WNBA, MSL, and NHL. Also, where are you getting that "major league" is the top level division for a sport? Baseball is the only "major sport" that divides up their levels by major and minor, soccer tends to divide it's various levels between senior and junior leagues, or premier and developmental, american football and basketball don't really have different divisions, they just have practice squads, and hockey goes with premier and junior... If you want to include the Lumberjax in the opening paragraph, there are other ways of doing it, but elevating them to the same level of the Trailblazers is a no go. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(deindenting) Mitico, I think you are getting down to the heart of the issue nicely- instead of arguing on the details of the word 'major' simply using a few levels of 'notability' instead. I like where you are headed with that! tedder (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And while I'm typing slow... Mitico comes up with a decent alternative. Perhaps replace the first two sentences of Mitico's suggestion with "Portland is the largest US city with only one major professional sport team (NBA's Portland Trailblazers)." I'd also agree with Mitico that the reference to running should be popular rather than major. My one complaint is with the use of levels of "notability" as the distinguisher as that tends to be a rather wishy-washy... Are the Lumberjax really more notable than the Winter Hawks, Timbers, and Beavers? I know they are lower division teams, but they have as much saturation into the Portland market as the Lumberjax. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree; I think the proposed reword by Mitico is an ideal solution. Coldmachine^Talk 16:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I updated with what I believe is consensus. Bobblehead has a point regarding judging notability. The current format, as I suggested, is based on level of play, instead of popularity. That said, popularity can easily be judged by attendance & local newspaper coverage. I can see mentioning the Winter Hawks, Timbers, and Beavers in the lead paragraph, too. I'll leave the rest up to you Oregonians. Mitico (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)