This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I feel that the Orenco station should be a disambiguation page, and Orenco Station a redirect to that disambiguation page (or vice versa). In other words, neither of those titles should be used as the title of an article, because the only difference between them – a difference in capitalization of a single letter – is way too subtle. SJ Morg (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Although I'm not sure I agree that "TriMet" is the best disambiguator for MAX station article titles that need a disambiguator, it's the disambiguator currently in use (for the past five weeks only) in all of the few such cases. So, with that in mind, my answer to your question is yes. SJ Morg (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I've updated some templates, so the "what links here" may need a little time to update. Also, some of the TriMet templates have sub-templates, which makes updating a bit tricky. I'll not add a 'resolved' stamp until I can revisit this later. ---Another Believer(Talk)20:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I added Oregon, Geography and Wine projects to the talk page, and portal bars and "more citations needed" tag to the article. Good effort! Cheers. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I assume some additional articles will be created/improved over the next week, and of course we'll have some new editors to welcome. ---Another Believer(Talk)21:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education, in partnership with social practice artist Shoshana Gugenheim and as part of the Art+Feminism Project, will host the 2nd Annual International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles for Jewish women artists. The event will be held at the museum on Thursday, March 7 from 4 to 8 pm. Pre-registration is preferred but not required. Members of the public are invited to come to the museum to learn about the editing process, its history, its impact, and how to do it. We aim to collaboratively edit/enter 18 Jewish women artists into the canon. Support will be provided by an experienced local Wikipedian who will be on site to teach and guide the process. This edit-a-thon will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participants will have an opportunity to select an artist/s ahead of time or on site.
The Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) is hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon in the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, March 9 from 10am – 2:30pm. This is a free community event designed to teach people to add and edit information about cis and transgender women and nonbinary folks to Wikipedia. We'll have training sessions, artist talks, snacks, free childcare, and plenty of exciting energy and collaboration! You're welcome to drop in any time during the event. Participants are encouraged to bring their own laptops and charging cables, though if you are not able, computer stations will be available.
I like "Maybe its style did not fit its time." I think the opposite might be true: fascist style was the new hotness in 1939, but by 1942, it had <sarcasm>lost a bit of favor in the US for some reason...</sarcasm> – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Illustration
Unresolved
Does anyone know if we can add an image to the article under fair use, since the artwork is lost? I'm assuming I can't just take a picture from one of the Oregonian sources and upload here, since I don't know who took the photographs and when? ---Another Believer(Talk)21:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, I will see if I can figure it out. Thanks! ---Another Believer(Talk) 22:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Eh, I still don't know how to do this when I don't know the photographer's name or original publication date. I'll let someone else give this a try, if possible. ---Another Believer(Talk)22:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Missvain: Bit of a random request here, but would you happen to be familiar with uploading images of lost sculptures as historical photographs under fair use, and mind giving this a shot? No worries if unsure or uninterested, just figured you might be ale to help. Thanks! ---Another Believer(Talk)22:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd start by searching the Oregonian archives through the Multnomah County Library website (or another library), and see if you can narrow down the publication date and possibly the provenance of the photos. You could also search copyright renewals, though if I recall correctly the O has been pretty diligent about them. Happy to discuss further if that isn't clear enough. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Very helpful, thank you, but I've searched the archives and can only find one article with an image, dated November 9, 1941. Unfortunately, I can't confirm this is the same image used in the recent Oregonian articles linked above. The image does not have a particularly helpful caption or credit any photographer. ---Another Believer(Talk)04:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
List of tallest buildings in Portland
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Danielle Outlaw is currently a work in progress as part of an ongoing class assignment. I've upgraded the article from stub- to start-class, but haven't reviewed the most recent edits in detail. Care to help keep an eye on the page? ---Another Believer(Talk)01:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
WP 1.0 Bot Beta
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Homelessness in Oregon
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Benjamin Gifford, Art Work of Portland, Mt. Hood and the Columbia River
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This 1912 book was passed down to me- from my great great great grandfather Allen, who worked on BOTG, which is approximately where Gifford lived. Anyhow, it's a giant leatherbound book with very heavy pages- 8lbs, 11x14". Copyright date is 1912- which is great, everything is PD! There's a lot of "pretty nature pictures" and of Mt. Hood, but to me what's interesting are pictures of things that likely have Wikipedia pages- here's what I noted: Ezra Meeker, Council Crest (road), cornell (road); World Forestry Center (which is good, it's a better picture than the presumed-PD version Peteforsyth (talk·contribs) rescued); BOTG showing a "bridge ramp" before the bridge was built; USS Boston (1884); bull run; washignton street with the downtown buildings; larch mtn; dalles rock; pulpit rock; some other rock at The Dalles. The back half (or last third?) is full of flowery text from Eva Emery Dye.
Sounds like a great find Tedder. (BOTG?) Worth noting that I've since found better pics of the World Forestry Center that are definitely public domain, but it sounds like this book might have even higher quality reproductions than those. From your samples, it looks like these might be actual photographic reproductions, rather than halftones? I hope so! Looking forward to seeing some high quality scans. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
BOTG. Sorry. And yeah, full photos on very heavy paper. I'll have to be careful opening it to scan but it's certainly worth it. tedder (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Dignity Village and Sunderland
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion
An editor requested speedy deletion of the Elephants Delicatessen article. I've asked for the page to be restored and moved into the draft space for further improvement, but the deleting editor is asking me to jump through hoops just for the restoration:
Is another admin willing to please restore the page and move into draft space, if needed? Also, do other editors have thoughts on notability? ---Another Believer(Talk)15:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Jonesey95, Right? I'm scrambling this morning because an editor has either merged, nominated for deletion, or speedy deleted several articles, which now I'm working to rescue. I didn't think asking for restoration of a page into draft space was controversial... ---Another Believer(Talk)15:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for taking over this talk page, but every additional prevaricatory comment from User:Another Believer is making me more sure that I shouldn't go along with his request. If there are sources showing notability, it should not be difficult to list some of them as requested. Deb (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Deb, I don't know what "prevaricatory" means, but I also don't know what good sharing a list of paywalled sourcing from the library archives will accomplish. If multiple editors think restoring a page in the draft space is reasonable, I'm not sure where the problem lies. ---Another Believer(Talk)15:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
"Prevaricatory" comes from "prevaricate", which means "to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie" (source). So Deb is accusing Another Believer of lying, which is a defamatory personal attack unless it is backed up with evidence. All of that aside, restoring a deleted page into Draft space is a reasonable request that I have seen granted without question many times; I don't know why Deb is engaging in this back and forth instead of simply restoring the page into Draft space. If the page were copyvio or defamatory, I would understand, but I have seen no claims to that effect. I will assume in good faith that Deb has a reason, but aside from agreeing to delete the page on the grounds that "there was no claim of notability and there was a clear advertising intent", I have seen no claim that restoring the deleted content into Draft space will do harm of any sort. There is clearly something I do not understand here, but it doesn't look right to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, maybe I've used the wrong word then. The definition I'm familiar with is "Digressing and being indirect or evasive". I don't mean thatUser:Another Believer is lying. I mean that his responses to my questions are essentially avoiding the issue and playing for time. In view of the general concerns about his contributions that I've seen from others, I think I've been pretty reasonable in asking these questions. After all, what is the big hurry? Deb (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Deb, I'm just asking for a page to be restored in the draft space. Another editor has said this is a reasonable request. If you refuse to do so, please just say so, and I will find another editor to help or go to DRV. ---Another Believer(Talk)15:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
You're doing it again - procrastinating. I've told you the conditions under which I'll restore the text. Bear in mind that any content that might be considered advertising can be speedily deleted from draft space the minute you create it, so you should have thought about what you are going to put there before you start drafting. Deb (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
My criteria for restoration is anyone gets their article back in draft if a) they ask for it b) it's not G3, G10 or G12 and c) it hasn't been closed as "delete" at AfD. I might decline to restore a G11 if the user is not a regular and very obviously here to promote something rather than write an encyclopedia, but that's not the case here. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie333 I have identified the article as having a history of business owner directing directly adding contents under their own name (for which they have been banned) to it and when I came upon it, it was nothing but a list of locations which gave me a reasonable cause to declare it an unambiguous promotion, in your assessment do you find my application of G-11 completely out of line? What is the general community view on [admin shopping] until one finds one that will comply with their request? Graywalls (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think I was clear - I meant I would decline to restore a G11 deleted article on request in certain circumstances. However, this wasn't one of those. Regarding the "admin shopping", the solution is why I mentioned AfD / MfD, because a community consensus to delete trumps any admin decision. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
See my post at Talk:Food carts in Portland, Oregon#Undue weight? for details. The article includes a sentence from a COI editor that is sourced to the Portland Business Journal, but I can't access the source as it's behind a paywall. I want to make sure that the Journal source verifies the sentence—help from any editors with a subscription would be appreciated. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Resolved
Bit House Saloon was also marked for speedy deletion, which I've asked to be restored at Draft:Bit House Saloon. How do project members feel about the current status of this page? Is main space appropriate? I've asked the editor who keeps marking pages for deletion to please slow down and try talk page discussions before forcing restorations, etc. ---Another Believer(Talk)16:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:G11 was improperly applied. The prose on the page is written neutrally, and it is all referenced to reliable sources that cover the subject of the article directly. That said, I don't think it would survive an AFD unless there are other sources that describe something other than how great this saloon is. I recommend adding sourced text about something other than "this is a popular bar in Portland" before trying to have it moved to article space (unless more drama is something you crave). – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
See also: Talk:Pride Northwest and Talk:Outside In (organization) re: removal of problematic content to remove the COI tags. I don't disagree, the tags were appropriate, but they can easily be removed by cutting out bad content. The editor seems more interested in keeping the tags than trimming bad content. I'm really trying to avoid this editor but they keep poking me over and over and over. Some third opinions would be helpful. ---Another Believer(Talk)16:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I've trimmed content in both articles. If NPOV is the problem, specific text needs to be addressed. If the current articles are fairly neutral, can the tags be removed? ---Another Believer(Talk)17:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The Outside In and Pride NW matters involve people direct editing on the pages of their own organization. Please voice your concerns on these specific matters on the COI/N threads in place. Graywalls (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
World Famous Kenton Club at AfD
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Resolved as unanimous (with the exception of article creator opposing deletion) delete for not meeting notability. Graywalls (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Club Portland
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Resolved
I'm getting quite tired of interacting with one particular editor. Regardless, they have removed the image from the Club Portland article, possibly for good reason. But, the image has not been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons, so the issue has not been resolved. File:Club Bathbohouse.jpg is the file being discussed on the article's talk page. Is someone more familiar with image policies willing to mark the image for deletion at Commons, if appropriate? That way someone won't just add the image back to the infobox as soon as they realize one lives at Commons. Thanks. ---Another Believer(Talk)14:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Another Believer: - I don't believe this is the right venue to vent about others and general editorial disputes. If you haven't already, please see the suggestion that has been given in Escape club TALK PAGE by a 3O. Since you chose to bring this here, I'd like to defend my position that what I believe you're accusing me of "trolling" was about me removing a bunch of events listed out on that venue's page referenced only by event calendars. I removed what was essentially a roster of events that cites Portland Mercury's event announcement calendar and "things to dos". I even included the policy, which I believe is to be applicable in reason for removing them in edit comment. That policy is WP:IINFOGraywalls (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I've proposed a path forward here. I hope Graywalls will agree to this proposal, and I invite other editors to weigh in as well. Specifically, I think some outside opinions re: the 4 events and 7 citations would be helpful. I don't know how else to resolve the editorial disputes, so if this process won't work, I give up. ---Another Believer(Talk)16:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
How many people work at Hoffman Construction?
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The number varies depending on where I look. Drastically.
Portland Business Journal shows $1.4 billion in FY2017 revenue and 938 employees in 2017. Other information shows something in 400s. I don't believe they've more than doubled their employees in the past couple of years either. Where is a good source to find authoritative information like this on privately held companies, or should it just be omitted? This is the one that says 938. https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/subscriber-only/2018/07/05/largest-privately-held-companies-in.html (You can see the first few, which includes Hoffman. Our rules is verifiablility and not truth, so I know this source is fine; but still I don't know where such a drastic difference comes from. Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Right now, I’m researching large real estate development company. Number of employees in that firm varies between winter/off-season and prime construction season … in fact it almost doubles each summer before returning to baseline employment levels in winter. Since Hoffman is a construction company, it seems to me that its employment numbers might vary significantly depending on how many projects they are working on at any given time … and they could drop (or ramp up) quickly as on-site project work begins or ends. If that’s the case, it will be almost impossible to find an employment numbers that stays valid for any length of time. So, unless you intend to research/update Hoffman employment number on regular basis, I’d recommend you pick reliable source … Portland Business Journal seems like a good one … and use their number with an attribution to the date that the data covers. For example: “As of 2017, Hoffman had 938 employees.” (with appropriate footnote); or use range statement, e.g. “In recent years, Hoffman employment has ranged from around 400 to over 900.” (again, with appropriate source notes). Personally, I like text with as of date (2017)/firm number (938). While these comments aren’t authoritative, hope they are at least helpful.--Orygun (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Calling other Portland city center experts
Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Wikipedia editor Another Believer insists Oldtown is part of downtown and he insists it even after provided with this map and explaining to him that the two neighborhoods do not overlap, as some neighborhoods do, for example parts of Lloyd District and Sullivan's Gulch.
Despite giving him reference to the article which states the venue in question is at the edge of Oldtown and official map from the city, he insists on finding "another person who agrees" with me on the aforementioned matter.
This is where the editor states Oldtown is part of Downtown Would someone confirm or deny the validity? Graywalls (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I've always understood Oldtown to be part of downtown. Oregon Interactive Corp, who runs Oregon.com, seems to think they're one in the same, as seen here, where Portland's Old Town is referenced as "downtown." Travel + Leisure states "A 38-foot arch flanked by two bronze-cast lions greets you as you enter Old Town Chinatown, in downtown Portland", as seen here. Portland Monthly states "Old Town—a corner of downtown where Portland’s problems have long concentrated..." here. --Kbabej (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The Old Town Community Association is hereby organized as a neighborhood association in accordance
with the guidelines established by the City of Portland’s Office of Neighborhood Involvement. Old Town
neighborhood, which includes Chinatown, Japantown, Ankeny Plaza, Skidmore, and the Waterfront, is a
diverse area and all of the diverse components of the community have a right to be in the neighborhood.
Article III: Boundaries
Section 3.1: The boundaries of the Old Town Neighborhood Association will be designated as follows:
Old Town Community Association Bylaws
December 6, 2017
Page 2 of 8
Section 3.2: The eastern boundary will be the Willamette River, the southern most boundary will be SW
Stark Street, the western boundary will be NW Broadway from the Broadway Bridge to W Burnside and
from W Burnside to SW 3rd Avenue, south on SW 3rd Avenue to SW Pine, east on SW Pine Street to SW
2nd Avenue, south on SW 2nd Avenue to SW Oak Street, east on SW Oak Street to SW 1st Avenue and
south on SW 1st Avenue to SW Stark Street, and the northern boundary will be the Broadway Bridge.
Section 3.3: The Old Town Community Association recognizes that there are areas of common interest with
both the Downtown Community Association to the south and the Pearl District Neighborhood Association
to the west. A Boundaries Committee will be established, if necessary, to dialogue with any association
concerning boundary issues.
Article IV: Working with Neighborhood Organizations
The Old Town Community Association will establish a process to share information which may be of
interest to the overall central city community, such as the Downtown Community Association and the
Pearl District Neighborhood Association and any other recognized organization established or existing
within or proximate to the neighborhood boundaries.
Article V: Membership
Section 5.1: Eligibility.
Any real or corporate individual, who resides or owns property, in the area described in Article III will be
eligible for membership in the association. At the time of application for membership any business licensee or private non-profit organization located in the area described in Article III shall designate one representative who shall exercise the voting right of said licensee or organization. The designated representative may be changed by submitting written notice to the Association.
Doesn't say it is within downtown. The only thing supportable seems to be that its adjacent to, rather than within, downtown. Graywalls (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The sourcing for lede is lacking and the written description is an erratic description of the visual information by whoever wrote it. I tagged the contentious portion of that claim, probably just left out to avoid unnecessary wordiness. The formal definition from a verifiable source (PDNA Bylaws) disagrees. The latter is verifiable, the former is not. The definition posted within the bylaws available at http://portlanddowntownna.com/about/bylawss/ is what defines downtown area. Graywalls (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
You've asked "Would someone confirm or deny the validity?" Even though you have another opinion, which you asked for, that doesn't seem to be enough for some reason. I'm thinking you meant only for someone to confirm your stance? I also don't see why you're tagging the Downtown Portland, Oregon article, which clearly stated Old Town is part of downtown, until a consensus has been reached on the subject. --Kbabej (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The term "Downtown Portland" can refer to different boundaries in different contexts. There is a neighborhood with an officially-recognized neighborhood association, which has clearly defined boundaries; that is what Greywalls refers to. But it's not the only definition, as Kbabej's links demonstrate; it's common, and correct, for people and reliable sources to use the term to refer to different areas. So the question of whether Old Town is part of Downtown or not depends entirely on context. If you're talking about the City of Portland's official designations, it is not; they are two distinct neighborhoods. If you're talking about what 99% of Portlanders and reliable sources writing about Portland would say, it certainly is. Outside of a bureaucratic context, no Portlander would say Old Town is separate from Downtown. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Alert: UO statue controversy
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The article The Pioneer (Eugene, Oregon) could use multiple editors' efforts to manage a developing news story. Perhaps the larger perspective is the "Hidden History" committee established at UO to evaluate diversity of the artistic representations on campus, described in the second of these resources:
Thanks Grand'mere Eugnene. I worked on this article a little; there was good coverage in the OHQ when it was installed. I'll try to take another pass at it soon, I agree, it's important to capture stuff like this in a timely way. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I was just poking around once again with the Diamond Peak article, which became a GA about a year ago. One thing really jumped out at me after all this time – prior to winning GA status, there was a successful DYK hook that is very misleading (at best). A user pointed this out on the talk page on the date that the hook was featured on the Main Page. Here was the line in question:
There are many other andesitic shield volcanoes in the Cascades besides those three. If we can agree that it was a very wrong line to publish and especially so on the Main Page (and I'd welcome that discussion first), I'm wondering if there is some apology or retraction process that can be done??
--Jsayre64(talk)06:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, digging a little deeper, I see there was a long thread on this topic here, but I'm out of time to read through it until tomorrow. Jsayre64(talk)06:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Portland Planning Commission
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello again WPORE folks. I'd like to create an article on the Portland Planning Commission, which was established in 1918 to advise the Portland City Council on land use matters. I believe the commission is notable—see Portland City Planning Commission (Q65659313) on Wikidata for authority control identifiers and and the commission's WorldCat identify for some bibliographic material. However, I haven't been able to figure out if the commission is still extant. Do any project members happen to know when the commission was disestablished or whether it presently operates under a different name? This seems like an important piece of information to have before creating the article. :) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
A quick search on Newspapers.com shows the last reported activity of the Commission in 1992, with more recent mentions only on the resumes of candidates for office, all listed as past service on the Commission. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, the commission's WorldCat identity records publications by the commission up until 2000, so I think it was still active after 1992. I'll take a look in the Oregonian archives to see if I can find some more info on the commission's later history; I'll hold off on creating the article until I figure out how/when it was disestablished. Thanks for looking into this though! – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
"Northwest District" vs. "Northwest Portland"
Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion
Yes, I oppose that. Unlike the four other "quadrants", "Northwest Portland" commonly refers to the district of that name, and indeed I believe it is a much more common reference for that area than "Northwest District" is (but I have not objected to keeping the neighborhood article at Northwest District, Portland, Oregon, to avoid its being confused with the quadrant). The city quadrant that has addresses starting "Northwest" which is much larger, is effectively truncated much closer-in to the central city (than any of the other quadrants) due to Forest Park and topography (to the west) and by the river's path (in the north), and I've always figured that is a key reason that the term "Northwest Portland" commonly means the neighborhood, not the larger area. SJ Morg (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
This also just doesn't line up with my personal experience. If someone told me they lived in Northwest Portland, I'd take that to mean they lived on a street prefixed with "NW", not that they lived in the Northwest District specifically. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) With all due respect, linking within Wikipedia doesn't mean anything. My position is based on what mainstream media and other reliable sources do, not what other Wikipedia editors do. Yes, some editor at those articles you mention above linked to Northwest Portland, and the links there do not refer to the neighborhood, but they had no other linking choices (except a piped link to a section of the broader article) – Wikipedia has no article on the Northwest quadrant of Portland, just as it has no articles on Southwest Portland, Southeast Portland, etc., so that editor just linked to what he/she figured was the closest thing. In the "Haunted ...." article: I have never considered the "Shanghai tunnels" as being in Northwest Portland (nor seen other people doing so, that I can recall), which does not extend east of I-405, and I checked the cited KGW article, and find that it makes no mention of Northwest Portland (so, again, that was just a linking choice by a WP editor). I stand by my earlier comments, that Aboutmovies' 2008 redirect choice was correct, and I feel it should not be changed. With regard to your most recent comment: Maybe it's a generational thing (I've lived in the Portland area for decades, and maybe the terminlogy usage/meaning has been evolving), but I definitely would not interpret it the way you do if someone told me they "lived in Northwest Portland". I would instantly infer a smaller area than you do. However, it would be nice if we could receive input from multiple other editors, to try to reach a consensus. SJ Morg (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Saying that linking "doesn't mean anything" is simply not true. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA specifies that we should prefer an article title that "editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles". Of course, this doesn't give us a pass to ignore the naming conventions established in third-party sources; but the number and variety of incoming links a page has is still a factor to consider in naming debates.I don't have time to do a thorough search tonight, but there appears to be some discrepancy in how "Northwest District" "Northwest Portland" is used in third-party sources as well. Consider, for example, this OPB article about an "Amazon facility in Northwest Portland" (the facility is in the Northwest Industrial area, not the Northwest District). This is the kind of general usage I'm familiar with. This Travel Portland article, on the other hand, uses "Northwest Portland" to refer specifically to the Northwest District neighborhood. I'm not convinced that this usage is employed in the majority of sources, however, so I'd suggest you provide some links if you want to convince me. :) And yes, I'd of course value the input from other editors on this topic. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Would any other editors like to comment? I'm just curious: when you see "Northwest Portland" do you think of the neighborhood or the quadrant? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Lord Bolingbroke, When I hear "NW Portland", I think of the quadrant. I've lived in Portland for a decade. I think we should have Wikipedia articles for each of the city's "quadrants". Links to specific neighborhoods and other areas would be mentioned within. ---Another Believer(Talk)03:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I presume you'd want to create the article on the Northwest Portland quadrant with the title "Northwest Portland". In the meanwhile, would you support retargeting the redirect as I proposed above? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
When I think of NW Portland I think of the quadrant. To be honest, didn't even know there was a neighborhood going by that name. To me NW Portland is the Pearl, the NW Industrial area, Forest Heights, the alphabet district, and maybe a few other neighborhoods. I've lived in the PDX metro area for close to 40 years, if that matters, 3 whole months in PDX itself. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The fact that a total of only four people (including me) have expressed an opinion is disappointing, but it's clear that there is a consensus among this very small sample, so I won't stand in the way of changing the redirect's target. But I agree that new stub articles for the five "quadrants" should not be created until the Neighborhoods of Portland, Oregon article has been developed more. SJ Morg (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. I'll go ahead and retarget the redirect. Since the discussion pool is rather small, I'm willing to revert this if another editor wants to restore the old redirect. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Digging out some old companies: Lambert Tire Co, Lumbermen's Bondholders Co
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Mostly I'm just suggesting interesting people we haven't really written about. I can't figure out what happened to the tire company (yet). tedder (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tedder: I found a handful of newspaper clippings on Lambert Tire:
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Perhaps (hopefully) the End Domestic Terrorism event this weekend won't amount to much, but the scheduled rally has already received a lot of attention, even nationally. I've started an article and invite others to help expand. Thanks. ---Another Believer(Talk)19:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Oregon Project. An article I just created has been accepted. It is of the Bissinger Wool Pullery in Troutdale, Oregon. I believe it is within the scope of the Oregon Project and should be considered for such inclusion. It is rated B on the quality scale. I know little about including articles into Projects or if it is even proper for me, one not related to the project to do so. Thus this message.Hu Nhu (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hu Nhu: Thanks for this Oregon-related article. You'll find editors in this project who can be helpful when you have questions about Oregon topics. There is no need to officially join (which only involves adding your name to the "Participants" section on the project page). You are also welcome to join discussions of editing issues raised on this talk page. Welcome! —Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello WikiProjectOregon. I've another article for your consideration: Michael E. Stencel is an article which I wrote and it was accepted very recently. He is the adjutant general of the Oregon National Guard, and I believe the article is within the scope of the Oregon project. Perhaps you might like to consider it for inclusion into the project.Hu Nhu (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Interlachen at AfD
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Cider Riot
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Cider Riot is about a business slated to close in a few days. On the talk page, I've asked if there's currently an appropriate level of detail about the SUV incident, specifically whether the "aliases" and victim's alma mater are necessary. For the record, I'm not engaging with the editor to added the content because they are banned from interacting from me. Soliciting feedback from other members of WikiProject Oregon. Thanks! ---Another Believer(Talk)21:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Portland Tribune contents going subscription only starting in 2020
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
So much text I barely scanned it. What do you think? I saw some stuff about Alibina that sounded reasonable, but it's so hard to tell what's going on with a giant diff. Sometimes you move one sentence, and the whole article is now a diff with the previous version. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Peregrine Fisher, I went ahead and removed the content. Perhaps there are some things worth keeping, but some of the text was clearly not neutral or entirely compliant w/ Wikipedia's standards. I think we can do better. ---Another Believer(Talk)01:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I was in the middle of adding some fascinating history and an unregistered editor added some cable stuff that I'm not as interested in, which would have created an edit conflict. So I took over. I'm hoping the resulting outline is not too much of a mess but in true Valfontis style, I think that is all the work you will get out of me on this, if anyone wants to make sure it looks decent and wants to add some history, especially the not-FB kind! Cheers! The mysterious Valfontis (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Found this article on Oregpn Parks and Recreation's 2014 purchase of property for a planned state park near Tierra del Mar, with a little history related to a failed proposal for a golf course on the property. Couldn't find anything else on the proposed state park. Does anyyone have info on that? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Nothing is wrong. Just asking for a second edit, because I was writing an update and someone added similar information, so I merged my info with theirs, which might have created a mess. And saying hi. Hi. It was in the national news is all. The people of Tierra del Mar think something is wrong, which is why the place is in the news. An unregistered editor thought the AP article should originate from the Star-Advertiser and not the Washington Post. I disagree, since we lost the author info, but ::shrug:: If it doesn't interest you, that's fine. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks to all who jumped in, and especially to Valfontis and Lord Bolingbroke for the c/e cleanup. I've been diagnosed with an eye disease that leaves blind spots, making proofreading kind of a nightmare, and I'm pleased to have help with that. And yes, Peregrine Fisher, it's a new article and DYK is my next stop. Maybe not tonight. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I just want to say that an active editor watches this page. Not sure I'm interested in this particular thing, although it's tangential to the Ramona books, which I am interested in. Keep up the good work! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
In popular culture links
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I know this feature has not had much support since Jimmy Wales ranted about it 15 years ago (namely, how every "In popular culture" section was little more than a compilation of mentions in "Family Guy" or "The Simpsons"), but I was a bit surprised that none of the obvious locations where Grimm or Leverage were used have notes mentioning this. Specifically, I'm thinking about how Kelley Point Park was the setting for at least two episodes of Grimm, maybe three. (Or maybe I'm the only currently active Wikipedian who is a fan of this show.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
If the setting of the episode was somehow important to the plot, or mentioned by the characters, or mentioned in reliable sources, it may be worth including in the article. By contrast, if the episode just happened to be shot in that park, and the location was essentially a stand-in for "any location next to a river", then mentioning it in the article is probably fan trivia that does not belong in Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
It's all about references. Maybe you could create a well refed sentence in the park article that says "Episodes of X show, Y show, and Z show have been filmed in the park"ref, ref, ref. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The problem will always be with finding acceptable references. (Sometimes Wikipedia rules seem to be more trouble than they are worth.) But there are scenes where anyone who knows Portland will recognize where it was filmed with no doubt. For instance, much of the Leverage episode "The San Lorenzo Job" was clearly shot in the lobby of the Schnitzer; anyone who has been there & seen the episode can confirm that. And I had trouble suspending my disbelief that the final scenes of "The Maltese Falcon Job" really were at Boston Harbor when the West Hills of Portland were visibly in the background. -- llywrch (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Oregon Center for Public Policy
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Franny Gaede, UO librarian, needs some help creating WP accounts for participants in two editathons, one tomorrow! Dates and times:
February 20, 4-6pm, and April 16, 4-6pm.
Anyone available to help?
Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Minor edits suggested for Dallas Oregon page
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I noticed today two items on the page for Dallas, Oregon that might want revised. I have neither the ability nor the inclination to make such changes, but I thought I would pass the thought along to those who clearly demonstrate a dedication to how Oregon and communities therein are represented in Wikipedia.
Firstly, the final sentence under the heading for "Gerlinger family" is a fragment, and therefor reads poorly and has an unclear meaning. However, I don't know what the intent of the message was, so I don't know how to make it a complete sentence. But I also did not want to delete the content simply because it is poorly written. It may have value to some reader.
Secondly, the primary photo for the page is a photo of the Polk County Courthouse. I suppose that is acceptable since Dallas is the county seat. Still, it seems that there might be something more specific to the city than that, like maybe a view of downtown (that might include the courthouse), a photo of somewhere in the revered city park along Rickreall Creek, or a view of the city from atop the hills to the south. However, my biggest objection to the specific photo is that it is obvious to anybody familiar with the courthouse that this photo is is at least fifty years old. That does not seem ideal for an initial representation of the city. The main page for Polk County shows a similar view of the courthouse more as it looks today, including the addition that was added back in the seventies or so that is clearly missing in this photo. At a minimum, it seems that the photo from Polk County should replace the one for Dallas. The existing one might be appropriate if labelled as historic, especially if moved to a subordinate position and if a date can be related to it. The building is claimed by some locally to be the second oldest courthouse in Oregon, so some such photo might be appropriate, if not on the Dallas page, then under Polk County or somewhere else in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.237.103 (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Ideas for presenting data about Oregon communities with poor evacuation routes?
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
A KPTV news article recently pointed to this website which maps communities which have substandard evacuation routes. Here is data from the map:
I feel like maybe this could go in the respective city articles somehow, but don't have much idea of how it should be presented. Any ideas?
—EncMstr (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I think about this when I go to the flat place in our Canada. It seems optimistic to put a tsunami escape route along a 15mi peninsula that never gets over 30 feet high. So.. I guess part of what I feel is missing on the coastal stuff is the "for what purpose". In other words, Astoria's pretty good because the local hill is 600 feet high; it's hard to explain that without going into WP:OR. At least the KPTV article contextualizes it some; it might be worth a sentence, like "it's one of 20 towns that were identified as having.."? and sorry for accidentally rolling back from my phone! tedder (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, the wider article has some appeal, but how to sensibly bound that topic? Would exterior fire escapes be part of that? Maybe toxic spill disaster plans? Earthquakes? Asteroid impacts? —EncMstr (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) is being given away in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, including the week ending July 5th dedicated to the US, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. There's a potential £120 to be won in total for destubbing on any subject or region of your choice. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius12:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
South Portland
Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
South Portland becomes a thing in a few days. I know Wikipedia's a work in progress and we can sort this out over time, but I think a concerted effort would reduce a lot of confusion. In short, some Southwest Portland addresses are changing to South Portland, marking the first major address restructure since 1931.
If splitting of the NRHP list is to be done, then Ipoellet or someone else would need to have a map of the new South Portland borders (there's some description but not yet a map of precise borders included in the South Portland article), and would compare that to locations of NRHP-listed places (which can be seen in an OSM map by clicking on "map of all coordinates" towards the bottom of the NRHP list-article). Extra care is needed about the historic districts, some of which might span the border and would then need to be included into both lists. One HD is South Portland Historic District, which might or might not be wholly in the new jurisdiction. --Doncram (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Worth noting that the new South addressing zone extends beyond Portland city limits in the Riverdale/Dunthorpe area. The NRHP properties in that area would not be affected by any split of the NRHP list article since they're included here and not on the SW PDX list. Here's the full list of NRHP properties in South and inside city limits:
To get to this list, I relied on the "map of all coordinates" on the OSM basemap that Doncram mentioned, this official GIS from the city, and the map included in the SPHD article. — Ipoellet (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Per this source, South Portland "includes roughly 10,000 addresses and properties in the South Waterfront, Collins View and Riverdale neighborhoods, including parts of the Oregon Health and Sciences University campus and Lewis and Clark College." Might get a little confusing around OHSU/L&C... ---Another Believer(Talk)14:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious about the island too, I've always liked all things Jantzen. I swear I've heard some mention of "talking to someone who owns the only island in L.O." in the past few weeks, I just can't remember where. Hmm. tedder (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to me. They are two separate buildings, built at two separate times, that serve two separate purposes, on two different city blocks. One is an NRHP property, and the other is not. The Saint Paul Depot appears to be one large, integrated structure. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I've nominated Statue of Harvey W. Scott for Good article status. Improvements before the article gets picked up for review are welcome. Also, Wikimedia Commons has several images of the statue but they are pretty similar. If anyone happens to visit Mount Tabor Park and wants to take a photograph of the statue from a distance, to show the surrounding area, that'd be helpful. Thanks, ---Another Believer(Talk)15:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the article! I've tweeted to see if anybody owns the rights to a photo. If not, since he is deceased, we would be able to use a photo under fair use. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Independent Publishing Resource Center
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
{{Infobox organization}} does not appear to support pushpin maps. I suppose that functionality could be added after a discussion on the template's talk page, or maybe a different infobox is more appropriate for that article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
OHS is doing an adopt-a-brick program for the research library and digital vault projects that are currently going on. The cost/donation for a brick is $1000, and it gives you 2 lines, 16 characters each. Does anyone want to chip in to get a brick for Wikipedia or "WikiProject Oregon" or something? ("Aunt Betty, Wikipedia") I kind of like the idea of the legacy it represents for OHS and Wikipedia. I'm willing to toss in quite a bit but nowhere near $1000. tedder (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm in, too! I'd be happy to help spread the word, we should discuss. Do you know the deadline, Ted? It's not clear to me from the page. I'd say to get it going:
Find out (or arbitrarily set) a deadline
Propose one or more possible "names of the donor" (e.g., "WikiProject Oregon," "Oregon wiki community," "Aunt Betty"
Propose one or more possible messages, if there are characters left over
Propose a minimum gift amount (which tells us how many people we need to attract)
I think if you (or any of us) can put a coherent proposal together, I'd be happy to compile it into a page we could share on social media, and encourage people to pitch in. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
2020 coronavirus pandemic in Oregon
Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion
I yanked the history I'd added to the Oregon article and tried to blend the two. It's imperfect but it didn't belong in the Oregon one anyhow. tedder (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm a little hesitant to share (I can hear the calls of premature forking already), but I've started a draft about the pandemic's impact on Portland specifically. IMO, this will allow much more detail than a single article about the entire state. The only city-focused article I've seen is 2020 coronavirus pandemic in London, which has been proposed for merge but looks like will be kept. The London page has very little content. I'd like to set a quality standard for other potential city articles, using PDX.
You'll see the Portland draft already has sections for case details, government responses, and economic impact (with subsection devoted to film/performing arts, food service/restaurants, hospitality, sports), as well as sections for impacts on education and religion. This is just a start. There's plenty more to add, and the page is also currently lacking a lead, background, and expanded section on confirmed cases. In other words, I think a standalone article is appropriate.
How can you help? I welcome text additions and source sharing on the talk page, and I'm specifically seeking help with:
Expanding the section on sports. I don't know anything about sports but I know there's a lot to add here.
Expanding the section on education. There's currently only minimal mention of K–12 school closures, and much more to add, especially re: universities.
Incorporating sources posted to the talk page into the article's prose.
These are scary times, but if I must be social distancing and staying at home, I'll put my time to good use documenting this awful pandemic. Care to join?
Also, this draft covers a lot of temporary closures. I don't want to keep repeating "as of XXX date", closed "through XXX date", announced on "XXX date" they'd whatever until "XXX date", etc., but I also don't know when these dates may be important to note. Assistance with 'time stamping' these many claims appropriately would be helpful, with Wikipedia:Summary style in mind. ---Another Believer(Talk)02:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I've collected a bunch of sources at Talk: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Portland, Oregon, separated by topic. Anyone interested in selecting a topic of interest and seeing if the references can be incorporated into the article's text? If you participate, please share updates on the talk page so we can archive completed tasks.
Done The two articles now live at Orenco Station, Hillsboro, Oregon and Orenco station (TriMet). Orenco station is now a disambiguation page, to which Orenco Station redirects. There are some backlinks needing disambiguation now, but if these pages look right, I'll go ahead and mark this section as resolved for now. @SJ Morg: Good? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
Unresolved
Photo requests
