Jump to content

Talk:Oregon Coast/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comment

Needs cleanup and expansion. I have created the subheadings that need to be filled in, but have not had as much time as I would like to work on it. Please help, especially with geography and ecology spaces. PDXblazers 23:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've put up the Cleanup banner on the main page, and am working on cleaning it up a bit. My problem with the article is that it sounds like a recitation of facts and tourist notes instead of a well structured article.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I've also cleaned up the geography section of the article. Though it needs more work, it's much better than it was.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!) Katr67 04:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I plan to add a link to OSU Libraries' North Coast Explorer http://www.northcoastexplorer.info/ to the Oregon Coast site -- which I hope you will retain as it represents the on-going work of local watershed councils in this region.Averybo 18:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Bonnie Avery (OSU Libraries)
Well, the idea is to have a discussion about your link *before* you add it. But since this looks like a valuable link, it can stay. The idea is to keep out the commercial tourism links. As I pointed out on your talkpage, however, adding links to the top of the list is bad form, OK? Katr67 18:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I own a web site covering tourism on the Oregon Coast and would think it could be a valuable addition. Is there a chance of getting it added to the page? The link is http://www.romantic-oregon-coast.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chawman69 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-02T19:48:56 (UTC)

Read WP:EL and WP:SPAM (the latter is due to your addition of this link). If you still feel your link deserves adding, explain how it benefits the article and doesn't violate either guideline. —EncMstr 20:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to say "no" because I've removed too much of your linkspam, so I'm already biased against you. Hopefully someone more neutral will chime in. Thanks for asking this time. Also, you may have better luck over at Wikitravel, where I believe you can add links to your heart's content. Katr67 20:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Reading over the links EncMstr provided, and preparing a case based on them, will definitely help you understand the guidelines around such additions. But in my view, the page in question is not even close to meeting the standard for inclusion – and I doubt any case you make will change that view. But I appreciate your seeking input, and if you make the effort, I will listen. -Pete 20:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding Gallery of Historic Photos, which I feel has encyclopedic value. Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of maybe adding this link: Oregon & Washington Coast Guide because it has a lot of useful links and what not for most all the cities on the coast as well as other stuff that would be useful. Opinions?Ryoga-2003 (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the better links I've seen. I particularly like the upcoming events listings. —EncMstr (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

page title

Shouldn't it be "Oregon coast" - lower case? -Pete 22:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always kinda wondered about that myself. But if it's a geographic region, I think the uppercase is OK. I can check AP, MLA and/or Chicago if you want me to geek out over it... Katr67 23:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Methinks I've relied too heavily on your powers of geekery today, and should quit while I'm ahead. I created a redirect, which addresses most of the problem - beyond that, I'd say it's up to you =) Thanks especially for tracking down cites on the economy stuff, that was darn good of you. -Pete 23:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As a resident of the state and coast area, I'm inclined to capitalize the name, because when I speak of the Oregon Coast, I'm referring to it as a regional name, similar in fashion to the Basin and Range area of the state.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I finally checked around. I looked at Chicago and was still unsure. The Wikipedia MOS says (in regards to editing in general, not to article titles): "If you are not sure whether a region has attained proper-noun status, assume it has not." Well, I'm not sure.

I also searched through several online style guides and have concluded that I'm still unsure. Here's what they're saying:

  • George Fox University:
Oregon coast
This subregion does not qualify for the capitalization a larger, national region does.
  • Portland State University:
Capitalize when referring to specific and well-recognized geographic regions or to a particular region's culture, people, or history.
"Andy is going to the Oregon Coast this weekend."

The general consensus seems to be that smaller, less important regions are not capitalized and larger, more important ones are. Well, in Oregon, everyone knows what the Oregon Coast is and it is very important to us, so we capitalize it. Now, someone over in Maine may not realize just how important the Oregon Coast is to us. To them, it's just the Oregon coast. Unless the coast has the same level of national recognition that say, the Outer Banks do, (the first example I pulled out of my head--I've never been there, but it's a geographic region on the opposite coast that I've heard of. Would Oregon Coast have the same effect on a person from NC?) I'd say lowercase it. On the other hand, Wikipedia does tend to encourage local usage over official title so in that instance, uppercase wins out. Right now there are very few redirects from "Oregon coast" though that is probably an artifact of people eliminating redirects and I can run a find and replace using AWB if we decide to move it. Katr67 06:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Good thoughts, but it made me think of parallel important Oregon places: Oregon Cascades, Central Oregon, Eastern Oregon, Oregon Coast Range. The one which doesn't fit the pattern is Oregon mountains, which I suppose is because that is rather meaningless... —EncMstr (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Expansion ideas

Some ideas for expansion. On my display, a whole lot more text is needed to adequately fill out all those gorgeous photos.

Ecology
expand on marine animals, marine plant life, intertidal life, shore animals and plants. Also something about the land itself: rocks, sand, stone
Beaches
how many? How many acres? Driving on the beach (most non-locals surprised it isn't usually done).
Weather
winter storms, weather extremes, strongest wind gusts(?)
Water
temperature, current, tidal limits, rip currents, undertow
Dangers
perhaps mention the fishing charter that sank in 2006(?) and drowned several folks? Mention the boys rescued last week, etc.
Tourism
how bad is the traffic really? Where do the tourists go? Typical ma & pa accommodation. State Parks. Whale watching & only one whaling wall. Oregon Coast Trail ought to be mentioned.

—EncMstr 01:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the coast has three distinct area, it is important that they not all be grouped together. For example, the traffic problem is limited to the north and central areas, and is really a problem on the roads that connect the coast to the I-5 valley. The south coast and the access roads do not suffer from that problem. I am most familiar with the south coast and will contribute to that area. I will put some information in for the other areas, but would appreciate it if others, more knowledgeable people would contribute. Lhammer610 (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Now we have the three areas broken out in Geology and three areas broken out under Tourism. Much of the information seems redundant. For example, some of the information discussed under the north coast in Geology is repeated (more or less) under Tourism (since the area geology plays a significant role in tourism). Does it make more sense to have the three sections of the coast broken out once, and Geology, Tourism, Ecology, Beaches, etc. discussed under each region? Lhammer610 (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not done yet, is the thing. I've yet to get to the tourism section. One piece at a time. I'll work on that section next. Only I'll be changing it from tourism to something else. Don't know what yet.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Disclaimer: My interest is to see an expansion of useful information for the Oregon South Coast.
I see what you have done, now, but a lot of useful information about the south coast has been lost.Lhammer610 (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You have to remember, I am pretty much working at this alone A.T.M., whilst amidst finals and dead week at the U.Oregon. Rome wasn't built in a day, remember. Any help would be nice, especially with the south coast, which I am not as familiar with.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I would be glad to help, but like yourself, I have a lot going on right now, which is why I have held off on contributing. If you are too busy, then please do not feel obligated to make changes/additions.
What I am concerned about on this article is including the necessary information to help people who are looking for information about touring the Oregon Coast. It seems that we have lost a lot of what little we had. I think the organization of the article is partly at fault. Moving all information about the three areas under the heading of Geography does not seem to work particularly well for tourism as it limits the scope of the discussion to geography. Also, there are comments that I am not certain are accurate, such as "relatively few major urban areas exist in this [south coast] region, due both to lack of usable land and also to the low occurrence of usable bays". I am not claiming this is inaccurate, but I think it might be. In my observation, the lower population is due at least in part to: further away from major population centers, difficulties in access (roads), and the large amount of land owned by the federal government and private timber industries.Lhammer610 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me if I defer to other members of WikiProject Oregon on this one. Now, I understand you live on the south coast. That's fine. However, you have to remember that I've lived in the state for my entire life. Simple fact is, there actually is more to do up north. And if you haven't noticed, there is an entire section at the bottom designated for traveling the Oregon Coast. It isn't called tourism however. I'm still working on everything, and my intention is to have a balanced representation of the Oregon Coast. If you want, you should place the information you are want to see under one or several of the following articles: Curry County (Oregon), Coos County, Coos Bay, Oregon, Gold Beach, Oregon, Bandon, Oregon, Brookings, Oregon or similar related articles. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I said something that made you defensive, but this should not degenerate into a "my region is better than yours". Please accept my appologies.
By saying "there actually is more to do up north", I think you have supported my comments that the areas are different and deserve different coverage. The article makes a point that there are three distinct regions on the coast, but lumps the tourism together. Why? They were separate, but were combined together and we lost some important information about what makes each area unique.
Tourists do not visit the areas by county, nor by town. Instead, they get in a car and drive and visit regions. Since this page is about the Oregon Coast, information about touring the Oregon Coast belongs here. Since the group has already accepted that there are three regions, then tourism deserves to be covered by region.
BTW, sometimes living in one area for their entire life makes one blind to what is unique and beautiful. A fresh observation from someone who was once an outsider can be helpful. Please accept my help in improving this site so we can inform those who have not visited this unique area of the country. Thank you. Lhammer610 (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
That last bit was a low blow. Very low blow. To me that is somewhat insulting. I've been all over. I've seen a lot. If I seem on the defensive it's because I am. I understand fully what the coast has to offer, and I'm thankful everyday that I'm fortunate to live in this state. Again, tourism is not what this is about. If there is one thing I have learned, it's that the best information is what the greater population doesn't know. Tourism will be and has been covered. But the bulk of this article is not going to be tourism. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. It was intended that way. To give you a bit of background on that statement, I moved here a few years ago and was astounded as to what it has to offer. The "locals" who have lived here for many years put down the area not a place to visit, nothing to do, who would want to come here, etc. As an outsider, I could see what they could not, because it was new to me. Since then, I have been able to talk several of my friends from where I used to live to visit and they too are astonished about the Oregon Coast. Yet those who have lived here do not see it and take it for granted.
In my defense, you said, "However, you have to remember that I've lived in the state for my entire life" and since I have not, I took it as a reason that your opinion counted more than mine.
I agree that tourism is not what this is about and but that does not mean that we cannot expand the portion dedicated to visiting the coast. I also have questions about the organization of the article. Please see my suggestions/questions at the bottom. Lhammer610 (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that instead of tourism, it should be Economy. Like any other coastal region, tourism is going to be pretty much identical to other coastal regions. "Oh, there are beaches, and parks, and fishing" Tourism is a bit vague in it's way. If we are going to include tourism, it should be a subset of Economy. Beaches should be included under the Geography section, and water should be placed under Weather. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work, and welcome back to WP:ORE! Even though it's not a city, I tend to favor the arrangement of sections laid out in WP:USCITY for counties as well, so it might be useful for a region too. Eventually it would be nice to have all the Oregon-related geographic articles more or less consistent in layout. Katr67 (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree to the layout if this was a county. However, since it is a region, we have to use special rules. I'm going to be really going at this article in the next week or so. Lot of history books to help.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
"Like any other coastal region, tourism is going to be pretty much identical to other coastal regions." I disagree. Having lived in two other coastal regions, there is a considerable difference between the Oregon Coast and other coastal regions - which is why the Oregon Coast is listed in the book of "1001 Places to See Before You Die". The differences between the three areas on the coast are more subtle but very real. The north and central coasts have more vacation houses, traffic and fewer vistas. The southern area has the dunes (Coos Bay and Reedsport), several working fishing towns, designated wild rivers including the Rogue (do you have salmon fishing on the north except the Columbia?), very little population (Curry Co has 25,000 people in an area of about Conn.), Redwoods, and the Kalmiopsis Wilderness. The drive from Port Orford to Brookings is unlike anything on the north. That makes the South Coast distinct compared to the other areas. I am not as familiar with the central vs. the north coast to be able to say what differences they have, but there are the forts on the north, a cheese factory, some really ugly shopping outlets, an aquarium, several cool lighthouses, etc. It is time for us to take our collective heads out of the proverbial sand and see what our tourists see. Lhammer610 (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This article isn't for tourists though. As I've stated, I've been the length of the coast. Many times. I've also stated that the Oregon Coast is not just the South Coast. Obviously you favor the south coast. The primary reason that the Oregon Coast is listed as one of the top places to visit is because of it's scenic nature. That's the entire coast. And while tourism is big, it is not the only thing, this is wikipedia, not a tourist website. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
"This article isn't for tourists though." I am confused. Certainly this article is not a tourist website, but it does provide information about the Oregon Coast, including tourism. I am not suggesting that this article be limited to tourism nor am I suggesting that the existing information be deleted.
There is already a tourism section on this site. I am merely recommended that it be returned to the level before portions of it were deleted. Then that information should be expanded.
BTW, I do not favor the south coast nor have I ever said "the Oregon Coast is just the South Coast". That would be silly. If you were to read my first post, I said, "I am most familiar with the south coast and will contribute to that area. I will put some information in for the other areas, but would appreciate it if others, more knowledgeable people would contribute" to the other areas of the coast, as well as the south. I hope this clarifies my comments for you.
I wish you would consider my suggestions as helpful improvements to the site rather than an attack on the hard work that you have already done. Thank you. Lhammer610 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Ryoga-2003,

I would say that I would have to disagree with you on many things but one in particular is a statement you made on the Southern Oregon Coast “Simple fact is, there actually is more to do up north”. I think this would be called a matter of opinion. I have lived in the Southern Oregon Coast all of my life and found that there is plenty to do down here. Along with camping, jet skiing, fishing, gold panning, kayaking, hunting, and beach combing, there is an array of wildlife that tourists (who by the way would die to live here) can come and enjoy. This leads me to my next topic. Tourism is an essential part of our economy so I believe that is dire to include in the Southern Oregon Coast’s section how tourism affects our economy. Let me explain in blunt terms: Tourists come and spend money on a hotel room, go beachcombing the next day, eat dinner at a local restaurant, and spend more money riding jet boats up our beautiful river. Circulation key in an economy. I would have to agree with Lhammer610 in saying that this is not a fight for who has the better regions. He is trying to include all sections of the coast because they are quite noticeably different. I also believe that dictatorship will not last in a society. It seems as though you have wiggled your way into that role. This website is open to the public to revise and I would hope to see it stay that way in the future. Thank you. Alaskan carter (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish people would help me or stop giving me flak. I've at no point been a dictator. I've made a few errors. Mostly newness, slightly pride. However, I'm trying my best, especially given that I'm the first person in a while to really expand on the article. I'm not putting up random junk onto the page, and I'm citing what I can as much as I can. I've no desire to argue about the tourism. It's important yes. It's still last on my list of importance. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

shipwrecks

I"ve been interested that 'shipwrecks' haven't made it. I seems to me there is a separate section whichh include oregon coastal shipwrecks, and I recently took a photograph or two of the now exposed shipwreck Bella at Florence, interesting because it was built in the Siuslaw River near Florence and met its end on the 'south jetty'Rvannatta (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Upload away, I'd love to see that. A new section would be very welcome as far as I'm concerned. Also, if you're not aware of it, check out Steamboats of the Oregon Coast. -Pete (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a category entitled Shipwrecks of the Oregon coast that has pages for the New Carissa and the Peter Iredale but apparently none of the other numerous wreckages. Many have sort of been in the news this winter because extensive beach erosion has exposed them.Rvannatta (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There are far too many shipwrecks in Oregon history, and very few of them are of much importance. I've a book on Oregon shipwrecks, that lists most major wrecks. There are over 350 different wrecks and ships that have gone missing on the Oregon coast. Most of the data on these ships is vague as is. Most listings simply include ship name, homeport, crew count, crew loss, and location of wreck, if known. Otherwise it's kind of vague. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't run across it -- have you seen the exellent Steamboats of the Oregon Coast article that Mtsmallwood put together? Lots of good related articles, too. -Pete (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

After I get done with most of this, I will start making a list page of Oregon Shipwrecks. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

images

Lincoln Beach, Oregon, Fishing Rock with Rabbit Rock in background
Oregon Coast at Brookings, Oregon
Battle Rock City Park View along the Oregon Coast

I rearranged the images in the article and kept only the ones that directly illustrated the content. I'm moving the others here for reference, in case others feel that they belong in the article (or in case more content is created to suit them). Northwesterner1 (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to re-include the image of Battle Rock back in the article, as it is a prime example of the history of the state of Oregon, as well as being a prominent landmark on the coast. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The only area on the page not represented by a photo is the south coast. It would be nice to have one included there. I am not certain that the photo near Brookings is the one to use, so any others would be appreciated.Lhammer610 (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The Brookings one shouldn't be, as it is very very poor quality. However, Battle rock IS south coast, so it is represented.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing article

I just took a quick look at the article, and am very impressed with the general rearrangement of sections, the quality of illustration, etc. I'm unlikely to have time for a more detailed review soon, but I just wanted to note how good this looks. Thanks, Ryoga, for putting the effort in!! -Pete (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. As for the driving distances, it was there previously, and I did not see reason to outright remove it. However, I think that people should voice their opinions before it is removed or retained. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the driving distances section is actually a list of towns in order, which might be good. The distances should probably be removed, and the rest turned into prose. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm temporarily putting the driving distances here so I don't loose the data and can write up a better section for it or if reuse it later somewhere else. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Driving distances


I think a list of coastal communities in order is a lot like the list in U.S. Route 101 in Oregon. Katr67 (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer edit?

Not sure if you meant peer review. Nice little article, but what it needs most is references for the sections that don't have them. You can find some great stuff with this search. Like info on battle rock and whatnot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, peer review, peer edit, both. Make sure the syntax is good, the spelling is good, the article is decent. I think I will work on the references section tomorrow.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Organization ideas

The article, as presently organized, is split into the following categories:

Geography
Ecology
History
Traveling

Only the Geography portion is divided into the three regions agreed on by this group: North, Central, and South. I would like to expand the information about each of these three regions, as they do have some distinct differences. Would it make sense to have these three subsections under each of the categories listed above? Or have the three areas become the categories, and the four current categories become subsections?

For example:

North Coast
Geography
Ecology
History
Traveling

Or

Geography
North Coast
Central Coast
South Coast

Comments and input would be appreciated. Thank you. Lhammer610 (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of article

Forgive me if I'm missed something, I only skimmed some of the recent discussion, but I noticed there was some talk about tourism. Be sure to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tourism guide. A well-written article about the coast will certainly pique peoples' interest in the region, but this shouldn't be an exhaustive list of things to do or places to go on the coast and especially not a place to say: "you should go here or there". As as side note, in light of that, I think the driving distances aren't particularly encyclopedic. Also, I don't see the need to repeat the list of lighthouses. Just link to it. Any time info can be split off into a separate list or article it should be, then it just needs to be summarized in the parent article. An additional reminder--don't forget to follow the manual style, I think some of the headings have been changed back to lowercase more than once. If you don't know why something got changed, be sure to take a look at the edit history. Sorry if this all sounds cranky, but I'm quite proud of the level of quality many of the Oregon articles have achieved and I'd like to see that continue--it's great this article is getting the attention it deserves! If I have time I'll take a closer look later. Katr67 (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Katr. I'll change those bits. Also, where should the Beach bill section go? I'm inclined to put it under the beaches section. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
re:Beach Bill--my gut reaction is that it belongs in History, but I haven't compared the diffs to see if that is what works best for this article. It's very very notable to the entire history of Oregon as well as the coast. It's called the Beach Bill, but it's really a public lands issue. Beaches are just another geographic feature of which there happen to be some at the coast. Katr67 (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that it is not a tourism guide (sigh). I am not proposing such. I would only like to return the divisions of North, Central, South on the "Traveling the Coast" section. Please see my suggestions/questions about organizing the article. I also suggest that the beach bill belongs in history since it was enacted in 1967. Thanks. Lhammer610 (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
There is actually more there now than their used to be. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that the Beach Bill belongs in history. Can I move it there? I would also like to subdivide the history section into different eras. Coastvet (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the beach bill moving there right now is a go then. However, I feel we should wait on subdividing history until it has more substance. Most we could probably do is divide it in two. =3 Ryoga-2003 (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the tourism info that's in dispute?

The Traveling section mentions some of it. Was there more, or was it just that it's not broken down into north, central, and south? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly not 100% sure, myself. My take on it has been that Lhammer wants more information on tourism. However, I feel that there is enough for the time being and that anything tourism related should be for the time be allocated to the county and city articles that they are most pertinent to. He's also used the example that because the Oregon Coast it is in a book called "1001 Places to See Before You Die." that there should be more in the way of tourism. However, I do not feel this is a substantial reason. My standpoint while rewriting this article is that for the time being, tourism should be ignored in favor of other, more factual and important information. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, if they want to add some well cited encyclopedic tourism info, then we should let them. There's no reason not to work on one section because the others aren't finished. That said, tourism is a tricky subject. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and isn't to be used to promote things. LHammer, if you're listening, maybe you could put some of the info you want included in the article on this talk page, and we can discuss it and then maybe put it into the article. A good place to start would be how much of the coast's economy depends on tourism, I think it's the number one industry. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the chance to discuss my ideas. First a clarification. My comment about the Oregon Coast mentioned in a book called "1001 Places to See Before You Die" was a response to a comment that said "[The Oregon Coast,] Like any other coastal region, tourism is going to be pretty much identical to other coastal regions." The Oregon Coast is unique and very different from "any other coastal region" and that is why it was included in that book.
My concern is that what is presented under "Traveling the Coast" is not broken down into North, Central and South. For a start of what I propose, please see the page as it appeared on 15 January 2009. This was a primitive start. Much has been added to this section and I would like to return it to the three areas, an organization similar to what is in the Geology section. This does not constitute a travel guide. It is a reorganization of what is already there today into the three areas.
The second part of my proposal has to do with overall organization of the article - please see Organization Ideas. Lhammer610 (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I would say one section for tourism, unless the whole article is split into three parts for north, central, and south, which is probably not optimal as there will be a lot of overlap. I'm not sure Geology should really be split either. At this point, without references, it's hard to know what the eventual article will look like. If reliable sources break down geology or tourism into those three areas, then so should we. If they don't, then we shouldn't either. As this article moves up the quality ladder, all the text will either have to have a citation added, or be removed and replaced with text that is backed up by a citation. An Oregon article that I got to good article status, Cannabis in Oregon, started in one form, but as reliable sources provided more info on certain parts, and less on others, that was what eventually led to the current section organization. My recommendation is to add all the references, and referenced text, you can and that will lead to the optimal organization. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
"I would say one section for tourism, unless the whole article is split into three parts for north, central, and south". What brought my attention to this article was the quote from NPR that the traffic to the Oregon Coast is the worst in the nation. I remember seeing the original information as presented by ODOT and it did not involve the entire coast. Instead, it involved the roads to the north. I am not certain, but I think it was restricted to routes 26 and 40. Conversely, the roads to the south are lightly traveled even during high tourist season. To group the Oregon Coast together as having the worst traffic in the nation is misinformation. As is pointed out in the Geography section, there are distinct areas that can be roughly divided into the three areas. The northern portion is more heavily populated. Myrtlewood is found only south of Reedsport. The dunes are centered around Reedsport. The aquarium is near Newport. Forts at the north. Redwoods on the south. Etc. I can go on.  :-) While the article could be organized with three sections or split into three sections, I have no preference. Lhammer610 (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Clarifying which roads would be a good idea. 199 isn't that crowded, I know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Neither are 42 or 38. Let me see if I can do a better job of explaining my thoughts: I really don't care if the article is divided into three areas. But I do want it to be consistent and accurate. The beginning of this article starts out with "Traditionally, the Oregon Coast is regarded as three distinct sub-regions, each with its own local features and regional history. While there are no legal or objective boundaries, most Oregonians consider the three regions...". If we are going to start out with the article defining the coast as three regions, then it may make some sense to organize the article into those regions. There are also some generalizations about the coast that are misleading. As I mentioned, the article starts out with "highways being considered some of the worst in terms of traffic" which is an inaccurate generalization. I have attempted to correct that comment in the past, but my changes have been deleted. This has been frustrating. There are more. The article states "Surfing is less frequent further south, due to offshore and on shore rocks, but not unheard of." This is at best misleading. I have a cousin who has surfed the entire California and Oregon Coasts and considers the south coast to have some of the best surfing. While it is possible (?) that there are fewer beaches in the south, they are less crowded and offer a better experience (according to him). I have attempted to clarify the population of the Coos Bay area. Coos Bay is locally referred to as The Bay Area and is two towns, North Bend and Coos Bay and there is no physical distinction. That has been deleted. Additionally, some of my comments have been interpreted as wanting to add to the travel section or even morph it into a travel site. That is not nor has it ever been my intent. I think what is there now is pretty good and does not need a significant expansion. I have also been accused of favoring the south coast. I live here and am therefore more knowledgeable about the south coast than I am of the other areas. But my favorite coast towns are Florence (great old town) and Seaside (love the beach and the arcade). I cannot make many contributions about those areas. However, I can help with the south coast and would like to. At one point, I moved the beach bill to the history section where it was originally. It makes sense since it occurred decades ago and is part of the history of the coast. However, it was immediately moved back. I am hoping to work with the other author(s) of this site and contribute. Lhammer610 (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
My recommendation is to start adding referenced information. I like using User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar in combination with google news and google books, myself. If you add info from a reliable source, it will stick. Don't worry about uncited info like surfing in the south. It will all be eventually replaced by sourced info. I think surfing is pretty prevalent in the south as well, but I wouldn't add anything like that without a source because, as you can see from this talk page, opinions vary. Wikipedia has a way to resolve disputes of opinion, and it's sourcing. Otherwise people argue forever (ah, the good old days of 2006). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Do we have agreement then that the reference to traffic to the coast needs to be clarified? Similar to what I had originally? Or does someone have another suggestion? Lhammer610 (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
After I finish my assignments for class, I intend to start citing what I can. As I've stated on my user page, I intend to work at this intently for a long time. My eventual goal is to get this to Featured Article Status because the coast is so important to me. I am far from done being truly done. =3 Ryoga-2003 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds great. Of course a comprehensive treatment will require toursim info. Hopefully LHammer knows how to do research/add references. It's a lot easier with help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
First things first, let's flush out what needs added. What would really be nice is a bunch of quality pictures of Coos Bay on south, for both the gallery and future additions. Coos Bay to Astoria I can readily get. Go fishing enough there. Don't travel that far south of Coos Bay along 101 however. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(redent) This is a great tool for finding free images. In the "Scan" section, change it to "Articles", with Oregon coast in the text area. In the "Image sources" section, change the Flickr number to 50 or something else big. In the "List" section, select "All articles". That brings up tons of stuff. Another good thing is the Flickr advanced search, which looks for free images. For example, this search brings up some really pretty pics of Newport. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe. I think it would be better to get people to contribute their own photos if they are high enough quality and not postcard shots and also at the same time avoid the legal mucking about trying to figure out copyrights. My philosophy is that it's better to get none standard images because of the variety. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Those sources have the correct copyrights. There all creative commons. It's much faster to look through some pages of pics and choose them than ask people to take new ones, but whatever you want to do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I say both, than! =3 Ryoga-2003 (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Need help of rewording

The article currently states, "Much of the coastline in this [South Coast] region is made up of sea cliffs and stacks. Because of this, relatively few major urban areas exist in this region, due both to lack of usable land and also to the low occurrence of usable bays and rivers south of Cape Blanco." This does not seem to be accurate considering that the largest metro area on the coast is Coos Bay / North Bend (OK it is north of Cape Blanco). Also, there are the harbors of Port Orford and Brookings south of Cape Blanco and both have fairly large fishing fleets (I don't consider Gold Beach to have a harbor). The comment about "lack of usable land" leading to low population is not correct. There are plenty of buildable lots in the area and housing construction was booming before the economy tanked. I suspect that the low population in Curry County is more due to lack of access. Railroads were never built (Coos Bay had one - not currently operating). Also, there is not a single major highway connecting the entire county directly to I-5 making the area even more remote. Plus the southern portion of the I-5 corridor is not nearly as populated as the areas feeding the Central and Northern Coasts. Suggestions? Lhammer610 (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that describes it, and summarize. There's no point in discussing what our opinions on it are at this point. A lot of this article is unreferenced, which makes it seem like we can say whatever we want, but ultimately, all that text will be removed. We need to discuss what the various sources we've read say, and then include their info in an optimal way. Basically, find a reliable source on the subject, bring it here to the talk page, and discuss it. Do that once, and you'll have a much better idea of how improving this article is going to go. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I would lean in the direction of not including any text that is presented as factual that is not referenced. The original comment which concluded the reason for the smaller population on the south coast was not referenced, should never have been included (as of this writing, it looks like someone has removed it which I think is proper). Other comments, such as traffic, should be clarified. Although it is referenced, it is misleading because the report from NPR was limited in its coverage. I have tried to find the original ODOT report that it was based but have been unable to. - I just got off the phone with ODOT. They are going to try to find the PDF of the report and email it to me. He said that it was based on non-commuter traffic and limited to the 5 roads from the Willamette Valley to the coast. Lhammer610 (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I looked around and couldn't find anything that summarizes which roads have traffic problems. Hopefully you'll have better luck. It's not a crazy important or controversial part of the article, anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
This reference narrows it down to the Coast Range. According to Oregon Coast Range, its the highways between the Columbia and Coos Bay. That's probably accurate enough. I know the road from Corvallis has a good amount of traffic, and I imagine the highways coming from the Eugene area do as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
126 between Eugene-Florence isn't that bad usually. Highways 22 and 18 are bad though. 20 has historically been the worst according to news reports I've seen. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I emailed ODOT to receive the PDF of their research. Hopefully, they will find it and I will be able to reference the original work done by ODOT. If I receive the PDF, do I just reference the title of the report or do we need to post it somewhere on Wikipedia so that others may access it? Would uploading a public record to Wikipedia be allowed? Lhammer610 (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You can't upload it, but you can cite it. Sources need to be theoretically available, and I imagine some government building has it available on request. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the rationale for having the airport in the geography section? Wouldn't it be more appropriate in the travel section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoga-2003 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I had the same question. When I posted it, I said "Add North Bend Airport Info. Belong here or travel? Could not find appropriate place in travel section." I could not find a place in travel where I thought it fit. Should travel have a separate subheading titled: "Getting to the Coast" or something similar? Include road access info, too? If you want to make one and put it there, please feel free to do so. Thank you. Lhammer610 (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Eventually, there will probably be a better section for it. Maybe "Economy" or something. It might be pleasing to put it the first paragraph of "Traveling the Oregon Coast", before the beaches section. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Although it sort of fits where it is now, and better than it was, I agree we might do better. Additionally, there is information that belongs on the history of industry on the coast (fishing and lumber, etc.) although I admit I have not looked closely at what is already there. But the effect of nearly closing down both industries has been devastating on the coast. Could belong under new Economy section or just fit in history? Plus I do have info from ODOT on the road congestion situation. That might be better presented in another subheading rather than at the introduction where it is now. BTW, anyone know why the bot removed the image? Just curious. Lhammer610 (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
A new section would be best for that kind of thing. Geography is lay of the land and distribution of people and things, ecology and history are pretty straight forward. It could theoretically go under the travel section, but it would be awkward. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The image's description page wasn't complete, so it got deleted. You can a bit about it at Editing File:TomMcCall.jpg. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Things to Keep us on the same page for Oregon Coast

I've noticed that there has been specifications for the South Coast only, recently. I'm not saying this is bad, but let us try to represent the Oregon Coast equally, North, Central, and South. If you want to put something for one section of the coast, try to find something for the other two sub-regions as well. If you post for the Central Coast, find something for the South and North as well. Later on it might be a good idea to make three new articles representing each sub-region later on.

I also feel that we should do the following things, as I think might help make this a quality article. Some are wikipedia guidelines as is, but I feel they should be stated here none the less.

  • City and county specifics should not be included unless it is pertinent to the Oregon Coast. I.E. Saying that Coos Bay is the largest city on the Oregon coast is okay. Listing off the populations of the cities, not so okay.
  • Avoid opinionated statements like "The Oregon Coast is beautiful". Instead, use more factual less opinionated statements like "The Oregon Coast is full of scenic vistas". I'm guilty of this I know. However, after a long list of discussions, I find that the arguing has become circular. I wanna make this the best regional article I can. =3
  • For the time being Tourism should be considered taboo. Let's focus on everything else right now. Geography, History, and Ecology are more important.
  • Trivia is fine. However, lets keep the trivia closer to what will make people want to learn more. For example "Depoe Bay is the world's smallest harbor according to the Guiness Book of World Records" is more appropriate than say "David Ogden Stiers lives on the Central Coast". David Ogden Stiers might move one day and will definitely not be around in 100 years. Depoe Bay will be the smallest natural harbor for a long time yet to come.
  • Leave the Introduction section alone for the time being. It's fine for now. Any changes should be made in the rest of the article.
  • Try to include currently existing references in any new or changed content. This doesn't mean use only those references, but keep them there. Every little piece. Besides, you might find it has exactly what you are looking for.

That's my list of things that should be taken into consideration in order to make this a really good article, and maybe get it up to Featured Article status. Anything that might be a good idea that I haven't thought off, do include it. This isn't set in stone. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if it seems I've overstepped my bounds a bit. Was intended more of a set of things that we could all do to help get this straightened out and keep us on the same page. >.< That's why I suggested we avoid Tourism/travel and the introduction for the time being. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It's cool. I think you're almost the only one really adding referenced information at this point anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, that does make me feel better. *Bows before Peregrine* I am humbled, master. I may seem a bit uptight over the article. It's my Oregonian pride kicking in plus my love of the ocean. Still, I'm gonna say that Tourism should be taboo until we all can agree. I won't touch the travel section either until everything else is set in order. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


A tourism section is a necessity for this article. I have done zero research so far, but expect reasonable coverage would be roughly:
Tourism is a major industry of the Oregon Coast. Each year an estimated X visitors spend $X to $X, and stay a total of X nights in coastal hotels. This represents approximately X percent of the coastal economy. Approximately X percent of all visitors are from western Oregon, X percent are from Washington and California, and X percent are from other U.S. states. X percent are from Canada, with the remaining X percent being from abroad.
Tourists arrive mostly by automobile, though X% arrive by bus, X% by train, X% fly in, and X% arrive by boat. While at the coast, X% tour by auto, X% by bicycle, X% by hiking, and X% sail.
The most visited tourist attractions are Oregon Coast Aquarium with X visits per year. X visit the Tillamook Cheese Factory, X visit the Newport Bay Waterfront, and X visit or view the 11 lighthouses. Oregon State Parks has X campgrounds and X recreational areas along the coast which attract a total of X visits per year.
The most popular time to visit is summer weekends, which also has the great incidence of traffic jams, particularly on highways through the coast range.
There ought be a little more breadth, but there's a start anyway. —EncMstr (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sudden interest in this article by new editors

I'm curious why this article has suddenly piqued the interest of several brand-new accounts. What's going on here? Katr67 (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What is more interesting is that they have only posted on this article, all focusing on the south coast/beaches. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
They look like sock puppets, but they haven't done anything crazy, so I say let them be. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
(Quotes the puppet version of Dante's Inferno) I hate puppet shows.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough.
Note to (possible) sock/meat puppets: Please read up on how to edit Wikipedia by checking out the links in the welcome templates on your pages. Well-sourced encyclopedic additions are always welcome in articles. If you don't get the hang of citations, someone should be along shortly to fix any mistakes. The south coast is grand, I agree, but remember that Wikipedia is not a Soapbox--in other words, we're not here to provide a forum for promotion of the south coast. We hope you like it here and decide to stay and edit other articles. Happy editing! Katr67 (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Update

I am a science teacher at an Oregon south coast high school. As part of our research project, the class embarked on a discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of Wikipedia and using it as a source for their research. We have taken a special interest in this article and choose to participate in its editing. This has been an excellent instructive tool to learn about Wikipedia including the potential bias of editors (including us), when to accept other sites as reliable, and what the editors consider to be fact.

At the time the above comments were posted, I decided not to respond to them. These "sock puppets" as they were referred to, are real human beings. These students are some of the finest and brightest students that I have ever had the pleasure to work with. Those who decided to directly contribute to the article are students who had the guts to attempt to participate in the editing process.

With the end of the grading period, this project is completed. It is my hope that these students will continue to be active members of Wikipedia as they have a lot to offer to improve this and other articles.

I would like to thank the participants in the editing process for their patience and help with this endeavor. Lhammer610 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you have taught us all a lesson. Before this incident, it never crossed my mind that the sudden appearance of an active swarm of editors on an article would be anything other than a sockpuppet with some non-WP:5P agenda. I apologize for not assuming good faith. Instead I looked carefully for its opposite. Indeed, the issues which occurred were quite minor: slightly contentious editing with a dash of WP:UNDUE weight on the southern coast. Those are common attributes of many—but not all—new contributors. Thanks for all your efforts! —EncMstr (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You can read about sockpuppets here. Unfortunately, sometimes people who have a vested interest in a certain point of view either create more than one account or enlist the help of several real people ("meatpuppets") to provide agreement for that point of view. Because of a certain amount of controversy surrounding the South Oregon Coast, it was clear that the appearance of several new editors with similar editing interests was probably connected to that controversy and that the editors were connected with each other. Because of the nature of the edits of newbies--often well-meaning but sometimes appearing to be vandalism--it's nice to inform others of these kind of class projects ahead of time. Although we are always cautioned not to bite the newbies, knowing ahead of time that new users are part of a project and may need some extra attention and care ensures that they remain unbitten. If you felt it made a better lesson to throw them to the sharks (!), I guess that's a reasonable view, but do realize that because vandalizing sockpuppets can cause a lot of destruction on Wikipedia, wasting valuable time that could be used to build content on the encyclopedia, established editors get a bit twitchy about anything that looks like sockpuppetry. I hope that explains. Katr67 (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Post-edit conflict note: I'm afraid I assumed that the new editors were somehow associated with Lhammer, but since, as Peregrine pointed out, they weren't doing any harm, and seeing on his website that he was a teacher, I figured they were his students. I didn't feel the need to follow up, as nothing being done was violating policy, but personally I do think such projects should be announced. Katr67 (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
To EncMstr: Gosh, that is very nice of you to say. I did not intend to teach anyone a lesson. And honestly, I thought the conclusion that there were "sock puppets" involved was a reasonable conclusion to what you were observing.
To Katr67: You have been very helpful and I appreciate your patience. I struggled with idea of should I inform or not. I decided that neither was a very good option. If I had informed the Wikipedia editors that a this may involve several student editors, then the student's experience would have been an artificial one which would have defeated the purpose. At the same time, I feared that if I did not disclose, I was being dishonest which was not my intent. Lhammer610 (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Traffic Information

For documentation purposes, I am posting an email from Oregon Department of Transportation here:

I just did an internet search on "Are We There Yet?" and found a number of websites that talk about this study; including several here in Oregon. I provided the data for this study, and the researchers mistakenly combined the data for the five routes between the valley and the coast into one and concluded that Oregon had the worst summer congestion in the entire country. Somehow, the conclusions do not pass the "giggle" test; to think that we have more congestion here than anywhere else in the states. Though some people would like to think so, statistically it just doesn't sound reasonable. [1] (you can find a copy at this website)

[2] (Website for American Highway Users Alliance - AHUA)

The internet search revealed that there is a big misunderstanding in the actual conclusions from the study; several websites in Oregon reported that the coastal highway (US101) had the worst national congestion. Please note that the study says nothing about the coast highway.

I deal with data all the time. When people ask me a detailed data question I will provide a detailed answer; based on the data and assumptions associated with the detailed problem. In this case, I was specifically asked for data on non-commuting state routes that experienced average daily congestion; they did not ask for summer congestion (which is quite different from average congestion). The term summer congestion never came up in the discussion.

As you know congestion on the roads in your area will be different in April, as compared with July; and weekend traffic is quite different from weekday traffic. So averaging the congestion over the year will water down the intensity of the summer congestion. Subsequently, the data provided can not support the conclusions.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Richard D. Arnold, P.E.

Senior Transportation Analyst

Oregon Department of Transportation

Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU)

555 13th Street NE, Suite 2

Salem, OR 97301-4178

Lhammer610 (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Students!

It seems some of Lhammer's students are helping out with the article. That's great! Here's some info for them.

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. We encourage you to read our instructions for students. Your instructor may wish to add your class to our list of school and university projects and s/he may want to read these instructions for teachers. For more help about school projects using Wikipedia, see our classroom coordination project.

Here are some other pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on your talk page and then place {{helpme}} before the question.

You can place this text: {{EducationalAssignment}} on the discussion page of any articles you are working on.

While you are working on your article, sometimes it is good to work on it in userspace, instead of in mainspace. You can do this by creating a sandbox or subpage of your userpage such as User:Your Username/Article Title (replacing "Your Username" and the article title). Let me know if you need help.

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your school assignment is finished! Katr67 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Geographic Sections - North, Central and South

Dividing up the geographic areas into North, Central and South is subjective. The Oregon Parks and Recreation website has determined what they consider to be the proper definitions we should be consistent with the State of Oregon. One editor correctly points out that basing these definitions on the towns leaves a geographical gap. For example, on the state map, the central coast ends south of Florence, while the south coast begins north of Reedsport, where route 38 intersects with route 101. How should we deal with this gap? If the group finds this to be an issue, then I would suggest changing the wording to be "The Central Coast, which stretches from north of Lincoln City to south of Florence." This would fill in that geographic gap while remaining consistent with the Oregon Parks and Recreation definition. Lhammer610 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, what defines each section of coast is incredibly subjective, as each person has their own opinions which is where. That is why when I originally worded it, I gave the cities as approximates, not as absolute locations. To say that each sub-region has definite boundaries is just as foolish, though. Originally, I had "at about Lincoln City" and "at about Coos Bay" as the dividers, as it was the most elegant solution. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
We can also explain the ambiguity. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure Oregon Parks and Rec, while it should be considered a reliable source, divvys up the state to some degree for its own convenience. Unless there is some clearly defining geographical difference between regions, the divisions will necessarily be subjective but does something like Atlas of Oregon or another reliable source offer an alternate take on the divisions? Katr67 (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Rather then rely on individual opinions, it seems reasonable to follow the Wikipedia standard of relying on references / sources. Can anyone come up with another source that provides a different split? If so, then we need to cite the contradiction / ambiguity. The stated reason for changing the split was because of the ~25 mile gap between towns. We should be able to work with that by modifying the wording, or just reference the maps at the Oregon Parks and Recreation website. Lhammer610 (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Depoe Bay the world's smallest navigable harbor

The claim by Depoe Bay as the world's smallest navigable harbor is an unverifiable claim. The concept of Navigability is subjective and depends on the vessel. All footnotes included are a regurgitation of what is essentially a marketing slogan of the town. The reference of Ralph Friedman (1990), "In Search of Western Oregon", says it best: "Locals claim the six acre harbor is the smallest navigable harbor in the world". This is hardly a ringing endorsement. "Locals claim" being repeated by other sources makes a nice story, but is not a basis in fact. I would suggest that if the group feels strongly about including this claim, that it be worded such as "Depoe Bay bills itself...", or "Claims to be...", or something similar.Lhammer610 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I recall there being measurements taken over it's size and it actually being said to be the world's smallest harbor. It is also usually listed as the world's smallest natural navigable harbor, and I can't find anything to refute.
EDIT: I think it is considered that, and it should be stated, as it appears to be in the Guinness Book of World Records.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Katr67 for fixing the heading (note to self: cut down on the multitasking and stop trusting spell check!). I looked for the support in the Guinness Book of Records website and could not find it. My library does not have the newest issues but I looked through them. Under "smallest", they list items like nightclub, wine glass, abacus, penknife, etc. Nothing about smallest harbor. In another issue, I looked up harbors, and it referenced "ports". Under ports were listed largest and busiest, but nothing about smallest. Your footnote about the Guinness Book of Records was, I think, from a traveler to Depot, er Depoe Bay, not from the Guinness Book of World Records. If the group supports this, we may want to use phrases like "Depoe Bay bills itself...", or "Claims to be...", or something similar, but that may not belong under Geography. Maybe include such a claim under Traveling the Oregon Coast? Lhammer610 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the claim itself is notable and should be mentioned in the Depoe Bay article, if not in this article. It seems to be the most widely known "fact" about the place, even if that fact has been disseminated under false pretenses. We have to be careful to not give the appearance of using weasel words, however. I'm surprised there is not better documentation for the claim. I'm also a bit baffled by the need for clarification on this one point but any effort at better accuracy in Wikipedia articles is, in the end, almost always a good thing, unless, of course, it is being used to prove a point. Until we can find a reliable source for the "smallest navigable harbor" claim, how should we word it? Are there any reliable sources that dispute the claim? Are there other harbors so-billed? To avoid weasel wording, perhaps it should say something like "Depoe Bay promotes itself as the world's smallest navigable harbor, and it was listed as such in the 19XX version of the Guinness Book of World Records, however recent research by Reliable Publication shows that blahblahblah.[citation][citation][citation]"
By the way, why isn't this conversation taking place at Talk:Depoe Bay, Oregon? I didn't check the page history of Oregon Coast, but I see no mention in the current version of the article of the "smallest harbor" claim. Was it removed? I'll also note that the source used to cite the claim in Depoe Bay, Oregon doesn't look like a reliable one. Katr67 (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed it (again) from this article since the author/editor is unable to support the claim. The discussion is occurring here because this is where the editing is taking place. If it can be found in the Guinness Book of Records, then that certainly settles the credibility to the claim, but I was unable to find it. Including what appears to be a marketing slogan as a geographical "fact" is not wise. At what point are marketing claims going to be accepted as fact just because they are reported over and over again? Cute, yet not factually verifiable by anyone other than the town and visitors who have written about the town.
I have absolutely no problem with mentioning that Depoe Bay makes this claim, in the Depoe Bay article. Lhammer610 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's the thing, I can't find anything otherwise. Period. Now, if there was a conflicting claim, I would agree with you. But there isn't. There is the problem. Nothing to counter. The only other thing I have found to counter it was a rather weird wiki for I don't know what. People also seem to ignore two little details about Depoe Bay. It's the worlds smallest natural navigable harbor. Not the smallest, not the most navigable, smallest natural navigable.
EDIT: And to be perfectly frank, actually finding something in Guinness is no easy task unless you have every copy since it's original publication. They don't list every record in the books for two reasons, would be way to big, and would kind of ruin their marketing strategy. That's why there is nothing online most likely. So you go and buy the book.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Who is this "author/editor" about which you speak? Several folks have worked on the section. If you are referring to one particular editor, it's much more friendly and civil to refer to him or her by username. So, I looked over the edit history and see that you reverted the Depoe Bay info three times in 24 hours. Though not quite a violation of WP:3RR, I'd note that this approach is not going to win you friends and influence people on Wikipedia. I'd like to assume good faith, but I can't help but think that this single-minded pursuit of "the truth about Depoe Bay" is a reaction to the kerfuffle about "tourism" above. (I didn't check, but I thought we'd worked that one out. I tend to stay away from this article because it is so unpleasant here.) Though your suggestions and edits have made great strides in improving the article, I'm feeling like your work here borders on the disruptive. I'm sure that's not your intention. Look, we're all just here to write the best encyclopedia that we can. Those of us who are familiar with Wikipedia policy and guidelines are doing our best to follow them, and don't care one way or the other about any region or aspect of the coast. We all like and care about the coast, right? Working on this article should be fun, not a chore or a battleground. Let's everyone sit down, have a have a nice cup of tea and try to interact a little more positively. I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your actions. Katr67 (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The library I visited had five copies of different versions of the Guinness Book of World Records. I checked each one and it did not have the listing of Depoe Bay nor any listing on smallest bays. When a community claims a distinction, it is up to the community to support that claim, not to others to refute the claim. I am unable to find any listing nor any analysis of the size of the bays in the world. I suspect that no analysis has ever been made. Depoe Bay's claim is cute, but does not deserve a listing under Geography. If it belongs anywhere, it should be on the Depoe Bay page as a "claim". Lhammer610 (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
While it would be nice to find the entry itself, I add four separate sources (which were reverted) which said they saw in in Guinness. Unfortunately, none of them gave the edition they saw it in—a regrettable lack of diligence for citing their source. However, they probably assumed—like I did before last week—that once a record was listed, it was generally always listed until the record was broken. —EncMstr (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that the claim is notable and sourceable as such, but WP is not in a position to assert that the claim is true, even the Guinness Book notwithstanding. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 03:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, sufficient evidence to support capitalized name as that of a known and recognized region Mike Cline (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


Oregon Coast → Oregon coast – Normalize case per MOS:CAPS. No hint of a proper name here; most sources agree and use lower case coast. Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It says right in the article that it's not that. And what about sources, like these books? Dicklyon (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
An ngram doesn't show anything useful because we don't know the context in which those phrases were used. Just because a phrase can be used generically doesn't mean that it can't be used to refer to a specific named region. Contrary to your assertion, I don't see anywhere in the article where it says it's not a specific named region, and official web sites like Travel Oregon and the Oregon Coast Visitors Association treat it was a specific, named region. Powers T 12:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
You can click through to the books from the n-gram search, and see if many of the hits are off topic. They're not. The lead says, "The Oregon Coast is not a specific geological, environmental, or political entity, but instead includes the entire coastline of Oregon, including the Columbia River Estuary." This is probably not a great definition, as it's really the coast region, not just the coastline, but the point is that it's a generic term for a coastal region. Informally named regions are not generally propers. Dicklyon (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The phrasing you quoted is there to indicate that it's not a specific entity -- that is, something well defined by statute or nature -- but that in no way means that it's not a unique, named region that should be treated as a proper noun. Also, I tried clicking through to the Books search, and the results are mixed-case. And in the first page of results, I don't see any that treat the name of the coastal region as a common noun. Powers T 22:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Usually proper names are for specific entities, but sources do tell. I'm not sure how you're not seeing the lower case in the books; you have to look beyond the titles and headings that show up in the snippets, and actually look in the books. The first one I get, The Oregon Coast, uses consistently lower case in the text, except when referring to named entities such as the Oregon Coast Range. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
See to me, that one is clearly referring to the actual coastline, rather than to the region encompassing it. Powers T 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
No, look again. It has a chapter on highway 101, sections on lighthouses, the Oregon Coast Range, different plant environments, towns, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The page I looked at was just talking about the coastline, but you're right that other uses of the phrase refer to the whole region. Yet the dedication on page 2 uses the term as a proper noun. And that's still just one source. Powers T 14:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is evidence that the region has attained proper noun status. It isn't used as a proper noun in every article you look at, but it's used as a proper noun in plenty of articles. Like LtPower said, just because it's not used as a proper noun in one article doesn't mean it's not used as a proper noun in thousands of other articles. Also, please don't change the capitalization of the article text until this discussion is over, otherwise we're left with an article that's not consistent with its own title. —SW— yak 14:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see support for that theory in MOS:CAPS. It says right in the lead, "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." Dicklyon (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok then, here are some sources: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. I easily could have found an equal number of sources which use the lowercase version, but I'm not sure what that would prove apart from the fact that the capitalization of the term is not a settled matter among journalists. —SW— confabulate 15:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
At least a couple of those (numbers 3 and 8) use it in both cases in the same article. You're right that it shows there's no consensus among journalists, which means that WP should use lower case, per MOS:CAPS, right? Dicklyon (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about the smaller newspapers and the copyediting on TV news websites is usually horrible, but if The Oregonian (a statewide newspaper with large circulation and 19th largest daily paper in the U.S.) uses uppercase, I think that gives some weight to the to uppercase side. Valfontis (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey! I thought I was the only one to notice "the copyediting on TV news websites is usually horrible". Glad to see I'm not alone in that. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 02:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
{{offtopic}}The fact that all the kids wanted to be TV newscasters is one reason this copyeditor dropped out of J-school. Valfontis (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
We should actually put more weight on more neutral and general sources. Oregon sources will more tend toward promoting the caps usage, as people tend to capitalize what's most important to them. The fact that journalists and writers haven't converged on upper case is all the evidence we need to use lower case per MOS:CAPS. That's also consistent with major travel guides, like Frommer's, Fodor's, Pacific Northwest Adventure Guide, National Geographic Guide to Scenic Highways & Byways, Pacific Coast Highway: Traveler's Guide, and many more. Dicklyon (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The fact that journalistic opinions on the capitalization haven't converged doesn't mean much (in fact, it probably just means that no one cares enough about it to come to a decision about a standard), and it doesn't necessarily force us to do anything. The capitalized version is widely used, period. The sources provided above prove that. Just because it isn't used in 100% of the sources doesn't mean we're now obligated to change. —SW— squeal 21:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Nobody denies that the capitalized version is widely use. But WP style is to not do that, to only capitalize proper names, as verified by consistent capitalization in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like you've conclusively determined that it's not a proper noun. How did you do that? —SW— talk 21:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The reason the usage is not consistent in sources is because sometimes the reference is to the literal coast (common noun), and sometimes its to the region (proper noun). Pay close attention to usage in reliable sources and you'll see that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Most books, including the guide books that I mentioned, refer to the area, or tourtist destination, as "the Oregon coast". I didn't notice other uses, but I expect there are a few; usually they'd say "Oregon coastline" if they meant the literal coast and not the region; as in The Oregon Coast, which has "the Oregon coast", "the Oregon Coast Range", and "the Oregon coastline". Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Cite a full sentence that clearly refers to the area or region as Oregon coast (lowercase), and is not referring to the literal coast. I mean, in The Oregon Coast there are sentences like, "The biggest visitor attraction along the Oregon coast is ..."[10], but the wording, "along the", indicates that's a reference to the physical coast and not the region. If it says "on the" or "along the", it's referring to the common noun. If it says "in the", then it's probably referring to the region, as in, "Nestled in the Oregon Coast's magnificent scenery, ..." [11]. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
There are many, but start in the opening paragraph, on p.9 where the sentence talks about "the rocky headlands, shifting dunes and forested mountains of the Oregon coast". This can only be about the region (a very skinny region, admittedly, which is why you often can't distinguish the usage between the coastine and the region), not the coastline itself, since there aren't mountains right on the coastline. Dicklyon (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are two uses of the term. One is the literal coast of Oregon; that is spelled "Oregon coast". The other is the region, which is known as, and referred to as, the "Oregon Coast" in reliable sources. This article is about the latter and the title should reflect that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The use in sources is almost always for the region. Even the cycling books. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Neutral for now; maybe rename differently?: Having been called an "anti-capitalization warrior" by hyperbolic opponents of my position on MOS:LIFE, I'm obviously naturally sympathetic to this proposal. But I also live in part of the US called "the Southwest", with a capital S, so I can see the other side of this. I lean toward Born2cycle's interpretation here; inasmuch as the usage refers to the region, not literally to the coastline, it may be reasonable to interpret it as a proper noun. But Dick Lyon's point is also pretty solid, and can be applied generally. There are many places that locals refer to as "the Tri-city Area" or "the Bay" or whatever, as a local colloquialism, but people not from around there wouldn't recognize the usage, understand what it referred to, or capitalize it. I'm not sure such a concern is really applicable here, though, since "Oregon Coast" is pretty unmistakable and clear. A possible solution would be to move this article to Oregon Coast region or Oregon Coast area or something, so it is disambiguated from "Oregon coast" the shoreline. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 02:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Come on, S, you know you left your heart in SF, and I left mine in El Paso. But you do find much better support in sources for the Southwest. It's harder to come up with a great n-gram query for it, but look at "the desert Southwest". Pretty strong capitalization, compared to the Oregon coast. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Ugh, sorry, S, but the redlinked suggestions are worse. I'd rather lose the capital "C" than go that direction. Valfontis (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The common noun usage of "southwest" - the direction - is less commonly used than the reference to the region. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Dicklyon. Aside from certain conventional/idiomatic exceptions (e.g. the Gold Coast aka Ghana), the "XYZ coast" is the actual coast of XYZ or the coastal area of XYZ or both. The latter interpretation covers the Oregon coast as described in this article. (The former is inherently vague. A coastal strip, yes, but how wide? The area between high tide and low tide? Including the beach huts, hotels, and shoals? Including the coastal highways and cities that are "on the sea"?) Wikipedia style is, I infer, to avoid capitalization where doing so doesn't look too strange to educated American eyes (thus stopping short of "Nato", etc., as used in for example the British paper The Guardian). I don't suppose that "Oregon coast" looks too strange to American eyes, and I find very unconvincing a claim that there is a semantic distinction between "Oregon coast" and "Oregon Coast". Morenoodles (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Your inference is not as clear-cut as you seem to think. There is a contingent of editors that would like to avoid capitalization anytime they can find a source that doesn't use it, but there's no clear site-wide consensus for that. Powers T 14:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Of course there's a consensus for (more accurately) avoiding capitalization when it is not the majority practice in general-audience reliable sources. It's called WP:V, with WP:RS, it's sidekick. WP:AT and WP:MOS/MOS:CAPS back them up. See also WP:SPECIALSTYLE; people with a overriding narrow interest, be it in herpetology, comic book collecting or mechanical bull riding, almost always want to capitalize the living crap out of every noun and noun phrase that is important within that topic area. If we allowed this, en.wiki would look like de.wiki in no time, with every noun capitalized, because everything is special to someone somewhere. Your position amounts to "some people are just too much against capitalization and not everyone agrees with them" which is a statement of your feelings about some editors, not a rationale for or against moving this article. It's a red herring and a non sequitur. Especially since it's not even applicable here; supporters of the deletion have provided a lot of evidence showing that the usage is commonly lower case, even when very clearly referring to the whole coastal area no the immediate coastline itself. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 06:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:V and WP:RS have absolutely no bearing on how we capitalize article titles. Or at least they shouldn't. They are for article content, not for matters of orthography, especially not in titles. This is not a case where I'm trying to inappropriately promote a generic object to a proper noun; my contention is that it is a proper noun, based on the clear evidence that defined regions of states are nearly always treated as such. I'm still of the opinion that the "evidence" presented in favor of the move is not as voluminous as claimed, due to confusion between the generic and specific connotations of the phrase. Powers T 19:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • According to the Oregon Coast Visitors Association (which, incidentally, also uses "Oregon Coast"), the strictest definition of the area which comprises the Oregon Coast might be: "The Oregon Beach Bill decreed that all land within sixteen vertical feet of the average low tide mark belongs to the people of Oregon and guarantees that the public has free and uninterrupted use of the beaches along Oregon’s 363 miles of coastline. A state easement exists up to the line of vegetation." However, in practice, the entire region west of the Oregon Coast Range is generally referred to as the Oregon Coast, and is mainly comprised of a series of towns which line the coast. Just because the exact boundaries of the region aren't clearly defined doesn't mean it can't be described by a proper noun. Look at Oregon Coast Range, can you pinpoint the exact millimeter where a mountain range starts and ends? Also, whether or not a term looks strange to Americans is irrelevant. People other than Americans speak English too. —SW— communicate 14:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That's also a red herring, and a straw man; no one in the debate has made the claim that the area must be defined within milimeters or even tens of miles to a proper name. Also, Oregon's own state-sponsored self-promotion isn't a reliable source on this. Such tourism materials regularly over-capitalize everything the government wants to draw attention to. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 06:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment; here's some more evidence that this term is being used as a proper noun: Oregon#Geography. The Oregon Coast is one of the eight regions defined in that section, all of which are proper nouns. Demoting this one to a common noun would be silly in that context, as you'd have seven specific named regions, and then an eighth region that has no name, just a description. Powers T 14:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to do so. I'm just saying we already treat it as a proper noun, and other parallel entities clearly are proper nouns, so there's no reason to treat just this one any differently. Powers T 14:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, but what is "we"? Some editors at the most Oregon-centric article we have do treat it as a proper noun, most of them are probably from Oregon, and some of them probably overlap with editors of this article/!voters in this debate, and most of them would probably !vote en bloc for capitalization here based on familiarity with the local usage. Meanwhile, other editors coming from from MOS and other non-Oregon places are saying "this looks like a regionalism; show a preponderance of non-local sources that honor this usage". That looks like two very different groups of editors. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 16:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, "we" tend not to !vote as a bloc. See "our" side discussion. The whole reason I started the discussion was not to canvass for my POV, but to see what the consensus was, because last time I checked, unfortunately, I'm not always right. Some of us are still on the fence and members who have !voted here have acknowledged that both sides have merit. You can't possibly know that the most active members of WikiProject Oregon work really hard to root out various forms of advertising and boosterism--see some of the above threads on this page (personally I hate what I call Capitals of Great Metaphorical Significance), so to assume that members of a regional project would automatically !vote to capitalize is kind of annoying. This isn't directed specifically at you, S, but all over the wiki there is the tendency to dismiss local viewpoints, which seems a) kind of hostile b) counterintuitive. I spend hours cleaning out the "rah rah" (tourism/boosterism/advertising crap) from Oregon articles, so assumptions about this project kind of cheese me off. Can we focus more on the merits of the arguments and not on the possible motivations of the !voters? </rant> Valfontis (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Scottywong and others. There are some compelling arguments for both sides: the coast of Oregon is the Oregon coast, but the region, both geographical and cultural, is the Oregon Coast. Oregon's coast is somewhat unique among other states in that it has a large, homogeneous coastline that is physically separated from the rest of the state by a mountain range for its entire length. This makes it a geographical region and not just a description of the state's coastline. Other examples of similar usage could include Jersey Shore and Mississippi Gulf Coast (coastal example) and Central Valley (another eponymous regional example). Some sources do, and will continue to use, the non-capped version, but that is not a reason for Wikipedia to not get it right. --Esprqii (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Esprqii. Their reasoning is sound and summarizes my view. Plus the get bonus points for mentioning the Jersey Shore, a perfectly analogous example in my home state. oknazevad (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Still neutral. The Gulf Coast example Esprqii provides is rather compelling, in its context with its evidence, but most of the sources here seem too Oregon-centric so far. Who's calling it the Oregon Coast, with the specific meaning of "that which is between the actual Oregon coast (lc) and the Oregon Coast Range of mountains"? Central Valley is a bogus example, since that is the actual name of the valley; it's not a general description that has morphed into a regional geonym. I.e., it's just an accident that the name of the valley was the (rather boring) "Central". It could just as well have been "Johnson", and we'd call it the Johnson Valley. By contrast, the Oregon [c|C]oast would never have been called the Johnson Coast; Oregon [c|C]oast is a description, not a name, that has arguably been becoming a name. Gulf Coast is probably the best analogous example. I don't trust Jersey Shore as an example, because the phrase has been massively popularized by a TV show, and thus isn't necessarily more reliable as a real proper name than Cougartown or Vega$. I still think Oregon Coast area is perfectly reasonable, though. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 06:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

    Support per "Frommer's, Fodor's, Pacific Northwest Adventure Guide, National Geographic Guide to Scenic Highways & Byways, Pacific Coast Highway: Traveler's Guide" and most of the other non-local evidence presented. The fact that in-state sources like to capitalize in-state stuff they want to promote is not compelling, and certainly doesn't trump piles of reliable, more independent sources. Come back in ten years and see if the nascent capitalization usage and recognition of the area as a distinct region is widely recognized by non-locals. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 06:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I note that unless I'm missing something, Fodor's and the Let's Go Pacific Northwest Adventure Guide (I'm assuming that's what's being referred to here) actually use "Oregon Coast." --Esprqii (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, to break the cycle of I don't know whether it should be capitalized. What does everyone else do? which—alas—MOS:CAPS helps to fuel. I have straddled the fence considering this for dozens of hours since it was brought up over the weekend. The most compelling argument is introduced (above) by LtPowers noting that Regions of Oregon says this is a region name. It does not mention The salty, splashy, wind-swept zone along the left side of Oregon as a general description, but a specific, clearly identified, widely agreed upon and widely understood name for a region.
The arguments about regionalism are properly raised, but it is very difficult to imagine a non-local capitalization authority. The New York Times uses both forms, but with nearly nine thousand mentions, it is challenging to discover which predominates. Even if the analysis were performed, should more weight be given to recent uses? Should the background of each writer and editor be factored? I looked at U.S. government sources, and they tend to favor Coast. But I worked for the government in college, and I know how things get done there, so I would put little weight on that.
Consider the effect on some ignorant (but literate) person from the East Coast, Down Under, Europe, or Asia. If they encountered Oregon coast (as Pete mentioned) it is more apt to be associated with beaches, headlands, intertidal zone, and maybe the bits of land presenting a close view to those features. But Oregon Coast evokes a well defined meaning—maybe requiring clarification by locals—which clearly encompasses coastal cities, coastal rivers, coastal roads, hotels, and hiking trails into the western Oregon Coast Range. The scope of this article is decidedly the latter.
Consider the question: Is Astoria part of this region? Astoria has no coastline, and is miles away from any, so it is somewhat careless to say it is part of the Oregon coast. However, it is completely respectable to say it is part of the Oregon Coast. This psychological difference—its inherent truthiness—compels me to conclude that Coast is the proper name. —EncMstr (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, is Tillamook on the coast of Oregon? Nope, it's a good 5 miles inland, not even close. But it certainly is included in every definition of the Oregon Coast that I've seen. So, certainly there must be a difference between the coast of Oregon and the Oregon Coast. —SW— verbalize 23:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Bay City, Reedsport, Florence, Garibaldi, Lakeside, North Bend, Nehalem, and Dunes City aren't on the coast either. Valfontis (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
And sure enough, the book The Oregon Coast doesn't capitalize when it says "The biggest visitor attraction along the Oregon coast, the Tillamook Cheese Factory...", providing further evidence that the book is about the region, that the region doesn't need to be capitalized, and that the "along" doesn't necessarily mean they're referring to the coastline itself. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Dick, do you understand the difference between "along the Oregon coast" and "in the Oregon Coast"? Powers T 18:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I do. Here "along the Oregon coast" seems to mean within the region not too far inland from the coastline. I find no uses in books of "in the Oregon coast" except where "Oregon coast" or "Oregon Coast" is part of what follows, like "in the Oregon Coast Range" or "in the Oregon coast archeological record". So what do you think the difference is? Dicklyon (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support—responding to the notice at MoS talk. If the sources are mixed, and the downcased examples are generic, WP goes with lower case for generic (which include a compound reference to a region such as this ... the Oregon component is not generic, of course, but the coast bit is). Simple as that. Tony (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    • But the article's topic is not generic; it's not talking about the coastline that just happens to be located in the state of Oregon, it's talking about a named region of the state characterized by the coastline. Powers T 13:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
      • The issue is not that, but rather whether "named" implies a proper name. Many named things don't have their generic parts capitalized, or do so in some styles and not in others (e.g. laws, galaxies, eras, and regions of various sorts). Not all of these in WP follow MOS:CAPS, but I don't know why not. Do you? Dicklyon (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oregon Coast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oregon_Coast/Archive_1&oldid=1089807771"