Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

New Mayors

I was wondering if folks would like to help out updating the 200 or so articles on Oregon cities by checking to see if they have had a new mayor elected and changing the mayor's name in the infobox? It should be pretty easy to find most of them by checking the cities' websites, though it's likely some haven't been updated yet and some cities don't have websites, so a little extra googling may be needed. I've been reverting updates for places where the former mayor was still in office for a week or two, but I think even if there are places where the mayor hasn't been formally sworn in, we can go ahead and change them now. For the folks who want to help out, please list range of cities below (with notes if you want) so we don't duplicate our efforts. I did two--only 239 to go... Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Tess! I jotted down the election results from several counties (Gilliam, Malheur, Wasco, Umatilla, Yamhill, etc.), which I have at home. I've discovered it might make more sense to update them by county instead of alphabetically... Katr67 (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I spot checked the Blue Book and it seems to be up-to-date, (except for the weird situation at Gold Hill) so I used that for the lastest batch of updates and it went much faster. Many city websites are still woefully out of date... Katr67 (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, they are all done! Thanks to The Grand Rans for finishing this up! Katr67 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cities completed

Archived working list of completed cities

(Example)*Foo, Oregon through Fooville, Oregon ~~~~ Adair Village (Currier ran unopposed) through Adams (Bryson ran unopposed) Katr67 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Albany through Carlton. (working) Katr67 (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Yachats, Yamhill (unchanged), and Yoncalla done --Tesscass (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC) I took care of Washington County cities (easier since the election results appear together) plus Wilsonville (partly there). Aboutmovies (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I did the Ls. That was interesting. One city was still deadlocked and hasn't selected a mayor yet, one mayor died in the past week, one had been recalled, and another won election 13 votes to 0. --Esprqii (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC) If you'd really like to be entertained, check out Yamhill County's election results. For some reason they've listed every single write-in. Katr67 (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC) What, no Lizard People? Surprising showing for Cosby, he should consider a real run. --Esprqii (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Lane County cities are done. Does anyone have an idea why Westfir doesn't have a mayor? The previous one resigned a while ago, and the Lane County elections results [1] don't show who's been running or voted in, just that there was a mayoral race. --Tesscass (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Hmm. It looks like Neil Friedman was the mayor later in 2008 (he's signed as supporting a ballot measure in the 11-04-08 voters' pamphlet.) But I can't find any results for the write-in campaign either. Is a call to Lane County Elections original research? Katr67 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Clatsop County completed. Aboutmovies (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Linn County done. Interesting thing about Sodaville, Oregon - the new mayor is a convicted felon. There's talk about a recall, which can't happen until after he's 6 months in office. --Tesscass (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Lincoln County completed. --Tesscass (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Lake County is done. --Tesscass (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Benton and Clackamas counties done. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Wheeler County, as fas as I can tell. --Tesscass (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Wasco County completed. --Tesscass (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Wallowa County - no mayoral races. --Tesscass (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Coos & Columbia counties done. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Letters A-G complete as well as Baker, Crook, Curry, Gilliam, Harney, Hood River, Jefferson, Josephine, and Malheur. Check the list below for what's left. Katr67 (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Note:List was no longer needed and was deleted. Katr67 (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Deschutes County done - Redmond and Sisters updated, La Pine no change. --Tesscass (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Douglas County done. --Tesscass (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Grant County checked. --Tesscass (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Jackson County done. --Tesscass (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Yamhill County is done. Katr67 (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Did Polk, Tesscass did Marion. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Did Union County The Grand Rans (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Did Umatilla County The Grand Rans (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Did Sherman County The Grand Rans (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Did Morrow County The Grand Rans (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Did Multnomah County; however, Portland listed Randy Leonard as a mayor under Sam Adams; I left a comment on the talk page and moved on. The Grand Rans (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC) The matter was settled. It turns out it was a problem with my browser. The Grand Rans (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Did Tillamook County The Grand Rans (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

RecentChangesCamp coming up soon!

Hello all,

Are you aware that the international (and free) Wiki conference RecentChangesCamp will be at Portland State University, the weekend of Feb. 21? Please check out the invitation on our wiki-based planning site, and feel free to add your name to the list of attendees. Watch this space, and our blog, for further news! -Pete (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Coburg, Oregon speed trap: encyclopedia worthy or tabloid fodder?

There is sort of a slow, ongoing edit war about this topic. Coburg, if you don't know is/was notorious for having its police pull over speeders on nearby I-5, thus enriching its city coffers. Jurisdiction issues and other hanky panky ensued. Sometimes the info is in the article, sometimes it is taken out by what likely are city boosters, sometimes it is taken out because it is stale. Currently all the info is sourced, and apparently it is an ongoing issue. I'm not sure if the topic is being given undue weight. I'm not that invested in having it in or out, I'm much more interested in all the nice old buildings and antique shops there. If a couple of people could take a look at the page history and maybe start a discussion on the talk page, that would help if there are questions in the future. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it is truth or not, but when I drive down the freeway when I travel between Salem and Eugene (which is rather frequently), it's not uncommon that I see someone pulled over or an officer sitting off the road watching with a radar gun. However, since it is usually dark when I pass, I cannot tell if the police vehicles are state, county, or city. Again, this is what I see and is in know way a guaranteed fact that it is a speed trap.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd keep the cites to the Seattle Times, but not the other. Claim a higher quality of sourcing from Seattle Times if need be. --Izno (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cave Junction, Oregon‎ is a GA

Pretty cool. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Great job Peregrine! And everybody else who helped. If all Oregon city articles had someone dedicated to working on improving them for over a year like CJ and Hillsboro, well...we'd have a lot of GA articles! Katr67 (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good job. I've driven through Cave Junction so many times its not even funny. -- Noj r (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The trick is living in the area so long that you feel a connection. I grew up in CJ. I've also lived a long time in Portland, but that's a tough nut to crack as far as GA goes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why limit to just Oregon cities? Let's try to make every Oregon GA articles.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll follow your lead. ;-) Another school of thought is to try and get as many as possible up to solid B status. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs)

No sah, I think I will follow your lead. You're established here, I've only just begun. Anyways, "If you reach for the stars, you will at least touch the sky." Remind me to go fishing with you, Fisher. XD Ryoga-2003 (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

An Oregon Sesquicentennial moment, brought to you by the Paul Bunyan Statue, aka the Big Concrete Dude

The birthday boy hangin' in Kenton

I just checked today's listing for the National Register of Historic Places, and was rather delighted to see that Mr. Bunyan here has been added to the list instead of sold off to some Paul Bunyan collector out of state. He was made for the Oregon Centennial, so this is likely a big-ol' marketing coup pulled off by somebody, as well as the big dude's 50th birthday. Much more historic than Seski the Sasquatch, even if he does claim to have invented microbrews. (he also blogs, facebooks and twitters...) Time to think about that Oregon 150 article yet? We could start things off with a DYK on Bunyan. You DYK folks should see if you can compete with any Valentine's related DYKs and try to get some Oregon ones in there... (And props to Cacophony for the great photo.) Katr67 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy belated sesquicentennial to all.

By the way, is the Big Concrete Dude really concrete? I never got up close enough to see what material he was. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 10:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's what the NRHP paperwork says... Katr67 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Confusing detail about state legislators' districts

Bill Garrard assumed his position as state representative in 2001, so his first term was in the 71st legislature. He represented district 53, Klamath Falls. In the 72nd legislature and onward, however, he has represented the 56th district, though his residence didn't change.

This makes me wonder how to describe his job in the infobox in his article. He is "Member of the Oregon House of Representatives from the 56th district" — but before that he was "Member of the Oregon House of Representatives from the 53rd district". They're technically different districts, it seems, but also in a way the same. I wasn't sure how to handle this when I created the article, but I decided to treat it as holding two separate offices, with notes clarifying that one predecessor and once successor were the result of redistricting.

Is this the right way to handle this anomaly? I notice that he's not the only legislator from before 2003 to have been assigned to a "different" district. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 02:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the project still alive? I'm still wondering if I handled this confusing problem correctly. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 10:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no right or wrong way to do it. It likely affects a third of all the legislators all-time with redistricting every ten years. I've done it a variety of ways, but usually with non-current reps I approach it like Joseph Simon, where I don't bother using the district number, just use the constituency. This could also be used for people currently in office. As to Garrard, how you did it is probably the best way as district numbers are more important for readers looking at the current members, especially where the information is not contain in the body of the article. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Still alive over here, more or less

...but utterly consumed by off-wiki work!

Just curious, did anybody see this intriguing Signpost article? Looks like something that might be promising for our project...maybe it will even bring it back to life ;)

In the meantime, don't forget to check in on our blog once in a while. -Pete (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. §hep^Talk 00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Religion in Oregon/Buddhism

I ran across this today Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyokuko Carlson. I don't have an opinion about whether or not this person is notable, but perhaps if this is deleted it can be used in a Buddhism section in the Religion in Oregon article. It's my impression that Buddhism is a pretty big part of Oregon's religious makeup, at least compared to, say, the midwest... Katr67 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly some of the information could be used. I think part of the difficulty with the Religion in Oregon article is simply organization. Should there be separate sections for the various denominations? Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, etc., then each section could be expanded? Thinking long term, if it possible the section would even branch off into specific articles (Buddhism in Oregon, Hinduism in Oregon, etc.), and Religion in Oregon would just be the base much like Controlled substances in Oregon is for Alcohol in Oregon, Cannabis in Oregon, etc. Information from the Gyokuko Carlson article could be included in the Buddhism section, if that is the organizational route the article takes. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That would probably work well with some of the existing content -- I think moving stuff like Methodist Mission and related articles into Methodism in Oregon would be a good move, for instance. Catholicism in Oregon would be another good one, to tie together stuff that's scattered among a bunch of biographies, the Archdiocese of Portland, etc. -Pete (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hillsboro FAC

FYI, Finetooth and I have been prepping IntelHillsboro, Oregon for FA and it is now up at FAC. And it looks like Columbia River may be soon as well. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Portland's Roosevelt HS: no entry?

I was reading a story about Roosevelt HS and realized there's no wiki entry for Roosevelt HS. That's kinda sad! Anyone want to help come up with reliable sources so we can create it? I have no experience researching high school information online, so I could use some help. tedder (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.roosevelt.pps.k12.or.us/
• http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/reportcard/reports.aspx (report cards- I think the school is listed under three different entries, haven't had time to make sure.. main report card 1, report card 2.. actually new listed as "Pursuit of Wellness Education at Roosevelt", report cards 1 2 (with good info))
• 3-school overview
• enrollment summary
• free/reduced meal eligibility
• 08/09 fiscal year budget (pgs 49, 163)

That made me worried Grant High School (Portland, Oregon) (my HS) might not have an article. Thank goodness it does. You might look at these sources. I'm sure Roosevelt is plenty notable. I think some famous sports people went ther, maybe. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have the google search open. Not too worried about notability, if we can get it built out decently. But other than that, any sources? It'd be nice to have school size, history (when did it open?), things like that. tedder (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you meant normal google search, so forgive me if you know all this. The search above is a news search over all dates with only free (some you need a library card) sources. If you're not familiar with it, a much percantage of the sources are reliable than with a normal search. Google books is also a good thing to check. With a library card, you can also get old Oregonian articles in the references section here. I don't think there's a miracle cure for High School articles, since their notability is such a contentious issue. I tried everything, but I wasn't able to come up much for Illinois Valley High School, another Oregon school I went to. If someone knows of a book that tells the history of these schools, that would be great. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, sorry, should have said "google news search, with all dates searched". I also have online access to lexis/nexis type sources, which was handy earlier today when I created this little article :-) High schools are really difficult. I'll start looking for some gov sources for test scores and class sizes. tedder (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you've got Lexis/Nexis, you should be set (although it sounds like a lot of searching). If you're looking for government stuff, remember the site:.gov, site:.ed.gov, etc. google search modifiers. Good luck. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I too thought it was strange that this and Marshall High School (Portland, Oregon) don't have articles yet. (Do the students there have less access to computers than the other schools?) I wouldn't worry too much about notability or copious references, as long as you write a decent stub (i.e. more than one sentence, gives the full context, and isn't nonsense), high school articles tend to not be deleted. The worst-case scenario is that they get upmerged to their school district article (or for high schools in really small towns to the town article). I keep on eye on most of the Oregon high school articles, even though it is kind of a chore. I'd love to see a couple more that were started under adult supervision! Katr67 (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. See Category:High schools in Oregon for inspiration--note that they run the gamut as far as quality... Katr67 (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The finest Oregon high school article I've seen so far is Oregon City High School. Perhaps that's why it has received so little vandalism. (An interesting strategy for anti-vandalism would be to make more of them like that.) —EncMstr (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the best anti-vandal strategy is to build good articles...the community will generally be more active in protecting them =) -Pete (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Help needed at Independent Party of Oregon

There's been a little bit of a dust-up over at the IPO article. Two people who appear to be connected with the party have been editing it aggressively, and have not been too responsive to efforts by me, Katr, and Kotra to help them keep within policies and good collaborative practices. I just opened a request for comment over there; hopefully some of you will take a look and share your thoughts on how to proceed. -Pete (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiWednesday: A typically last-minute reminder!

Folks, come join us for a beer and snacks at WikiWednesday tonight! 5:30 to about 8pm at the offices of AboutUs. See http://pdx.wiki.org for all the details! -Pete (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't be able to make it this time, hopefully next month! On April 1, it looks like. An auspicious day. If you haven't been, you should go--it's really great to meet some of the faces behind the usernames, and lots of other wikienthusiasts as well. Katr67 (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The wiki's being spammed... --Izno (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- we know, and we've been making moderate efforts to revert it...if anybody is experienced installing capcha on MediaWiki sites (or has other suggestions of how to protect from spammers, while keeping it pretty open for legitimate newcomers to edit), we'd love your help! -Pete (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I used to check the blog for spam all the time. So many blogs and wikis, so little time... I'll try to pop in more often. Katr67 (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought WikiWednesdays were on the first Wednesday of the month. If it was yesterday, what is the pattern? —EncMstr (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified. They are first Wednesdays, but we screwed up this month and didn't get any announcements, and (almost) nobody showed, so we decided to do an "extra" one.

We might consider changing the day soon though, as we have an unfortunate, direct conflict with the Portland Web Innovators group. -Pete (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Deceptive bluelinks

I noticed today that Climate of Oregon and Economy of Oregon were turned into redirects to the appropriate sections in the Oregon article today. I kinda liked them being redlinks because I think redlinks are more likely to have articles created for them. I'm sure both these topics merit stand-alone articles. Anyway, I have no plans to remedy this state of affairs, but if anyone has these on their to-do list, it might be good to go ahead and start at least a stub. Hint: the worse the spelling and formatting, the more likely it is that I'll get interested in helping improve the article! Katr67 (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Economy of Oregon now is a stub. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Oregon Beaches and historical sites

I've been working on expanding the Oregon Coast article. However, I've come to a stumbling point in my endeavors to improve and expand upon it. I noticed that while there is a list of Oregon state parks, there is no list of Oregon Beaches or of Historical Sites (such as Battle Rock or the Yaquina Bayfront). Both would be greatly useful in expanding the article. I don't know the procedure or coding for making lists, but would really like them created. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to do a fancy table if you don't want. Category:Beaches of Oregon doesn't have that many beaches, anyways. Just do a bulleted list if you want, or sections for each beach, or whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

^Nods^ Thanks~! Something is better than nothing. Now to select historic places of note of from all regions and I should be set.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a tool which I pointed at GNIS's entries for Oregon beaches, see List of beaches in Oregon. —EncMstr (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you as well, EncMstr. I pretty much have the bulk of the article done, save for the history section. Mostly at the moment it needs peer edited by other WikiProject Oregon members.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Great list, Enc -- I created a couple redirects from redlinks, and I'll look for more opportunities for that. Ryoga, if you haven't seen it, this article may be of interest: Lewis and Clark National and State Historical Parks. I'll check out the Oregon Coast article -- it's been in need of attention for some time, glad to hear you've been putting some work into it! -Pete (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you as well, as well, Pete! The article looked like it needed help. I love the Coast, so the Coast article needed some love. There is one other thing left I think needs to be in the article, though... Weather, under the Geography section. However, I don't know how to go about it.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The bulk of the Oregon Coast article is done. *sighs a breath of relief* It would be great now if people would peer edit it. I'm also having issues with Lhammer610, who is continually pushing for making the Oregon Coast tourism oriented... It's frustrating...Ryoga-2003 (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about spammers. We're pretty used to dealing effectively with them: Persistent spamming earns a block. —EncMstr (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if a mod did get involved in it, either for or against me. I don't care. The discussions with Lhammer are starting to both frustrate me and causing me to stop caring about the quality of the Oregon Coast article, because it seems everything I've done has come under fire from him.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about a content disupte being brought to projectwide attention, as that editor has not been disruptive nor has s/he been spamming (if that is what you are referring to, EncMstr). If you need help, be sure to check out dispute resolution and remember to assume good faith. Katr67 (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've caused people problems. I know I'm still new. But it's a subject that I'm somewhat passionate about, and I want to make it as good as possible. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Katr67, I was responding to Ryoga-2003's comment which I interpreted as meaning someone was inserting tourist guide content. I now see that is not the case. Naturally I'll keep an eye on it for ways to help. —EncMstr (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand the dispute, but maybe a section on the economy of the coast, with a couple of paragraphs about tourism would be appropriate. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

hmm, That's sort of how I laid it out, only it's a "Traveling the Oregon Coast" section. It's not like I didn't cover tourism at all. Just didn't make it important. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryoga, like I told the other editor, there are several active and experienced editors who could have given our opinions on the matter. Wikipedia guidelines and policy are clear on some of these things you are discussing and we could have prevented the need for each of you to seek a third opinion elsewhere. It seemed to me, and perhaps the other folks watching the page, that there was no need for intervention in what looked like a dispute of personal opinion. Hopefully you both see that the other is just trying to write the best encyclopedia possible, which is what we are all here for. Good luck. Katr67 (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I apologize for my newness. I'm not fully in the know of Wikipedia procedure. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) About historical sites in Oregon, a whole lot of them (1,781 or so) are listed here. doncram (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Outline of Oregon

I ran across this today and had some concerns, which I've addressed on the talk page. Note that I've done extensive clean up and organization of List of Oregon-related topics, which I mention there, so that it is, as far as I can tell, more useful and less random than that of many of the state lists. But I don't really understand why we need such things. Discuss. Katr67 (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As I stated on the main discussion for it, it is kind of redundant to have it at all, especially with all the redlinks in it. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The red links were the interesting part. Some importatn pages haven't been created yet. National parks in Oregon, Environment of Oregon, Wildlife of Oregon, Mountains of Oregon, etc. Maybe there at other names, I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like they're simply two different ways to sorting the information. I would personally merge outline into the list, but that's just my opinion. --Izno (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In a way, it's nice to have. It's like a sitemap for Oregon articles. If it was cleaned up, that is.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Peregrine for the link. I guess I still sorta don't get it. Why do we have Category:National parks in Oregon, Category:Mountains of Oregon, etc. Does every topic also need an overview article? I suppose some of them could have one, and they might even be necessary at some point (like when the topic gets too large in Oregon and needs to be split off, but I guess I'm thinking "Geesh, we already have enough to do without making an article on every redlinked subtopic about Oregon..." But I'm kind of lazy that way. Katr67 (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Why create new articles when there are perfectly viable redirects? Ryoga-2003 (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I glanced at the article and project page, so could be off base. With so many articles in Wikipedia, it seem sensible that there would be many ways of indexing them, just as a library card catalogs used to(?) list books by author, title, and subject. Does the new article address the same kinds of uses that List of Oregon-related topics does? —EncMstr (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

One is alphabetic, and the other is more a real article (ideally, I guess). Apparently, Outline of space exploration, Outline of cell biology, and Outline of World War II are close to what they're aiming at. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally think it is redundant to the category system, and I wonder who decides what is important enough to make the list? I didn't actually check to see if all 7000 plus Oregon tagged articles were there, so I am assuming they are not. But if someone finds it useful, more power to them, I just won't be using it or editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My first impression is that this is something that's way too experimental for article-space. I'm not sure if it's an encyclopedia project, or if it maybe belongs on another kind of web site, making reference to WP articles. I wouldn't want to AfD it without having a better sense of what that WikiProject is working on, but that's my inclination..I guess I pretty much agree with what Aboutmovies said above. -Pete (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oregon NRHP list revamped

The National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon article, a list of NRHP-listed historic sites in Oregon]] (also shortcut List of RHPs in OR) has been greatly revamped and now accomodates photos and short descriptions. The Multnomah county list-articles and some others were already quite nicely developed, but this is now extended to cover all 1,781 or so sites in all counties in the state. Any NRHP place is usually wikipedia notable, so separate articles can be created too. The NRHP application documents are great sources, are available for free upon request to the National Park Service. But, even without article or sources, you can help by taking pics of the historic buildings, sites, ships or other objects, historic districts near you! Separate photos for all but the address-restricted ones would be great!  :) doncram (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment at 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot

Please see Talk:1985_Rajneeshee_assassination_plot#Request_for_comment_-_Hit_squad. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

House bill 2122

Anyone know about this bill? I'm working Controlled_substances_in_Oregon#Tobacco and I'm confused. I'm a dirty smoker, and it seems like premade cigarettes recently went up, but not hand rolled. A quick survey of news articles didn't clear it up for me. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on either. Second hand information that I have gotten is that the percent of taxes on hand-rolled supplies has increased. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking around, I found this: [2] Under Oregon it says that there would be a $0.60 increase on the excise tax. That's it. If there is more to it, I'm not finding it either. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:31, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

WPOR article alerts

Check it out: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Oregon/Article_alerts. Nice way to see what is going on very quickly. tedder (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A reminder that you should give a link to the alert page (from the front page or another high-traffic page) when you are using the display=none setting.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You are subscribed to the Alerts but neither display the alerts nor give a link to them. Giving a link on your main page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Article alerts) or removed the display=none parameter from the subscription banner would be a good idea.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is my fault, I was waiting to make sure they are useful. I think they are, so I'll clutter the main page with 'em. tedder (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Several of us have this watchlisted instead, I'm sure, but of course it doesn't hurt to link it on the main page. Katr67 (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And I don't want it to transclude the entire list to the main page, so I added a line of text instead. Feel free to improve. tedder (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What about moving it to the "Categories and recent changes" section, which is more like "list of ways to keep track of stuff"? Katr67 (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. It seems orphaned down there anyhow. tedder (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

American Community Survey Estimates

As some of you have noticed, an anon 24.18.228.140 (talk · contribs) has been adding updated race demographic information to Oregon city articles. Since it interrupts the 2000 census demog information, I've been moving it below that. Other folks are simply deleting the info outright. So we should try to agree on whether this info should be included at all, and if so, how it should be formatted. I've invited the anon to participate in the discussion. (I think there are other IPs, but I need to track them down--please drop them a note if you know about one.) Thanks for you attention to this matter! Katr67 (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally revert the addition to the Hillsboro article. I do this for several reasons: first it places 2005ish data in the middle of 2000 data, thus it needs to be moved to before or after; next, it is in list form in a prose section, so it needs to be turned into prose; lastly, it is added without a full citation, so it needs a full cite. On most articles the cite given and being in prose are not a big deal as the articles are in poor shape already. But Hillsboro is already GA and currently up for FA, so lowering the quality is not going to fly. So, I have no problem with the data, but it needs to be added correctly. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, AM. This is not exactly relating to this discussion, but I've seen a couple folks who like to listify the prose demog info, I'm thinking of places like Klamath Falls, Oregon. I don't really care because I barely look at those sections, but we should try to be consistent. I'll note, however, that it's actually easier for me to absorb statistical info like that in list form. On another somewhat related topic, it was easy for the bot to put 2000 census data in all those articles because most of the time the articles didn't even exist yet, so there was no existing information to contend with. I don't know if the bot would be smart enough to not overwrite stuff added later by humans. Does anyone know if/what the plans are for changing over to the 2010 census data? It's probably not too early to start thinking about it! Katr67 (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts on 2010 is that the info should likely go via bot onto the talk page to be integrated by people. Once new info is added, a lot of the old should likely go, but some is good to keep for historical reference. But I don't think a bot could choose, as the information has in many cases been re-worded and even supplemented by other demographic data. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I see someone noticed that I converted into list form some demographics info on some articles. I did that because I saw this format on the article for Lexington, Kentucky a while ago, and I thought, "Wow, that's so much more legible." Lists seem to be an order of magnitude better than prose when it comes to statistical data. I probably was messing up some agreed-upon standard, but at the time I thought it was so much better my way!

Is there some WikiProject that has original "jurisdiction" over United States demographical info in city, county, and state articles? Perhaps the question of formatting should be brought up there. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 05:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I converted the Portland data from a list to a table here and then later tried to separate non-Hispanic whites out so that the data column would add up to 100%. I still think that would be a good idea, but I realize that it doesn't make much sense to do something like that to a single article without considering the whole context. There is much to be said for having consistency between articles. Would it be possible to have a template that had all the Oregon city information and include it in each page in such a way that it would display only that single city? Then the census data could be edited in a single place but included in all appropriate places. Another template could include all county information. YBG (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A barnstar for Everyone

So many of us are quietly working away in our little corners of WP:ORE without fanfare, writing and building up articles in our areas of expertise, fixing typos, updating coordinates, reverting vandalism, mediating disputes, etc. Personally, I often pay more attention to the bad edits than the good, because some of y'all just write so well that I know I don't even have to look at what you've written since I know the article likely needs no intervention. That's kind of sad. Not feeling the WikiProject Oregon love? Well, I just wanted to let everyone know that I for one do notice and appreciate all that you're doing. I won't name names, you probably know who you are! If you feel like you need a barnstar, grab this one--it's for you!

		WPOR Award: Sponsored in part by the Big Gold Dude.
		You are hereby granted this shiny object for all your hard work at WikiProject Oregon! For WikiProject Oregon, because we deserve it! Happy Sesquicentennial too! Katr67 (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you feel so strongly that you Cap Inflated a Header Word -- that's really from the heart! ;) Thanks Katr. I feel the same. I so often look at what you guys are doing, appreciate it, and then move along to find something more controversial. It's great to be part of this group, you are all very inspiring in different ways. -Pete (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

new page- need comments: Seattle-Portland Rivalry

The Seattle-Portland Rivalry page has been on my radar, and I wanted to make sure it popped up to your radar too. I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia- but if it does, it needs to be retitled since it's not about a rivalry between SEA/PDX, but between two specific sports teams and their fans. tedder (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. I think that's worthy of a speedy tag. If there's a case to be made for notability, it hasn't been made, and there are no citations at all. I'll hold off for a bit though in case anybody else thinks differently… -Pete (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Portland Mercury

Would appreciate some input from WikiProject Oregon members, at Talk:David_Miscavige#RSN. Cirt (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sal Peralta and Independent Party of Oregon

Sorry to bring the dramaz, but I hope somebody can make some sense of a situation that I'm pretty much done with. Sal Peralta has recently taken to editing Wikipedia, working pretty much exclusively on articles related to his career and political ambitions, and showing little interest in collaborative engagement. I've tried to reason with him, but it feels like a pointless exercise, and I'm moving on. However, it seems important to me that there be some assessment of the work he's doing on his own biography: whether it meets the notability standard, whether it's neutral in tone and content, etc.

So I'm hoping somebody can take a look. I'm taking it off my watchlist. -Pete (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pete that someone should have a look at the Sal Peralta page and offer an assessment of notability and NPOV. If it doesn't meet the standard, I prefer that it be deleted by someone who is truly neutral on the matter. I think that Pete's actions are questionable and that he has a conflict of interest that he has chosen not to disclose. Also, a review of the Independent_Party_of_Oregon might be warranted to see whether it is adequately referenced and meets NPOV. I agree that Pete is not the person to assess either article, as his editorial approach to these articles has been very demanding and somewhat punitive rather than collaborative. Speralta (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Attacking User:Peteforsyth isn't going to help your cause. I've posted constructive comments on the talk page. tedder (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is a fair and impartial review, which I don't believe Pete can give in this particular instance. I agree with the high level concerns you've raised in your substantive comments, which is why I am asking for someone to review the article for notability and NPOV.Speralta (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sal Peralta. —EncMstr (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

rajneeshee page

is not being worked on at all and is in need of citations and stagnant is anyone bothered to work on it or bothered if it gets deleted? (Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Many pages are in need of solid citations. I don't see any threat of deletion on the pages, in either a CSD, PROD, or AFD. Am I missing something? tedder (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this editor would like to see the page deleted. Katr67 (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob is—so far—a WP:SPA for all articles Rajneesh. While annoyingly persistent, she or he is doing a good job of challenging every statement which tends to impugn anyone connected with the movement. This doesn't seem to be entirely NPOV though, and I suspect there could be WP:COI. Cirt has tirelessly balanced so far, but is probably due for relief. —EncMstr (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Off2riorob has made some good individual points here and there, but overall, is adding way more heat than light. What to do, I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This post here by Off2riorob (talk · contribs) is basically yet another form of WP:FORUMSHOP or "asking the other parent". Please see also more diffs of this disruptive behavior, summarized at Talk:1985_Rajneeshee_assassination_plot#does_anyone_dispute_this_statement.3F. Cirt (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

greeting to you all..and thanks for your comments about me ..and thankyou for all your help..very little about the Rajneeshee page though .. have you had a look? it is not imo too startling a page ..and ..well.. if you want to add the cites ..good! if not forget I even mentioned it .(Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Proposal to move many pages: "nth Oregon Legislative Assembly"

I propose that the pages for the Legislative Assemblies be titled with their number written in figures rather than words. The "Seventy-fifth" would instead be the "75th". This would imitate the style used for the United States Congresses, for example, the "111th", and not the "One Hundred Eleventh". Thoughts? — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 20:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Personally, I'd like to be able to list them all with a "search beginning with a string" somehow. If they were named Oregon Legislative Assembly of XXXX-YYYY (where XXXX-YYYY is the years), it would be super friendly and highly usable. —EncMstr (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I second the motion of going to the numeric format ("nth Oregon Legislative Assembly"). I'm not sure that the "Oregon Legislative Assembly of XXXX-YYYY" text is really accurate or usable in a title, but it certainly would be useful in a search. Maybe we want to standardize the opening text of each session's article to say something like "The nth Oregon Legislative Assembly was the meeting of the legislative branch of the Oregon state government that occurred between January 1, 2007 and January 11, 2009." ?? --Esprqii (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they're named by number, not by year -- that's how they're referred to, and I don't think we can stray from that. I don't have a problem with using numerals, as long at it complies with WP style (I think it does) and as long as it reflects common usage in the way they're traditionally referred to in Oregon (newspapers, Blue Book, etc.) (I'm not sure without some research). Thanks for suggesting it. -Pete (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Good to see that others here seem to concur with the idea I proposed. Are there any dissents? — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 08:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked a little more closely, and it appears that state agencies, the legislature itself, and news coverage all seem to use numerals, not text. Since I'm the one who initially set them up as text, I'm content to say it was all a big mistake; I think you/we should make the change. -Pete (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Aladdin Theatre's claim to fame

Hello fellow Portlanders! After many years of putting it off, I have finally added that vital detail to Deep Throat -- that it is the film with the longest run in dear old Puddletown! Sadly, I know someone is going to want to remove this factoid because (1) it's trivia; (2) some people don't have a sense of humor; & (3) it is hard to document. I added one link, but I've been hoping to find something online at the Willamette Week web archive that would establish it's run, but with little success. Does anyone have the time & access to the appropriate newspaper morgue to provide a good source to confirm the short sentence I added to the article on the film. (PS -- Can you believe that despite it's extremely long run, I don't know anyone who saw Deep Throat at the Aladdin? I must know only very dull people.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oregon Sustainability Board

The website for this group (sustainabilityoregon.net) appears to be a dead link. I can find no indication that the board is functioning on the web, nor can I find a list of participants aside from former Sec. of State Bradbury.

If the board no longer exists, updates are necessary to the page for Mr. Bradbury as well as that for the Sustainability Board itself.

Please advise--should I make the changes myself? Chigginbotham (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the Board was active as of January: [3] The Board is still linked from DAS's Oregon Progress Board page: [4]. The site may just be down for maintenance. I'd say a bit more research is needed before we declare the board dead. A search through the Google News Archive might be fruitful: [5]. Katr67 (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the wayback machine, the last snapshot was taken August 30, 2007,[6] so it's been offline for some time. One method of fixing the article might be to use the last archived page: http://web.archive.org/web/20070830174530/http://sustainableoregon.net/ —EncMstr (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

EncMstr, that doesn't mean it's been offline since Aug 2007, just they haven't kept a snapshot since then. Fairly common with less-than-popular sites. tedder (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

While it's possible the site requested exclusion from archiving, that does not appear to be the case (see being excluded). The FAQs don't say archival ends just because it is no longer popular. —EncMstr (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I was exploring this a month or two ago. The Sustainability Board's web presence is disturbingly minimal, and has clearly been taken offline. A friend did a presentation to them about that time, and I could ask her for a little more info. The Wayback archive is the best I found too, but there has to be better info out there. At minimum, boards submit reports to the Governor, to the Legislature periodically....those must list membership....I'd think....more research necessary! -Pete (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

List Beautification Project

List of Oregon birds is a great list, but it was missing something. A list highlighting aspects of nature can always use some imagery, so I added a bunch of pictures of many of the birds listed hoping to illustrate the diversity and beauty of Oregon wildlife. I used the 'no edit section' command to remove the numerous edit links--I hope this is OK. If anyone is more familiar with images and is able to resize or move some of the images so that they do not cross section heading lines, feel free to do so! I thought this might be a nice opportunity to "beautify" many of the other Oregon-related lists. List of beaches in Oregon, List of lakes in Oregon, List of lighthouses on the Oregon Coast, and List of native Oregon plants were a few I thought could use some assistance. Hopefully I can get around to these sooner than later, though any one else is more than welcome to contribute. Is any one aware of any other lists that could use some improvement with imagery? If so, feel free to add them to the list. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

See Lists of Oregon-related topics. (That should keep you busy for awhile.  :-) —EncMstr (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

King & Winge (fishing schooner)

What is the McCurdy reference?

Burt Morton McConnell's article in the New York Times, 15 Sept 1914, has Olaf Swenson landing at Wrangel Island and more-or-less agrees with Swenson's own account in Northwest of the World. Is McCurdy the source for the contrary information? is this a known controversy? Dankarl (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Dan Karl

Looks like I posted this in a forum with interests way beyond a question about a particular article. Is there a more efficient way to discuss the particular article without editing it?Dankarl (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. On the talk page of whichever article you mean. In the future, be sure to link the article you are referring to for clarity. —EncMstr (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll copy your question to the article's talk page. Looks like some misused Harvard-style footnotes. I'll post more over there. Katr67 (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan, what you're looking for is the article's "discussion page" or "talk page" (the two terms are synonymous). Here's a direct link to it: Talk:King & Winge (fishing schooner) Or, you can find it by clicking the "discussion" tab on the article in question. Hope this helps... -Pete (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

We're not that silly Pete--I think Dankarl found WP:ORE because of our project tag on the article's talk page. Am I right? Katr67 (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah -- right after I posted my own silliness, I saw that Dan had left a note over there...my bad! -Pete (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you read above, I copied the post over there. (I've since clarified the note at the top of the section.) What I meant was that I bet that Dan clicked on the "talk" tab, saw nothing there but our WikiProject tag, and clicked through and asked his question here. Some people think project tags are only way to assert "ownership" over articles, but in this case it helped us improve the article. Yay! Katr67 (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Alanson Beers

Birth date is 19 August 1808, in Weston, Fairfield Co., Connecticut, son of Isaac Beers, a Revolutionary War soldier, and Jemima Rowell, per Weston town records.

The gravemarker is of much later date, installed May 1921, containing wrong birth year as well. Samuelsenwd (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It looks like all the family info and the correct date are already in the article. I took the photo and I don't think I even noticed the discrepancy in the date. Those DAR gals obviously didn't do their homework. I see you've mentioned this on the article's talk page as well. Perhaps the discussion should continue there. In any case, I'll add a note to the photo caption and to the photo description on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks again. Katr67 (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see from the page history that the info is correct because you added it. If you add info with reliable sources to an article, there's not really a need to alert anyone of that, but the info about the gravemarker is indeed worthy of some follow up--why is it wrong? Katr67 (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A new assessment tool

So recently, meta:User:Frank Schulenburg showed me an excellent tool, that makes it possible to cross-tablulate categories. That sounds like a mouthful, but it's insanely useful -- it allows us to see, for instance, all B-class articles that are top-importance to WikiProject Oregon. Should be helpful for collaboration of the week drives, among other things.

I made a table on the assessment page. Here's a copy of it for easy reference:

Oregon articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None
Quality
	FA	O	O	O	O	O
	FL	O	O	O	O	O
	GA	O	O	O	O	O
	B	O	O	O	O	O
	C	O	O	O	O	O
	Start	O	O	O	O	O
	Stub	O	O	O	O	O
	List	O	O	O	O	O
	Unassessed	O	O	O	O	O

Category:Oregon articles by quality

-Pete (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

wanted: more eyeballs to look at school edits

I've been going through the high schools. Can I get some third opinions at Talk:Sheldon High School (Eugene, Oregon)#April 2009 cleanup? tedder (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that you reverted my coordinates change. That's fine, since there is no clear guideline that I can find on their placement. I prefer them in the upper right (title), and not in the infobox, as it distorts the size of the box and looks klunky.Neonblak ^talk - 00:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just discussing this on an Idaho school with someone (I'll find the link if someone wants). I actually prefer it in both locations- the display=title is common elsewhere, but having coords in the infobox allows standardization and easier-to-harvest data. tedder (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles missing geocoordinates

I have added coordinates to a few. Using Category:Oregon articles missing geocoordinate data, and Google Earth, I was able to eliminate a few articles out of the category. Doesn't seem like that many left in there that a couple people couldn't get through them relatively quick. I'll do some here and there when I get the time.Neonblak ^talk - 02:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I emptied that category a few months ago, but then someone figured out several classes of articles (mostly high schools) needing to be tagged. (Pun not intended, but serendipitous!) I've chip away at it over the next few days. —EncMstr (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What would you recommend for Eugene International High School, which is at 3 different locations? --Tesscass (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest making the main campus—if there is one—the title coordinate. If the other locations are significant, then add named, inline coordinates for each:

The Podunk campus is located {{convert|X|mi|km}} southwest of the main campus at {{coord|lat|long|type:edu_region:US-OR_source:whatever|name=Eugene International H.S. (podunk campus)}}. Yada, yada, yada.

If you do that, it's useful to add {{GeoGroupTemplate}} somewhere in the article to make link that maps all the coordinates in an article, similar to what I just did for Canyon Road (it shows the endpoints and a middle point). If any of that's too much work for an additional minor location, perhaps it's not notable enough for inclusion. —EncMstr (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is super sweet! Can we do that on Barlow Road and, like 100 other articles?? -Pete (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks EncMstr. EIHS doesn't have a main campus, but I added a location section in the page and showed all 3 locations' coordinates there. --Tesscass (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one that needs a multicoord: Silverton High School (Oregon) tedder (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Done and Done. Coordinates are for the new campus. Now to expand upon it in other ways. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

citing GNIS not straightforward

I was about to enhance some of the entries in Nicknames of Portland, Oregon with GNIS citations, but guess who they cite as a reference? 2006/Wikipedia.com! See U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Portland, Oregon. —EncMstr (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's hilarious. The GNIS considers nicknames legit variant placenames?! I always thought the variant names were for places that were simply renamed or locales that are sometimes rather vaguely named. So if GNIS cites us, does that mean we are now a reliable source? Is it OK if my head explodes now? Can we get "So-lame" listed as a variant place name for Salem? And just as a general aside, aren't all towns nicknamed "Initial Letter-town"? Katr67 (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not Boston. B-town would be frickin re-tah-did. -Pete (talk)

I have my own thoughts on GNIS ;-) Zab (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am occasionally amused to my old website used as a source for coords. tedder (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to denigrate your reliability, Tedder, but that's kinda scary! -Pete (talk)

Oregon-related AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osho Follower. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

link to Oregon portal in city articles?

A well meaning editor has added

to North Bend, Oregon in the See also section. To my knowledge this is the first such Oregon instance. Good idea or not? —EncMstr (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:ALSO, the See also section is the appropriate place to add links to portals. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually is says it is the most appropriate place. And goes on to say that a very well written article might have no See also. The combined implication is that maybe it doesn't belong there. —EncMstr (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I interpret that to mean it is an appropriate place, and on articles I work on up to GA and FA I generally use See also sections and place a few related portals in those sections. But it tends to also be a matter of preference/consensus on each individual article. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon looking at this further, with the specific case ongoing at North Bend, Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I would recommend discussing the matter at the article's talk page and coming to a consensus on it. Further: would there still be a See also section without the portal template being there, but with other links? If so, no reason not to have the portal template. Cirt (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

New article

New article, Charles H. Turner (attorney). If editors know of other sources to expand on biographical info for the article, that would be most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Aboutmovies (talk · contribs) has provided me with some helpful pointers on places to look for research [7], so I will start with some of these areas. Of course any other input is always appreciated. In the course of my research I found out Turner hired two prosecutors who themselves went on to become U.S. Attorney for Oregon - Michael Mosman and Mark Bailey (attorney) - neat stuff. Anyways, more later. :) Cirt (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Very cool! Glad to have you jumping in on more Oregon content Cirt, you always do good stuff.

On a related(ish) note, I just grabbed an article out of a 1911 book, about an influential Portland businessman, Cyrus A. Dolph. So far, it's mostly just a cut-and-paste, but there are plenty of other sources out there about this guy. So any help building this into a higher quality article would be much appreciated! -Pete (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)