Jump to content

Talk:Roses in Portland, Oregon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRoses in Portland, Oregon has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 26, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
August 25, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Reminders

[edit]

--Another Believer (Talk) 03:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional suggestions from a discussion which occurred on the WikiProject Oregon talk page:

--Another Believer (Talk) 22:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Namesakes section. Not sure how best to organize this section, but I think most entries fall into the categories Landmarks, Sports, Transit and Businesses. Subsections might not be necessary, but maybe expanding these different groups and separating by paragraph would make the section flow better. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the "something for everyone" department, maybe mention some of these organizations somehow?:

Also of note: Roseburg, Oregon considers itself a rose mecca. —EncMstr (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although this article is certainly worthwhile, it seems like the discussion of possible additions is veering towards trivial detail. The fact that many businesses and organizations include "rose" in their name is worthy of maybe 2-3 sentences, at most, giving perhaps a few of the most notable examples. There's no educational value in listing more than that. Also, the TriMet transit center and MAX stations that include "Rose Quarter" in their names do not warrant even a mention in this article, in my opinion. They were simply named for the Rose Quarter and are not examples of "names inspired by" Portland's affiliation with roses. SJ Morg (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for the feedback. I agree that the businesses section should only be a few sentences long as does not need to contain a long list of names. Re: TriMet stations, I had listed them since they included "Rose" in their title but your point is valid. I still think some of Enc's entries above are relevant as events (classics, festivals, showcases, etc.), publications, sports, etc. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@SJ Morg: I completely agree. Those entries are a roundup of the more widely interesting things I could find. I viewed and rejected scores of candidates like Rose City Roofers, Rose City Salon, etc., etc. My imagined ideal use would be the creation of a passage in the article along the lines of:
The city's iconic nickname has inspired hundreds of businesses to adopt Portland's descriptive nickname in evoking a sense of community, such as Rose City Roamers (a walking club),[citation] and Rose City Vaudeville, an entertainment troupe.[citation]
Perhaps that can be made ever so slightly more in-depth, but that's the general idea I had in mind. —EncMstr (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds OK. SJ Morg (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the "local namesakes" section has some pretty short sub-sections, what do you think about moving it into the "nickname" section as a sub-section itself? Then the information about transportation and businesses wouldn't be in tiny sub-sections. Jsayre64 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done as suggested by GA reviewer. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Add information about International Rose Test Garden. The main article is linked but some detail should be included, especially given its importance. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section order

[edit]

I went ahead and moved the Gardens and Events section above the Local namesakes section. When people associate roses with Portland they do so because of the gardens and the Rose Festival, rather than the arena and other local businesses. I am being bold here, but my edit can be reverted and we can discuss reasons to re-order the sections. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you did. The sections look good now. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I just expanded the sports section a bit, including "citation needed" tags in the process since I was just copying text from the existing articles. Sorry to create more work but I think this sports section will look great once a few references are included. I want to find a way to include the rose murals into the article as well. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any luck finding a reliable ref for the Wildcats team in the Women's Spring Football League? All "cn" tags will be cleared with this last reference. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I found this, but is that sufficient? Jsayre64 (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if Our Sports Central is reliable, plus the page does not distinguish the current (or most recent?) team from the 2001 team. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps the page does differentiate between the teams in that it refers to the current league. Perhaps we should include the site for now and continue searching for a more reliable source. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've already removed the claim from the article based on your earlier post, but if you think we can cite that, go ahead. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe revert your last edit and add the OSC reference? --Another Believer (Talk) 17:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Looks good! The Portland Rosebuds article would make a great COTW at some point. Any thoughts on how to incorporate the murals? I doubt there is enough information to warrant a separate section. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say first move the part about the Rose Garden arena in the "local namesakes" section from the first paragraph to the second paragraph, then move the tiny third paragraph of the "local namesakes" section into the end of the first paragraph, and then mention the murals somewhere at the end of the first paragraph as well. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Rosebuds vs. Portland Roses

[edit]

The Portland Rosebuds article refers to two ice hockey teams and one negro baseball league named the Rosebuds. The Portland Roses article covers the same baseball team, referring to the Rosebuds in the lead, but appears to be titled incorrectly (and therefore generates a mistake within the Roses in Portland article). --Another Believer (Talk) 15:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there were just two names for the team, so we should say that in this article. What do you think of redirecting Portland Roses to Portland Rosebuds? Jsayre64 (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the Portland Roses article would be merged to the existing Portland Rosebuds article, assuming the baseball team was really referred to as the Rosebuds. I would argue that the baseball team article should be expanded to GA status, but I imagine the Portland Rosebuds article would be expanded to GA status while still referring to all three teams with that title. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened an AFD discussion on Portland Roses; see here. So far two users think the page should be redirected to the larger Rosebuds article. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Roses in Portland, Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roses_in_Portland,_Oregon&oldid=1230095289"