Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Help needed with Jack Faust entry

Hi -

I've created a page for Jack Faust, whom most Oregonians remember as the moderator of the public affairs program Town Hall (only one of his many accomplishments). My problem is that there is a page for a novel Jack Faust and I have no idea how to create a disambiguation page and/or subordinate the novel's listing. Help!

Thanks,

Timlyman (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you go back to the Jack Faust page, you will now see I have converted it to a dab page, and there is a red link for your article. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

who is interested in Tom McCall?

I recently ended up with two copies of Fire at Eden's Gate, Tom McCall's biography. Oddly, I ordered one and someone gave it to me as a gift in the same week. So, who is interested in the second copy? I'll drop it in the mail to you if you will use it to improve Tom McCall's article and related articles, such as Vortex I and Tom McCall Waterfront Park. tedder (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding, right? Do reverse-Californicators qualify? I'd trade you a WMF annual report! ;) Actually, I should send some of those up there anyway. Anybody want one? Send me your mailing address! -Pete (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
:-) The irony is soooo thick! Surely a URL to the annual report is extremely apropos. —EncMstr (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to read the biography, and I probably would update the articles, but I don't agree to your requirements. You'd have to WP:AGF unless you want to mail the article down south (where they may be forced to burn it to heat their public buildings). --Esprqii (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Esprqii, that's hardly fair -- how else would you expect us to keep our public buildings warm in the ice-cold 70° ambient temperatures?! I think this book should probably be added to the budding WikiProject Oregon lending library. With that in mind, please amend my request above: I'd like to borrow the book. I'll ship its ashes it back for somebody else to read soon.
EncMstr, here's the link to the Annual Report. But really, you ain't seen it till you've seen it in print. It's a really nice piece. -Pete (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Tedder, you're downtown, right? I'll be in Pete's neighborhood Tuesday, so I can take it and hand deliver. I'll be passing through central Portland each day until then.
Pete, the .pdf is better than paper; it has all the layout and glossiness, but is also searchable. —EncMstr (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I'm downtown, on the South Park Blocks next to the Ladd Carriage House, so no surprise I've worked on those articles. Hand-carrying is fine as long as it's no extra work for you- media mail rates are cheap and easy otherwise. And yeah, both of the copies should go to the lending library for others- I'll start adding my books to it. tedder (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Map maker needed

If there is someone out there with decent map/graphics abilities (and more importantly the software), could you make three maps based on File:Oregon Locator Map.PNG. The first map would be for the Area codes 503 and 971, the second for the Area codes 541 and 458, and the third for later use once a Communications in Oregon is developed? If you look at the map at the end of this document you will see that the 503/971 area is Marion, Polk, Tillamook counties north to the Columbia River, with Marion, Clackamas, and Multnomah as the eastern border (or at least close enough). Outside of that it is the 541/458 (we'll ignore the small CA part). So, one map would take the base map and color in the NW corner of the state and add titles, plus maybe dots/label for Portland and Salem, while the other one would do the same, but for the rest of the state, and I would suggest dots/labels for Eugene, Medford, Bend, and Pendleton. The third map would use one color for the 503/971 section and another color for the 541/458 section, and I'd keep all the city dots. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you interested in something like this? If so, Can do it this weekend. Also, built merged Ore-Cal Map for Goose Lake Valley article which could be used as foundation map for 541/548 if you wanted to capture small area of northern Cal. Not sure what you want for third map.--Orygun (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the high desert map is what I was hoping for. I don't think we need to worry about the CA portion, it is just too small (and the area code folks don't have it on their map so even if we wanted to it might be just guessing/original research). As to the third map, it would be coloring the 503/971 section one color and the 541/458 section a different color. Sort of like this map, and speaking of that map this might be a better option for the base map as it is larger. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, they look good. I added them to the area code articles. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Good stuff. I added the {{legend}} template where applicable, so the reader doesn't need to read the text in the image:
  Area Codes 541 and 458
  Area Codes 503 and 971
-Pete (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevant new Commons category

If anyone knows any relevant media that could be added to Bars in Oregon and (subcat) Bars in Portland, Oregon, I'd appreciate the help. Wading through a mess of drunken friend photos on Flickr for something usable is driving me nuts. ;) Steven Walling 00:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sister Cities

  • (pardon my n00bness, still haven't gotten a hang of the tages yet)*

I propose that we add Oregon to the list of places with sister cities. I know that both Bend and Redmond have sisters, and I'm going to assume that Portland, Salem, and all the other big cities have sisters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_towns_and_sister_cities --JoDrRe (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oregon already has a section at List of sister cities in the United States#Oregon. Unless you are talking about adding it to the template Template:Twin_towns? TimeClock871 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oregon Health Authority

Please see www.oregon.gov/OHA New Wiki Article needs to be created. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luroc (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Climate of Oregon?

Hello. I would like to add some text and relevant images to Climate of Oregon, but when I try to go to the article it just keeps redirecting to Oregon#Climate. Could someone remove the redirect or create the article? I would try to create it myself, but it seems like it already exists and I'm not sure how to get around the redirect. Thanks. TimeClock871 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You should be able to edit this to create a new page. If you do create a more fully-fleshed article, be sure to add a Main article template link at the previous redirect location. Steven Walling 20:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks for the link. I expanded the article and added a main article template link at Oregon#Climate. TimeClock871 (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Are works by the Oregon state government still copyrighted?

There's so many great images and files I can use from the federal government since they're almost all public domain, but why isn't it like this for state governments? For example, I think this image (http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/PARKS/images/OCT_locator.jpg) would make a great addition to the Oregon Coast Trail article, but it's still copyrighted isn't it? Was that transparency bill that was passed in 2009 (http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/04/oregon_house_clears_open_gover.html) just for finances? I was looking at http://www.oregon.gov/transparency/ and it doesn't mention anything about copyright. Is there a bill that is going to address this in the 76th Oregon Legislative Assembly? TimeClock871 (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Good question. The transparency bill was only about access, not copyright, and it was only about the state government sharing budget info on a web site.
We did introduce a bill to address copyright on state-produced materials, but without any resources, we weren't really able to push it anywhere. (But, huge kudos to my rep. Ben Cannon for introducing it; he will be a great ally if there are future efforts.)
To the best of my understanding, the Oregon Constitution only permits certain agencies to claim copyright over certain kinds of works, and the default position (if copyright is not claimed) is generally public domain. I believe the right to claim copyright is generally included in specific parts of the Constitution, empowering a government entity in relation to a specific kind of work.
I think that a project to get some clarity around what the current law does and does not permit would be an excellent next step. The better we're informed, the better we'll be equipped to push for reforms in the long run. And it will take a pretty extraordinary effort to do it right, since it would require a constitutional amendment (or a number of them) to really do it right. However, there is probably a lot that can be done by statute or simply by establishing rules within agencies that might be helpful along the way. -Pete (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

An overlooked article?

I just had a look at Camassia -- the Camas lily -- & was surprised that it was not included as a WP:OREGON article. (And I don't know where the name "Camas hyacinth" came from :-/) The Camas lily was an important food source for the Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest, & thus deserves inclusion. Then again, there are many local flora -- & possibly fauna -- which deserve attention of this WikiProject, yet there is no task group in this area. -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The more specific Camassia quamash is already included this project. Is it necessary to include the entire genus? --Tesscass (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I went looking for information on the Camas lily -- the other day I bought a specimen to plant in my yard -- & started at "Camassia", where I found no indication that only C. quamash is of interest as a plant native to my home town. FWIW, the plant I bought was identified as C. leichtlinii, which is listed as a native ground cover.[1] Now I have no idea if I will be planting a specimen of this historically important food source, or a related plant. In short, the best answer to your question is what would help the average reader. (Sorry for the unavoidable snark, but having a task force dedicated to the plants & animals of Oregon would avoid this kind of confusion.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
My point is that I don't know enough whether the entire genus should be in the Oregon Project. Having a plants & animals task group would be nice. --Tesscass (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
My point is that neither do I. :-) Nor would many users who come looking for the article. (The text at Camassia led me to think that all species in that genus are referred to as "Camas lilies".) Something needs to be done, but it appears neither of us have the answer. -- llywrch (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Tess, I agree about a plant and animal task force. I recently picked up the Atlas of Oregon Wildlife, and plan on creating lists of mammals in oregon et cetera to go along with List of Oregon birds. Want me to put my drafts up for collaboration? Steven Walling 18:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any active task forces? I am nervous about fracturing WikiProject Oregon by dividing into TV-dinner segments that never interact. I'd rather have a little bit of apple-cranberry cobbler mixed in with my green beans and salisbury steak. tedder (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL... and just because there's a task force doesn't mean there will be editors with the expertise/inclination/time to do it. --Tesscass (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
All I have to say is A) I'm writing the articles whether there's a task force or not. B) Tedder, quit making me hungry. Not cool at all. ;) Steven Walling 22:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Parks in Portland

Any reasons any of the following parks should not have their own articles (because they fail notability requirements, already exist, etc.): Director Park, Tanner Springs Park, Couch Park, North Park Blocks, South Park Blocks? I think each has their own history and would make great additions to Wikipedia and WikiProject Oregon. I'd be happy to start articles for each--was just wondering if anyone objected for any particular reasons. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as they're notable, they should have articles. I haven't searched for articles at all so I can't say much about it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Most of those shouldn't be hard- especially north/south park blocks and Director Park (aka PB5). The north/south blocks probably have quite a few incoming links. tedder (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The park blocks should definitely have their own articles. They're fairly unique. Steven Walling 23:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe all of the parks mentioned above would satisfy notability requirements, so I will start with stubs for each:
Feel free to help expand, add images (I'm not sure how to add the Photo Request tag), etc. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Quick update. I went ahead and uploaded an image I took for Tanner Springs Park, and thanks to Cacophony, Aboutmovies, and Werewombat (Ipoellet), the articles for North Park Blocks, South Park Blocks, and Jamison Square now have images. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for going ahead and jumping in to contribute, tedder! Just a bit more expansion and we might be able to go ahead and come up with a DYK hook for Tanner Springs Park. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Considering one of those parks is literally at my front door, it's hard not to work on them. I'll see what I can do- several should be DYKable if we work on it. And what parks still need photos? Probably Director, since it is new. Others? tedder (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I added photo request tags to Director Park and Couch Park. While the image for South Park Blocks could be more ideal (perhaps one taken in the spring when the trees are in bloom), it has a photo for now. Of course, once the articles are expanded, they may have room and/or require several pictures... We could always stockpile some additional images over at the 'Parks in Portland' category at Commons (which may need some additional subcategories if many more images are added). -Another Believer (Talk) 05:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Does someone want to create a "portland parks" navbox? Seems like it's about time. tedder (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't have time for anything at the moment, but USGS should have coords for all the parks. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, AM. tedder (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I've added the coords for all but Tanner and Director, as those two don't have GNIS entries. So I also emailed the GNIS folks, so those should be there next week too for something official. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and created stubs for the Oregon Holocaust Memorial, Keller Fountain Park, and Laurelhurst Park. OHM and KFP were tagged with a photo request. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You can add Colonel Summers Park to the stub count, and since we're rapidly creating so many of these, I thought it would be good to have List of parks in Portland, Oregon. I think the list puts in perspective our current geographical bias... Steven Walling 21:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of starting a similar list, but you beat me to the punch! I look forward to watching the list expand. Once locations, images, etc. are added, I think the list will be quite informative. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note to thank Tedder for his contributions to a few of the above articles, which he has vastly improved since I created the stubs. I believe all of the articles that were expanded were also featured in the DYK section of the Main Page, so job well done. Keep up the great work! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

One more congratulations to Tedder, as the South Park Blocks article is now listed as a Good Article! --Another Believer (Talk) 04:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Problematic edits

I'm really trying not to get snippy with this editor: Vicboy, but I need help. --Tesscass (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

For free: one Big Gold Dude

So Katr and I met yesterday with the award-giving Big Gold Dude watching us. It was at the end of a metric century (100 kilometres (62 mi)), I was glad Katr recognized me since I'm horrible at recognizing faces.

In the interest of reducing stalkers, email Katr or myself if you want to see the picture. It's kind of neat to see two WPOR wikipedians with our favorite, the Big Gold Dude. tedder (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's kind of neat to have the first flattering photo taken of me in about 5 years! ;) It's also proof to the haters that us dedicated Wikipedians don't spend our entire lives in the basement, just most of it. All hail the Big Gold Dude. Katr67 (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I put in a {{RfBGDPhoto}} myself and was complimenting Tedder on the nice photo of all three of y'all. If only AM had taken the photo, it would be in the Metro section of OLive already. Oh, and of course, I forwarded it on to Number 2's forgotten spawn for posting on Facebook. --Esprqii (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

creating a talk page with a slash in it

So the article Washington/Southeast 12th Avenue should have a talk page of Talk:Washington/Southeast 12th Avenue. However, if you go to that page, you'll see it is a subpage of Talk:Washington. How does one create a talk page for the Washington/Southeast 12th Avenue article? tedder (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea; the only mention of the problem I could find was here, which doesn't really help. :/ LittleMountain5 00:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you can just ignore that it's a subpage. The various links lead to the correct places, I think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. So apparently, sub-pages are enabled in the "Talk:" namespace, but not in the main namespace. I wonder if that was a conscious decision (about "Talk:"), or if it's some sort of long-standing mistake? I'd guess that people watching Washington/Southeast 12th Avenue are failing to see updates to Talk: Washington/Southeast 12th Avenue in their watch list. Not the end of the world, but not exactly optimal. -Pete (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so that should be easy to test. Someone change that talk page, and I'll see if it shows up on my watchlist. tedder (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, Testing in progress. I also am testing something else here.. -Pete (talk)
Your test doesn't show up. I think I'll take it to WP:VPT. tedder (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(←) Followup- VPT pointed me at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Other problematic characters. So, no worries, it's a known thing. tedder (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone want to rescue Howard Maupin?

This bio is up for PROD. Is this the person that founded Maupin, Oregon? Does anyone have books handy that explain who he is? tedder (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A 2006 Bend Bulletin article suggests that the good ol' OGN has some info. I think somebody around here has that tome. Hint hint, nudge nudge.. -Pete (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, it's been too quiet around here lately. We needed a cause. Save Howard! --Esprqii (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You know, the more I read about this guy -- there's a pretty interesting story in there. This is a good one. Maybe I'm just a sucker for century-old forensics. This all reminds me of Lone Star (1996 film). -Pete (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The footnote on this page gives a good account (somewhat covered in the Chief Paulina article). Note that Bancroft called him Chief Panina. Redirect needed? --Esprqii (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree, Howard Maupin was interesting character. He lived in Willamette Valley, Antelope Valley, Maupin’s ferry (now Maupin), and Ashwood, where he died. He was a stage station operator, rancher, ferry operator, and postmaster. As you point out, Maupin is best known as man who killer Chief Paulina. After the chief’s 8 man raiding party stole a herd of cattle from the Andrew Clarno ranch near John Day, Maupin and two others (James Clark and William Ragan) followed Paulina’s trail to a box canyon on Trout Creek where they ambushed Paulina and his men while they were roasting stolen beef. There has always been some controversy over who fired the fatal shoot, Maupin or Clark. However, Maupin was known as an excellent shot and he eventually collected a $1,000 award. In 1997, the Oregon Historical Society tested Maupin’s rifle against some slugs found at the ambush site that had traces of human blood on them (presumably Paulina’s), but I don’t know if the test ever proved anything. Well documented info about people/events from that era in eastern Oregon is hard to find. OGN has half page on town of Maupin—but it's mostly about Howard Maupin. Existing stub capture most of OGN info on Maupin. In addition to OGN, know that East of the Cascades by Phil Brogan has at least half dozen references to Howard Maupin. Brogan also wrote a lot of Oregon history articles for The Bend Bulletins and some of them are probably on-line. Also, Bancroft’s History of Oregon has a brief paragraph on Maupin and Paulina. Have been gathering bits-and-pieces of Maupin info for long time, but never found enough to write solid article. Problem is every source re-tells Maupin-Paulina story; other facts are pretty hard to find.--Orygun (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion not handled in the normal format

Since no one put the merge banner on the effected pages, here is the discussion for the other effected WikiProject. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Need opinions on Chehalem Creek and Newberg, Oregon

A new editor, really, really wants to add some sort of beaver problem in Newberg. After trying on the Newberg page, they have now moved it to a new article on the creek. I don't have a problem of a mention of it (in proper proportion) on the Newberg page or the creek page, but to me at least it looks a lot like a soapbox of "save the beavers". Most of the beaver info relates to beaver removal in general, and not this specific controversy. Some more opinions/eyes would be great. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Yep, I'm trying to engage the editor. I at least removed the random picture of a salmon in Alaska from a Newberg stream. tedder (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to discuss the things again as well. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks at first glance like a good-faith effort to develop the Chehalem Creek article, but lack of sourcing is a problem. Most of the "Ecology" section lacks sources, for example. The beaver stuff stands out partly because the article is so short and incomplete. I'll try to involve myself in this one in some useful way by looking for sources and adding some new material. Finetooth (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Finetooth, hopefully you saw the first draft to see the main concerns, especially the promotion of flow devices using what could be described as in part as synthesis. But mainly that the section on the flow devices was about flow devices in general, and not on this creek. Anyway, I am trying to consolidate the discussion here Talk:Chehalem Creek#Beavers. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the talk page and didn't see anything and didn't take time to look at the first draft. I will look more carefully before doing anything of a hands-on nature. Thanks for the heads-up and the link to the consolidating page. Finetooth (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
All clear now. I agree with you entirely. I also just read the discussion at User talk:Schmiebel, which helps fill in the gaps in my understanding. Finetooth (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

ah, election season

I hadn't been watching it, but it looks like the Bill Bradbury fans are going crazy on his page lately. Lots of stuff added up there in the past couple of days. If someone has the time and inclination, it might be good to do some weeding out and possibly reminding of the COI guidelines. --Esprqii (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the rule on showing endorsements? If there isn't one, I think they should all be cut. It's really close to WP:NOTSOAPBOX. tedder (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I think they are acceptable, but the way they are presented now it should just be a list, like List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008. If someone wanted to turn it into a prose section (like this, that would probably be OK, though maybe a bit WP:UNDUE-y in the case of BB. --Esprqii (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The difference is that Obama's endorsements have been reported in secondary sources. It makes me leery whenever the "company" is trying to promote content that hasn't been picked up. tedder (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't verify the sources of those endorsements. Some, like the OEA endorsement, have been pretty widely reported in the media and so a source could be found pretty easily, but it's certainly fair enough to remove them if they are not properly sourced. --Esprqii (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I took one look at the article last night and ran away. Too many bare URLs with sos.state.or in them, as in way too many primary sources. Well, actually it was that and the bullet point presentation of his platform. But I'll help with one minor edit. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, if AM is scared, the wiki-terrists have won! Could always just slap the ol' COI tag at the top. That tends to scare a lot of pols straight pretty quick-like.
I'll try to take a stab at it at some point. --Esprqii (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
It's more of a time thing. I've got the creek battle above, problems with Eugene, fewer editors around these days so more vandalism makes it through to have to clean-up and then warn the vandals, Jim Huffman, the Sunset Highway merge stuff, and then just my normal wiki-activities. Which means I haven't written a new article in almost 2 weeks, and only a handful in the last couple of months (and I'm pretty sure I've put out 5 in a day before). And I don't know when the next one will be, plus I've been hoping to get The Valley Library to GA, Charles McNary to FA, but time is running too short. But enough about me and my problems. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

(←) Yeah, we've had a drop in editors to Oregon lately, my hands have been full too. tedder (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry guys, I'm putting in for a raise for the both of you. Would double what you're getting now for your wiki work suffice? --Esprqii (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ki-a-Kuts Falls hike invite

Thought I'd extend an invite to anyone here looking to explore the real world. I'm heading up to the above mentioned location to get some pics on this Saturday morning. Email me if you want more details, but the drive will likely be a lot longer than the hike, but I also plan on getting some other pics out that way. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Words cannot properly express how badly I'd like to join you! I'd tell you to take pictures..but I know you will. -Pete (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The Tualatin looks tame in the valley, but it must be pretty wild near the source. Should be a good outing; the weather for Saturday looks excellent. Finetooth (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I have a family thing (brother's sporting competition) to go to tomorrow, but if you ever want to organize another photo drive/hike, I am definitely in. I was thinking of doing one myself to take care of Columbia Gorge hikes that need photos. Steven Walling 19:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I got some pics, but definitely not a stroll in the park, nor any trail. However, I actually have a job now, so it might be a few more days until I get the pics up, and yes, we should see about some hikes around the area to try and fill in some holes. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

IAR, Bill Bradbury, and politics

I hope you all voted for the primary election today! It shouldn't be too surprising, but we have some enthusiastic editors turning out to support their candidates. The biggest problem has been at Bill Bradbury. Despite failed efforts educating a single-purpose editor, I invoked WP:IAR to semi-protect the article until the primary is over so it isn't used as a platform to support a candidate with unsourced information.

Still, Bradbury's entry contains large amounts of unsourced biographical information. It's probably worth improving Bradbury's article as well as Kitzhaber and Allen Alley so they are all at the same level. Will you join me in improving and standardizing these three articles? tedder (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Tedder. Thanks for keeping an eye on this, I know things can get hairy around election day. Just FYI: OTRS (I'm a volunteer) got a message from someone claiming that the entire Oregon Education Association was blocked by you, though whether they meant 24.20.235.63 or the IP address of the SPA editor that was blocked, I don't know. Either way, I told them that we don't resolve editorial disputes over email. Steven Walling 21:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the FYI. There was another ducky IP, 128.223.201.168. It's possible that's the IP they are talking about; based on the number of edits, it's certainly not the only IP for the schools- I know I've placed the {{SharedIPEDU}} template on a few dozen similar IPs this year. They're typically easy to find by watchlisting all the high school articles in the state tedder (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean to imply it was schools. When they said "blocked the Oregon Education Association" I assume they meant the association offices, not any schools. Steven Walling 21:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha. Haven't blocked the OEA that I know of. tedder (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Oregon Sports Hall of Fame

Yesterday I spent several hours populating a new category for inductees into the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame, using the precedent of the Category:Oregon Sports Hall of Fame and others. My work was speedily deleted by a robot acting on a precedent from last February where the same category was deleted with very little discussion. The original nominator makes reference to a guideline, Wikipedia:OCAT#Award recipients, which seems to contradict a great deal of consensus practice by Wikipedia editors. Certainly I believed the work I was doing was valuable to the project. I'm trying to get the latest deletion reversed long enough to re-open discussion. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 23#Category:Alabama Sports Hall of Fame. I'd hate to see the Oregon category deleted on the same basis. --Dystopos (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Lane County and Eugene-Springfield MSA

Does anyone know if Lane County, Oregon and Eugene-Springfield MSA cover the same geographic area? To me, Lane County is a lot bigger than the MSA, but I haven't found the official definition for the MSA. --Tesscass (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Page E-13 of this census document gives the area of the MSA as 4,721.8 square miles (12,229 km2) in 2006. I doubt it has changed much since then, so I didn't bother looking for a more recent number. Lane County, Oregon says it is 4,722 square miles (12,230 km2). I didn't think MSAs coincided with anything normal folks would recognize, but in this case, it looks like the MSA is—or at least could be—the same the county. —EncMstr (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I've been watching recent edits to Lane County, and didn't know whether to laugh, gnash my teeth, split the article, or clean it up. --Tesscass (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
All the MSAs follow county lines (at least in Oregon for sure), and Lane County=the Eugene-Springfield MSA. The definitions are in the documents on the Portland metropolitan area where it will tell you all the MSAs and micro ones for Oregon. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Good article template

Consensus has been reached to use the template:

Please feel free to add it to all WP:GA rated articles within this WikiProject, in the same manner of placement used as {{featured article}}. Thanks for all of your quality improvement work within the topic of this WikiProject! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Very cool -- thanks for the notification Cirt! -Pete (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
p.s. Here's a convenient link to all GA's in our project: http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Oregon&quality=GA-Class
 Done OK, I added it to all of 'em. Thanks again Cirt! Pete (talk)
Anytime, no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Status of New Oregon Article Bot

Is New Oregon Articles Bot on-line and operating as it should? Just noticed it only has 4 new articles listed--the newest was uploaded on 3 Jun. I uploaed 2 new articles yesterday so I know there are some articles waiting to be picked up. Is there anyone who knows how to check operating status of bot?--Orygun (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks it hasn't done anything in the last day.[2] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Protected Areas of Oregon

Not being experienced with Oregon-related areas on Wikipedia, I thought I'd bring an idea up to this WikiProject before diving into it. Last year I remodeled {{Protected Areas of California}} (compare it to what it looked like previously) so that each subsection in the template is hidden by default, and if there's a parameter called for in the template, that subsection will automatically be shown when someone clicks "show" for the total template. That is, with the |NPS parameter, only the "National Park System" subsection would be shown when opened, and the rest would be collapsed by default.

I was working on some NRHP related stuff recently and came across {{Protected Areas of Oregon}} and thought perhaps the system I used for California's version might be adaptable for this template. For the template as it stands now, we could do "State", "Federal", and "City" parameters so that any article in each of those subsection would only drop down that subsection by default (by the use of a parameter), but the "City" section is extremely small (1 listing currently) and the "State" section is almost so big that it wouldn't be much more helpful to have these changes. Perhaps we could reformat how this template is structured? Any input would be appreciated. Killiondude (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So, for instance, {{Protected Areas of California|NPS}} would produce this:
I think that is way cool! Is there a way to have the outer template expanded when placed in a certain page, as well? -Pete (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's possible. The California version has so many subsections (with the way it's currently structured) that I left it collapsed by default. I'm sure we could toss an extra parameter in it that would make the outer shell expand when used. Killiondude (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I second Pete. A great idea! Thanks Killiondude. Steven Walling 03:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm so-so with it. Technically it has some appeal, but usage-wise it has some downside. The appeal of a navigational template is to make navigating to similar articles easy. Much of the ease of navigating is due to being able to see the "big picture" and its structure all at once. The California template is more of a Matryoshka doll than a straightforward informational aid. If it had an "open all" operation, I would be much more in favor.
I don't have any Windows boxes anymore, but on Linux + Firefox one can not find text inside a folded up box using the browser search page function. I expect this is also the case for most environments. —EncMstr (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed a large omission: it doesn't have any county parks. A quick glance at this shows there are several hundred. —EncMstr (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Status of Albany oregon wikipage

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. There have been a lot of additions to this page over time Recently i have added sources for many un cited lines it the article. This was one of the major things keeping it as a Start-Class article. With the addition of new material over the years and the cited items it seems time for it to be reviewed to see if it is worthy of going up to a C-Class article and what is next needed to increase to a B-Class.MathewDill (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

For ratings below GA (B, C, Start, Stub, List—that is, not A, GA, or FA), it's acceptable to self-assess. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Assessment#Quality scale for rating criteria. However, since Albany, Oregon is a great candidate for collaborating within WP:ORE, adding it to the project assessment request queue is sure to bring a swift response. —EncMstr (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
File:Rogue River Oregon USA.jpg has lost its featured status basically on grounds that the colors are artificial and unnatural. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rogue River Oregon USA delist. It's one of the featured pictures displayed on Portal:Oregon. Should we remove it from the portal list since it is no longer featured? Finetooth (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought we'd taken care of that long ago. Yes, I think it should. I also think we should try to get some more FP's -- we have some great photographers and mapmakers around here! -Pete (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Image removed. I agree about more FPs. Although I love taking photos and uploading them to the Commons, I've never been confident enough about my photography to consider trying for an FP. The ones listed on the portal are awfully good. Also, I wasn't aware that maps could be considered. That's an interesting thought. Thanks, Pete. Finetooth (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI: be sure to note that FP standards (I mean more implicit than explicit) are quite different (and I would say, tougher) at Commons. The Rogue photo would probably never have been FP there at all because of the processing. Steven Walling 06:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, so I went down to the Rogue with my camera, shot about 400 pix in great weather with nice clouds and nailed at least one, promoted to FP today. Thanks again to Pete and Steven for the idea that I might do this and to User:Juliancolton, who helped steer me through the process and who fixed the tilt in the original. I installed the image in the empty hole left in the Portal:Oregon gallery by the disappearance of the earlier Rogue photo. Finetooth (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

FP FTW!!! Well done, Finetooth! -Pete (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Changing status again

I recently edited the Culture of Oregon page increasing its size to about 4 times what is whas adding alot of needed information. It has a long way to go but I believe it should be changed from stub to start. I made the change myself and added it to project assessment request queue. It shows updated on the discussion page for it but in the Statistics section on project assessment request queue it sadly doesn't auto update. I must admit I am a little nervous about trying to mess with that myself so i am hoping someone will fix it for me. Thanks MathewDill (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The statistics is periodically updated by a bot. It looks like how it works was revised in January; see the history. That page now transcludes User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Oregon which is updated once per day at around 18:00 PDT. (Seems like the trail of transclusion is lengthening over time. Imagine how it will work in a few years!) —EncMstr (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
First, thanks for your edits, Mathew! It's okay to change the status yourself if you are confident it meets the class. If not, just remove the class (change from "class=stub" to "class="). And if you are worried you are doing something wrong- preview it. Try changing the class to "barf" and then preview, you'll see the project box gives a big warning.
As far as improving from stub-class, it's a laudable goal! The other thing we try to do is the Collaboration of the Week. User:Aboutmovies sends weekly talk page updates to project members (that's you), and it gives two great articles to work on for the week. tedder (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Tedder, I looked over the COTW and I will see what I can do to help there as well. I went ahead and updated the class on the articles. I left them on the project assessment request queue for now just incase anyone feels differently about it though I do feel confedent that they have reached the new level. Being it is my first updates and I am still inexperenced here at Wikipedia I thought it to leave them up to get a second opinion. I am going to attempt to start working on the COTW along with any high level Stubs. MathewDill (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

weird Oregon bio article that needs some help

I'm unsure what to do about this article, and there are some SPAs involved too. So I'd be happy if someone could look after it with a sharp eye. tedder (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like a violation of WP:BLP since its sources are mostly not WP:RS and since many of its claims are extraordinary. I can't be sure, but it appears that the positive claims and the negative claims are from different people who are using Wikipedia as a forum for their disagreement. It would be good, though, if a couple of other editors looked at this one. What's the right thing to do in a case like this? Finetooth (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Remove it all with abundance of WP:BLP concern. Offline sources for 20 year old court cases? And the one online reference to a DUI is only in the comments. Someone's got an axe to grind. --Esprqii (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I could blank it, but since I'm not an admin, I can't remove it altogether. Finetooth (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have the admin hat and am happy to remove revisions if that is deemed appropriate. tedder (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, just meant to get rid of the legal stuff. I did that. I think the rest is at least serviceable. --Esprqii (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't look particularly notable to me, so I've proposed deletion. A "geothermal energy entrepreneur and environmental activist" without strictly reliable material looks ripe for deletion to me. Borderline BLPs like that should go. Steven Walling 05:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Portland, Oregon; truely is very beatuiful. Lots of interesting people. Beautiful city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.228.188 (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Huber's

I started an article for Huber's, which I think meets notability requirements. Please feel free to add additional information, sources, pictures, categories, etc. to improve the article, if interested. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if anyone happens to visit the restaurant, be sure to get a picture of the Spanish coffee or the front of the building! Those images would improve the article greatly. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Portland City Grill

I started an article for Portland City Grill, which I think meets notability requirements given its history, reputation, and coverage. Please feel free to add additional information, sources, pictures, categories, etc. to improve the article, if interested. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Mission Theatre & Pub

Another newly-created stub: Mission Theatre & Pub. Hope to expand with historical information, coordinates, images, categories, etc. very soon! Feel free to help if interested. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A question if someone happens to know the answer or have an opinion. Would this (or more generally, swedishrootsinoregon.org of Oregon's New Sweden Cultural Heritage Society) be a reliable source? It contains some interesting information and pictures about the Mission. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I see that the Swedish Evangelical Mission Covenant Church is listed on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Northwest Portland, Oregon. Should this link to Mission Theatre & Pub, or would it be its own article? Sorry for the questions--just looking for some advice from project members with more experience. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think I'd combine them--just describe the various historical uses of the building. I did something similar with the Oregon Film Museum, which is housed in an NHRP building. Certainly if you had tons of detail on both uses of the building, you could split them, but I think a combo article is fine. --Esprqii (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
And you'd probably also want to redirect the Swedish Church link to the Mission Theater article. --Esprqii (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Surprisingly, I am having more difficulty finding information about the history of the theater/building than I had anticipated. If the aforementioned source (Oregon's New Sweden Cultural Heritage Society) is reliable, that would help a bit. I went ahead and linked the Church to the Mission on the NRHP list. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
If it were me, I would be a little suspicious using that as my only source. I'd try to find something else to supplement it. --Esprqii (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

PediaPress

I got a review copy of a PediaPress book in the mail awhile back, and just posted a review on our blog. If anyone wants to take a look at it or borrow it, ping me or I'll bring it to WikiWednesday next month. Steven Walling 16:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

One more: Jupiter Hotel

One more stub started: Jupiter Hotel. There is certainly plenty of newspaper coverage. This would make a great Collaboration of the Week (isn't it time for a new one anyway? :p), and I'll bet we could even get it up to Good status fairly quickly. As always, feel free to contribute if interested. I went ahead and added some links to the talk page that contain helpful information. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Beverly Cleary School

Anybody have a sense of whether this school meets the ol' notability standard? I hate to squelch an enthusiastic editor, but I don't think it does. Since it's a public school, I hate to call it spammy exactly, but really, there's not a lot of secondary sources in there, other than the fairly recent renaming. I just reverted a major blob of copyright violation so I've got my eye on it. Anybody else want to weigh in? I can't bring myself to go against Beverly. --Esprqii (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm feeling less fuzzy towards it after I reverted some more copyvios. I'm thinking it's pretty thin and should be at least merged into the PPS article. Other thoughts? --Esprqii (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that public schools are automatically notable. I'm sure we'll have no problem squelching any copyvio (I added it to my watchlist), and if necessary I can do some blocking. Of course, we could also try and turn the problem into an opportunity by getting together and just going to the school district. We can use improper edits like this as an opening for a dialog, maybe get some more educator involvement in the projects. Steven Walling 22:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
My understanding was that elementary schools had to meet a notability test with reliable secondary source coverage, whereas high schools just had to exist. The Category:Elementary schools in Oregon is pretty much devoid of public elementary schools. I tend to be inclusionist with schools, whose existence are pretty easy to prove, but I'm not sure everyone shares that feeling. That may have changed. I remember you had to fight to keep a high school article from being deleted for a while there. Maybe Tedder has some insight since he filled out all our high school articles a while back. --Esprqii (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Only high schools are generally considered 'automatically notable'. Primary schools (including junior high schools) are generally not, and are redirected to the school district or community article. So, this school needs to establish notability in a non-school way. If it wasn't a school but was simply a building that Beverly Cleary wrote about, would it pass WP:N/WP:GNG? I'm not taking a side on that- I don't know how much the school has been written about in the Beverly Cleary context- for instance, has it been featured in RSes in an architectural way, or explaining the history because she also wrote about it? I think it would be a clear WP:N hit if she wrote about it and Frommer's or Lonely Planet included it as a site worthy of visiting, for instance. tedder (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the school board just decided to honor her by naming a school near where her books are set. Ramona et al. went to a fictional school named Glenwood School (I know because I am reading one of the books right now. To a kid! No really...). So no historical context really. It's in the category of recently-named-after-a-famous-person, but I note that that doesn't guarantee an article. There is no other context for notability. But I'm inclusionist-curious, so that doesn't necessarily kill it for me. --Esprqii (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Just went and looked at the article and cleaned up a couple of things. But I miss Katr- I can't decide if it's "children's author", "childrens' author", or "childrens author". Anyhow, yeah, it was just named after Cleary. If I named my apartment the John Kitzhaber Apartment, would that make it notable? No. So I'm leaning against it. Just because it exists doesn't make it notable by Wikipedia's standards. I'm not afraid to be wrong, though: can someone argue why it should stay? tedder (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Argument for keeping: Initials are BCS. I like college football. There, that's an argument. Not a good one, not a logical one, but it is one. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The proper door is down your hall to the left, I believe. tedder (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There not automatically notable, but Hollyrood, Fernwood, or the combo is very likely to have sources enough to pass NOTE. Are we lumping them all together now? I used to live across from Hollyrood, and my younger siblings went there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As a counterargument to Tedder, if you decided to name your apartment after Kitzhaber, that probably wouldn't be notable; but if the state of Oregon decided to name your laundry basket the Chris Dudley Hamper because of the number of times you failed to hit it when throwing dirty socks at it, your hamper might in fact receive some coverage in the press and be notable. My feeling on the schools issue is just like the Dudley Hamper: we know it exists, it's been covered in the media, why shouldn't it have a wiki article? I would even argue that an elementary school is more important than your hamper. I think having articles on all schools would be a good thing. Yeah, most of them wouldn't proceed beyond stub stage for a long time, if ever, and we would have the occasional instance of Mrs. Tilliwack's class writing a long piece on their papier mache frogs, but those are easily dealt with on a case-by-case basis and hey, we've got time. In this case, a good-faith person has started an article and I don't see why it should be whacked, from a WP:ORE perspective anyway. The WP:SCHOOLS people have their own issues. --Esprqii (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, all, I'm the originator of the Beverly Cleary School article and I have to say that I'm just a little (okay, a lot) amused by the ruckus. I understand that the school may not meet "a notability test," and if you want me to remove the article I will (or you can). The school is not particularly notable, but then, the other 60+ elementary schools in Oregon that are on Wikipedia probably aren't notable either. Looking at it from your perspective, Espriqii, I can see why you don't think it's necessary to have anything about the curriculum on the page, just focusing on the history. That's fine, but in creating this article I referenced a couple of other Oregon school articles and basically did what they did. No one has removed or edited down their pages. So, do what you will. BTW, Cleary did actually attend school in the Fernwood building for eight years, which is why the push to name the school for her, and she may be the first living person to have a school named for them in the history of PPS (I can't verify that and that is why it is not in the article). Also, BTW, it's "children's author" according to Cleary's and her publisher's (Harper Collins) Wikipedia pages. Thanks for the floor.CraigWilliamsPDX (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we have some fun discussions here. Glad you decided to weigh in.
No need to remove it, and in fact, you couldn't if you tried. (Only administrators can remove articles.) I think you should go ahead and keep improving the article. Just don't cut and paste from another website. As you see, other editors will guide you along the way. Some people tend to be bitey, but you've established the right collaborative spirit and I think it will go fine. There is the off-chance the article would get deleted, but I tend to think not; as you point out, there are more elementary school articles out there with less going for them. And there would be a discussion prior to any deletion; as you see, we like to discuss things.
Oh, and thanks for throwing down the challenge about the first living person in Portland (in Oregon?) to have a school named for him or her; I expect someone to dig up a citation any minute now.
I had already made the "children's" correction after just a few minutes of self-doubt. Our resident editorial guru is on hiatus or she would have nipped it in the bud long ago. --Esprqii (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I took this to AFD this morning: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beverly Cleary School. Please feel free to give your opinion there. tedder (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wonder Ballroom

I started an article for Wonder Ballroom and nominated a DYK hook for the Main Page. Feel free to add any additional information or pictures to the article, if interested. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, as usual. I don't have time to wade through them right now (going to Wikimania!) but there are about 200 CC photos of the Wonder if you're looking for a shot of it. Cheers, Steven Walling 14:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words and suggestion. I found two pictures that are already uploaded on Commons, but for some reason I am having difficulty displaying one of them in the infobox template. If someone gets a chance to look at the template, it would be much appreciated (this is the image I am trying to display). Also, pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by "CC photos"? I'm afraid I do not have much experience/knowledge with image uploading and copyright regulations, if that is what it pertains to. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I meant photos that are licensed Creative Commons. Flickr allows you to search by specific Creative Commons license, and it's great way to find photos to upload to Wikimedia Commons. Just be sure you're searching for Creative Commons content that is licensed to allow derivative works and commercial use. Steven Walling 16:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Good to know! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the image in the infobox. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Jake's Famous Crawfish

Jake's Famous Crawfish. You know you love it (and if you don't, you at least like the history behind it!). Feel free to help expand--additional references are available on the talk page. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I get a ruling or two?

This is the recent changes from my list of articles I've created. Please look at the edits from June 22. I've had issues with this anon before. Some of you may recall some edits re: the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, and some odd copying and pasting. Sorry, too lazy to find diffs and this is a dynamic IP.

Anyway, I admit I'm a little WP:OWN about the community articles I've created. Most of them are really short and I think they look bad (choppy and incomplete) when each paragraph or sentence is made into a section, as they have been here. But adding sections to short articles isn't against any guideline or policy, it just looks crappy (IMHO) and is unnecessary. If anyone disagrees, I'd like to hear your reasoning for keeping them.

And I also have a quibble with the section heading "Area attractions", especially when it is used as a catchall here and often stretches the definiton of "attraction" (vs. "thing that happens to be here that doesn't fit into the other headings"). It also sounds like a tourist guide type thing, and finally, I always use the section headings in WP:USCITY, which include "Points of interest". The Oregon community articles are pretty consistent across the board and it would be nice to keep it that way. The anon once argued that "Points of interest" is POV because who is to say what is interesting. But who is to say what is attractive? I prefer the standard wording.

Why am I not talking to the anon? S/he seems uninterested in collaboration. Blocking is not an option as the edits don't seem to rise to the level of disruption. These obscure and little watched articles mean a lot to me though, so if I could get some opinions about how to proceed, I'd sure appreciate it. And a blanket revert isn't a solution, because there are helpful edits sprinkled in. Unfortunately, this anon's edits bother me so much it's partly what has kept me away from Wikipedia for several months. I was dismayed to see they were still happening. Talk to me, good Oregon peeps! Katr67 (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sort of neutral on stubby sections, but in my view, it's bad manners, and sort of passive-aggressive, to come in and move things around without actually expanding or improving things, and especially bad manners not to respond to attempts to communicate/collaborate. If a short article had no sections and someone randomly added them, or if a stubby article had several sections and someone removed them, I'd view that as equally disruptive. Now, I'd also AGF that the editor was trying to be tidy or helpful and give them a chance to expand and try to engage; but with no communication, I wouldn't view it as out of line to revert the edits. Looks like you've cleaned it all up now. I'll try and keep an eye on the articles, but feel free to loop me in if you want another opinion. --Esprqii (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Katr, I missed you, and I'm really glad you're back. The stubby question comes up often at WP:PR, where the most frequent reviewers generally tell people to avoid paragraphs or sections that are extremely long or extremely short. An obscure wing of the Manual of Style (MoS), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout), says "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose". (Other editors usually don't challenge the "not too short, not too long" advice and don't usually ask whether this is just some personal whim.) Some journalists are fond of the one-sentence orphan paragraph, apparently because it adds emphasis, and some write almost entirely in one-sentence paragraphs, perhaps believing that every one of their sentences is super-important. (Keith Olbermann comes to mind.) Anyway, I'm inclined to merge stubby sections if I think it will improve the prose flow and inclined to add subheads to gigantic sections that threaten to put readers to sleep. Ditto for mergers and splits for paragraphs. I feel a bit guilty about the state of the Yachats, Oregon, article because I once advised the main contributor to look at the WP:USCITY guidelines and part of what happened was a proliferation of tiny subsections, under "Transportation" for example. The article now suffers from the Olbermann Effect. I would merge these shorties in an instant except for a reluctance to be too pushy. I think your "obscure and little watched articles" are important, and I often link to them. I'll try to help maintain them if I can. Finetooth (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Newspaper journalists write short paragraphs (even one-sentence ones) to break up what would otherwise be long stretches of grey in the narrow columns newspapers tend to have. YBG (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back Katr! I've been frustrated and stymied what to do too. The editor (talk) seems to be focused on other areas of Wikipedia recently, seemingly a relief for us, though it means others are probably bothered by his or her editing habits. The ideal solution would be to transform them into a fully-compliant WP:MOS editor, but he or she has resisted all civil attempts so far. While it's mildly disruptive, it doesn't seem to rise to a level sufficient for taking to any forum I know of (like WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Maybe WP:WQA would be appropriate? (I haven't seen that before.) —EncMstr (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
My terse response: journalists might write very, very short paragraphs, but this is encyclopedia. We have our own style guide. If it has a negative impact on quality or simply looks ugly, revert it whether someone is acting in good faith or not. Just be sure to point out that you simply disagree with their editorial choice, nothing more. Steven Walling 16:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that short paragraphs are in any way appropriate for an encyclopedia; I was merely trying to point out that the reason that journalistic style is neither for "emphasis" nor due to a belief that "every one of their sentences is super-important". If we correctly understand why some people tend toward a particular editorial style that isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia, we are better able assume good faith especially when it comes to helping newcomers adjust their style up to encyclopedic standards. YBG (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone. It sounds like I would be safe in reverting "per consensus of WP:ORE" and if it bothers him/her enough to contest it or edit war, then I'd welcome taking up the issue in a larger forum. And yeah, maybe WP:WQA would help. Let's watch and see what happens. Katr67 (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo of old Amtrak train?

I know it's a long shot, but I'm hoping someone here has a photo they'd be willing to share of the Willamette Valley (also known as the Willamette Valley Express), a state-supported train that ran Portland-Eugene from 1980-1982. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

New collaborations?

I certainly do not want to step on Aboutmovies' toes, but it's been a while since we had new collaborations for project members to work on. Any objections to picking two new collaborations? Not sure I know the entire process for designating two choices and archiving the current ones, but I am sure I/we could figure it out! By the way, I'd like to thank Aboutmovies for all of the work contributed to the collaboration effort--well done! I love following and contributing to collaborations, especially when I am particularly interested in the subject or when several project members come together to vastly improve an article. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to just going ahead and picking two new collaborations. Let's be bold. :) Steven Walling 04:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It might be worth going to monthly collaborations. I think part of the key is supervising babysitting the collaboration so you can give a Big Gold Dude to the key contributors. As far as picking them goes, AM is good at choosing two diverse topics- for instance, an athlete and a city, or a senator and some local botany. Better chance of engaging the community. tedder (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Since specific recommendations were not made, I went ahead and chose Melville Jacobs and Jupiter Hotel as the current collaborations. I updated the WP Oregon current collaboration template, added the former collaboration template to the lighthouse and Sunset Highway articles, and added the current collaboration template to the aforementioned article talk pages. I think the only thing yet to be done is to inform project members of the current collaborations, though I am not sure how AM usually distributes the notifications (bot? individually?). I chose Melville Jacobs because the topic seemed interesting, and Jupiter Hotel because although it is a relatively new addition to Portland, there is a lot of coverage in the press (see talk page) and it could make a great article (... or should I say Good article?) I must admit, however, that I am biased about the latter choice as I created the stub and am impatient with an editor that keeps adding unreferenced material to the article. Anyways, I hope I did what was needed to update the collaboration page/templates, and I hope project members will contribute as much as they feel inclined! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

New unified Oregon elections template

Hello. I recently created a new unified Oregon elections template (Template:Oregon_elections) based on the templates used for other countries (Template:German_elections). As you can see many of the Oregon election articles (particularly the state ones) have inconsistent naming schemes. I'm not sure if the ordering is right either. Should the state elections (Governor/legislative) go below or above the Federal ones (Pres./Congress)? What does everyone think? If these issues can be fixed, would it be a good idea to use this template for Oregon election articles instead of all the ones at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oregon_elections_templates ? TimeClock871 (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded it slightly to include recent referendums similar to the Switzerland template (Template:Swiss_elections). Any thoughts at all? TimeClock871 (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it's fine; is the idea that it would replace :Template:ElectionsOR? I don't have a problem with that as I think that template, with its orientation in the upper right which conflicts with the usual infobox, is sort of a pain to manage. So I'm all for the flatter bottom template. --Esprqii (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. The idea was that it would replace Template:ElectionsOR and all these yearly election templates like Template:OR2010elections. It also seems like it could replace Template:Oregon_gubernatorial_elections and Template:United_States_Senate_elections_in_Oregon. Would that work too? TimeClock871 (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. I think I would like to see the Senate elections broken out by class, as in the Senate template, as it makes a little clearer the continuity of each of the two seats. Not really sure how you'd do that, but I'm sure it will be lots of fun. Also, I know the redlinks are ugly, but I think it would be good to put them all in for the Senate and gubernatorial elections; especially in the case of the Senate elections, it took me a while to track down all the elections with all the various special elections. (And there are no Senate elections earlier than 1906 since that's when Oregon instituted direct election of Senators.) --Esprqii (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Got it. I added all the missing gubernatorial/Senate election links and divided the Senate elections by class. It's a bit cramped, but I think it will be easier to manage than all the separate templates. TimeClock871 (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Should "State elections" in the left column link to Government of Oregon? Just to have it go somewhere. Also, picky point...change referendums-->referenda? I dunno. I generally don't like using Latin abbreviations for words that have been anglicized, but "referendums" looks funny to me. Not a big deal. --Esprqii (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Flesh out coverage of transit centers

Washington Square, an article I just edited, is the site of TriMet's Washington Square Transit Center. There are articles on transit centers with MAX stops (such as Beaverton Transit Center, Clackamas Town Center Transit Center, Gateway/Northeast 99th Avenue Transit Center, Gresham Central Transit Center, Hollywood/Northeast 42nd Avenue Transit Center, North Lombard Transit Center, Parkrose/Sumner Transit Center, Rose Quarter Transit Center, Sunset Transit Center, and Willow Creek/Southwest 185th Avenue Transit Center), but Wash Square TC is not among them. Could someone create a List of TriMet transit centers? According to http://trimet.org/transitcenters/index.htm, it looks like there aren't very many that need to be added, and having a list would be a nice start towards having all the transit centers covered. Thanks, and keep up the good work. 72.244.200.252 (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A list of TriMet transit centers is a great idea. Thanks! Steven Walling 04:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If you only have a bit of time, create a stub (you can use List of TriMet bus routes as a skeleton) and I'll flesh it out and add it to {{Portland Transit}} ... Thanks. 72.244.203.193 (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I created a quick list, though I think this list has a lot of potential. I am not sure if one solid (and sortable?) list would be preferred or not, but pictures, locations, descriptions, years constructed, etc. would certainly help! Also, I created stubs for Lake Oswego Transit Center, Oregon City Transit Center, and Washington Square Transit Center--Another Believer (Talk) 22:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the articles. I worked on Washington Square Transit Center as promised above, and updated {{Portland Transit}}. BTW, Lake Oswego Transit Center and Oregon City Transit Center aren't MAX stations, so the versions you created should be changed using Washington Square TC as a model. At some point I'll do that if someone doesn't beat me to it.
One more thing that needs to be created:Category:TriMet transit centers, as a subcategory of Category:TriMet and Category:Transit centers. Thanks, 72.244.206.104 (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC).
I quickly updated the LO and OC stubs, but obviously all of the newly-created stubs (as well as the list) need to be expanded greatly. Thanks again for the suggestions! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Multnomah County Library puts COMPLETE Oregonian archives online

WOW, it's a great day to be in WikiProject Oregon. At long last, the fully searchable archives of the Oregonian from 1861 to 1972 is now available on the Multnomah County library site. Check out the press release. All you need is a MultCo library card (or a friend who lends you his number). The 1987 to present archive is already available, so there is a small gap from 72 to 87 that they are gonna fill by the end of the year. So no more excuses on those articles that previously couldn't be cited! --Esprqii (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Great news indeed! Thanks for the alert. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
And just because they don't make it easy to find both sets of archives here they are. Note the "1987 to present" set, and then the "historical archive" which will have everything prior to 1972 (and eventually 1972 to 1987). --Esprqii (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
This is great news! Steven Walling 01:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone actually tried to find something pre-1900? I have access via somewhere else to the historical, and though it says 1861, I've never found anything pre-1900. Though its been months since I've tried. And FYI, there are holes (a few months in 1961 or 1962 if I recall). Aboutmovies (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the O simply hasn't digitized its records pre-1900? Steven Walling 17:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems to work ... --Esprqii (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

John Sellwood is in need of rescue

There's a PROD on John Sellwood, founder of Sellwood, Oregon. I think his notability could be easily established (with help of the new Oregonian archives?), but I'm literally packing a moving truck today. tedder (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I contested the prod, declined the subsequent WP:CSD. I expect it will show up at WP:AFD shortly. Anyone have OGN handy? Just a few sentences would be enough to clarify the topic's importance. —EncMstr (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
AfD would be pointless (for someone who wanted it deleted). He's mentioned in a ton of books, most of which are so old you read them on google.[3] I added one (poorly formatted) ref, so I wouldn't worry about it. If you want to improve it, go for it.` - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I added a little bit of information and one reference that is mostly about the town of Sellwood, at [4] to the page, but I think we'd would have to create a page about the town of Sellwood and merge it with this article if we wanted the article to be rescued. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I gave rescuing it a shot. Added a bit more detail from here and there and spiffed up the citations. I didn't find his birth date in any of these sources, though his brother was born on June 21, 1808. I haven't checked the new Oregonian archives, but his obit should have appeared in 1892. It might have the birth date and other missing tidbits. Was he married? Did he have children? Don't know yet. Finetooth (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Department of Human Services (DHS)

The creation of the Oregon Health Authority (OHA)began with House Bill 2009. The DHS wiki page could be updated to show the creation of the new agency, OHA. More information can be found at www.oregon.gov/OHA

To self-disclose, I am biased so would like someone to begin the creation of the OHA Wiki article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luroc (talk • contribs) 02:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

First Oregonian printing press

I just read in Murray Morgan's book Skid Road: An Informal Portrait of Seattle, about a particular printing press with quite a history. I wondered if anyone here might know about it or have any leads about it. Morgan says it was built in 1796 in New York, then shipped to Mexico in 1832, after which it ended up in Monterey, CA, where it was used for printing proclamations of the Spanish governor. In 1846 it printed the first news paper in California, the Californian, devoted mainly to issues about the Mexican War. At the time it had no letter W, having come from Mexico, so they used two Vs instead ["vvhich is vvhy vve must use tvvo V's"]. It was moved to San Francisco in 1847 where it was used to print the first issues of the Star, then the Alta California. When the Alta California outgrew it, the press was shipped north to Oregon and used to print the first editions of the Oregonian. The Oregonian also soon outgrew it, so it was shipped north again, to Olympia, where it printed the first issues of the Columbian (first paper in Washington Territory), then to Seattle in 1863, where it printed the first editions of the Gazette and, soon after, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Apparently it is in a museum someplace in Seattle. Sounds like a weird curiosity worth writing up some article about. Since it was part of the birth of the Oregonian I wondered if any WIkiProject Oregon folk might have heard of it. Thanks. Pfly (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, only press of note I've heard of was late 1830s, I think, and used to print at some mission. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We're all famous - or at least a large contingent of us

Check out all the pics TriMet used from our large collection. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Very cool find. :) Steven Walling 06:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Pleasing. Finetooth (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
That is great! But it got me wondering what else is out there. This filters out Wikimedia hits and shows how extensively my photos have been used—at least with attribution. Except this one for which I can't figure out which photo is being credited; none of them are familiar. In fact, there seem to be a lot with attribution, but not with any of my photos. Weird. This one is much cooler than the rest of the page. —EncMstr (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

reference notes

Can someone help this user out to clean up the reference style? I'm still on the road, unfortunately. tedder (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems he figured it out himself, although the references are still mostly bare URLs. LittleMountain5 20:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
All cleaned up now. :) LittleMountain5 21:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tables for Portland parks list?

Would love some feedback here, if interested. I am wondering which columns should be included, eliminated, or added. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am still plugging away at the list, but additional feedback on the talk page would be appreciated since I started two new sections there. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Any thoughts on splitting the list into 5 separate lists based on geography? See article talk page for more info. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey y'all

Hi, I just wanted to let you guys know I've been working on the Oregon article from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, on Wikisource: s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Oregon. It's been kind of fun to learn how the Wikisource community is working these days (it's a pretty refined system), and also fascinating to give that article a careful read. There are some interesting facts that might help in various articles of interest to WP:ORE, and also, it's giving me some thoughts about how to structure an article like Oregon. Their approach is pretty different from what we've taken here on Wikipedia, and might be worth some reflection.

If anybody wants to help out with the proofreading and verification, let me know -- it's kind of slow going, but I'm about half way done! -Pete (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Pete, did quick scan of Britannica/Oregon article; found minor error. Article identifies "...Warner Lake (50 m. long, 4-8 m. wide)..." in southern Oregon, but there is no "Warner Lake". There is, however, a series of lakes known collectively as Warner Lakes. Together the Warner Lakes stretch ~50 miles north to south, but each lake is a separate body of water loosely connected by marsh channels and wetlands. The larger lakes in the chain are individually named per McArthur's Oregon Geographic Names.--Orygun (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
But was it all connected in 1911? If you read William Kittredge's Hole in the Sky it talks about the Warner Valley and how some land was "reclaimed" for agriculture. So, much like Wapato Lake used to be an actual lake before reclamation, there may have been a single Warner Lake in 1911. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Bancroft's History of Oregon from 1888 also refers to the lakes as a single lake, while others such as this 1917 USGS water-supply paper refer to them separately. In other words, it's a mystery to me. (I do know, however, that there is very little agriculture in that region, so I doubt if there's been much, if any reclamation work.) LittleMountain5 15:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
While Bancroft was a great historian, doubt if he ever visited the Warner Valley since the first homesteaders didn’t arrive in the valley until the late 1880s. Lewis A. McArthur on the other hand was a member of the Oregon Geographic Names Board for 35 years (1914-1949) and was intimately familiar with Oregon geography and history. On page 1010 of McArthur’s Oregon Geographic Names it says: “There never was a geographic feature in Oregon called Warner Lake. Instead, the name Warner Lakes was used to collectively for a string of lakes, ponds, and playas in the Warner Valley.” McArthur also lists most of the larger lakes under their individual names. In addition, a USGS topographic map of the Warner Lakes shows the individual lakes along with their names. You can see them clearly on the satellite map as well. While the lakes do interconnect, that is very seasonal. Finally, I am personally familiar with the area and fact on the ground are: southern lakes (Pelican, Crump, and Hart) are large distinct year around lakes connect by narrow, but clearly defined channels. Middle lakes (Anderson, Swamp, Mugwamp, Flagstaff, Campbell, and Turpin) are less defined especially in the spring; however, by fall they have become more distinct (but smaller). The northern lakes (Stone Corral and Bluejoint) hardly qualify as lakes. While they cover huge areas, they are never more that a few feet deep and are almost completely dry much of the year. In any case, Oregon Geographic Name is a solid authoritative source when it come to Oregon geography, and text cited above is very clear….”There never was a geographic feature in Oregon called Warner Lake….”--Orygun (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
While OGN is great, like most compendiums of information, they can have errors (there is a Warner Lake in Linn County, so there is a geographic feature in Oregon by that name and has been since at least 1980 according to GNIS). Now, while I'm sure you are familiar with the lakes as they are now, but were you there in 1860, 1500? If you review this old survey first you will see the lakes had a lot more water back circa 1860. Now I don't know where they came up with the data as the area was rather remote back then (not that it isn't still), but it looks like enough to fill much of the basin. Then if you read about the Quarternary Warner Lake, it appears that historically it was all connected. Now, when did they become distinct? Who knows. Maps from circa 1850 show separate lakes, but news traveled pretty slowly in 1911, especially to someplace overseas, so when EB was written, it may have been correct in context or to the best of their knowledge. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Yikes -- that's a pretty bitey/sarcastic comment, AM ("were you there in 1860....?") Orygun's comment appears pretty valid (if not definitive) -- based on some knowledge of the quality of the Bancroft and OGN sources. He never stated that OGN was infallible, and has already acknowledged the point that geography can change over time.
Anyway, the Encyclopedia Britannica article has a lightly-annotated list of citations at the end, so we can see that they were using Bancroft as a source.
Interesting find and discussion. I found the geographical overview one of the more interesting features of the article, too. -Pete (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
No town, just a post office. It was located few miles south of Adel, Oregon at the south end of the Warner Valley, but it was closed in 1924.--Orygun (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The BLM's 2008 photo of the Warner Lakes on Commons shows just how thin each piece of land separating the lakes is, so it's definitely possible that it was all different 99 years ago. However, the USGS book from 1917 that Little Mountain 5 found constantly refers to "Warner Lake" (singular), but it's talking about when Warner Lake existed. In 1917, at least, the lakes were separate. How much could have changed in six years? Unless we find a reliable source that proves this wrong, we've got to trust the evidence and edit the [5] Wikisource page so it refers to the Warner Lakes. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Jsayre, I agree that our little ad hoc team has likely found an error in the 1911 EB -- which is a pretty cool discovery. However, Wikisource is a different project than Wikipedia: its goal is to be an accurate reflection of previously-published documents. So it's actually better to leave the text as-is on Wikisource, since we would otherwise be misleading the reader as to what the EB actually said. But this might merit a mention in the Warner Lakes article here on Wikipedia -- though framing it in a way that doesn't violate the no original research policy might be a bit tricky! -Pete (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(←) I found a few pre-1911 sources that refer to multiple Warner Lakes; the best was this, a journal from the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1884. It states "In 1882, I passed along the three southern Warner Lakes..." (emphasis mine). It looks like they've been separated for a lot longer than one hundred years ago. LittleMountain5 02:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Wow, good find. I think that lays down the hammer. It's the "Warner Lakes." Jsayre64 (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, good find! I think also the source Aboutmovies linked above helps explain the discrepency: it shows a major spike in water volume in the late 1860s (based on what information, I don't know). So that might well be the source of Bancroft's information when he published in 1888.
Pete- Ok, that makes sense. It would be helpful, though, to add footnotes or something on the Wikisource page to get this clear. Can you do that on Wikisource? And what do you think there would be to say on the Warner Lakes Wikipedia article? You're right, saying "there was controversy about the lakes as to..." would sound like original research because there would be nothing to cite for it. Maybe there's nothing to add. Thoughts? Jsayre64 (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's generally accepted to add footnotes on Wikisource; the only kind of wiggle-room I've seen is in providing wikilinks to Wikipedia articles. So maybe the best thing would be to link the word Warner Lake in the EB article to Warner Lakes. As for that article, there is a sentence: "At one time, the entire Warner Valley was covered by a single vast lake." Fleshing that out a bit with what we've learned here, and citing some of these sources, and maybe even uploading the graphic on the water levels, I think all that would improve the article. What do you think? -Pete (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that would be good. I'm surprised you can't add footnotes on Wikisource. People add footnotes all the time in books that they don't write! :) Jsayre64 (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I have seen footnotes on Wikisource a couple of times (e.g. Kubla Khan or UN Copyright policy; there is even a template to mark such notes). --Dami (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. If there are footnotes on Wikisource regularly, perhaps they are allowed? Jsayre64 (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes -- I was unaware of this practice. Thanks for pointing that out, Dami! -Pete (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Portland Parks Photo Blitz!

<font=3> Want something to do this weekend? I propose a WikiProject Oregon weekend photo blitz! Let's try to fill up the List of parks in Portland, Oregon as much as possible by getting out and taking our own pictures or finding ones online that can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The pictures uploaded will not only benefit the aforementioned list, but they will be used for future articles about specific parks and will fill up the Parks in Portland category over at Commons. Get your cameras ready!

--Another Believer (Talk) 17:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone interested in participating? I am not sure what my weekend plans are, but my personal goal is to upload at least 5 pictures of parks close to where I live. I don't have much to offer to encourage participation, except maybe a pretty banner on the talk page for the project member who uploads the most pictures, but I think it would be fun to improve the Portland parks list and expand the Commons category. I realize this challenge would probably be better as a Collaboration, but I'd like to think there will be enough interest on its own (after all, the weather should be pleasant this weekend!). If interested, feel free to add comments or concerns below, or just upload what you can this weekend! Thanks so much! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would love to participate in this, except I'm traveling for work (in SF currently) for the next couple weeks. :( We should do a general photo blitz sometime based on the reqphoto list, though more advance notice would be good... Steven Walling 21:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for the last-minute challenge--I've simply been working on the list, thought this might be a good weekend to get out and do some exploring, and essentially wanted to extend the invitation to others. While I am sorry you cannot participate directly, feel free to upload photos when you return or see if you can find any pictures online that can be uploaded to Commons. Enjoy your stay in SF! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
No worries. It's still a great idea, whatever the timing. :) Thanks, Steven Walling 21:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I should be able to do a few between now and next Monday. Finetooth (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm another californicatior (that's three of us now- Pete, SW, and myself). But I do have a script that takes all of the requested photos and creates a GPX file, suitable for importing to Garmin Mapsource and/or Google Earth. It's a nice way to find nearby reqphotos, or to plan a longer trip around collecting photos. If anyone is interested, email me and I'll send you the GPX file. If none of this makes sense, you aren't a GPS nerd and probably won't find much use of it. tedder (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Tedder, is that sort of file already linked from the Oregon (or maybe it's just Portland) reqphoto category? I seem to remember being able to have the photo requests on a Google map already. Or is that different from a separate GPX file? Steven Walling 16:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that sort of file is already there in KML (download link), which is easy to see in GEarth, but getting it into Garmin is extra work. I have a little script that feeds it through GPSBabel to put it in Garmin's GDB format. tedder (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope everyone has a nice weekend, and be sure to snap some photos if you are out and about! My plan is to concentrate on a string of parks along I-5 in SW Portland, so hopefully the weather will cooperate and I can get some decent pictures of some local parks. Good luck, participants! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, my plan didn't work out, but I was able to snap some pictures in North Portland this weekend. I got one of Chimney Park, George Park and a sign, Johns Community Garden, Linnton Park, McKenna Park and a sign, Northgate Park and a sign, Peninsula Crossing Trail, Pier Park and a sign, Pier Pool, St. Johns Community Center, St. Johns Park and a sign, and St. Johns Racquet Center. None of them are spectacular shots by any means, but they get the job done until better photographers come along! Oh, and thanks for uploading the Wallace Park image, Finetooth! Still quite a way to go, but every additional to the list helps! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
You got a lot, I'd say. I just uploaded another one, Colonel Summers Park, and I'm not quite done. Commons has a software bug that's slowing the creation of thumbs, but I see that the Wallace Park image is OK now, and I assume that Colonel Summers will be OK too after a while. Finetooth (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah, most of the images I uploaded this afternoon are still not displaying correctly, but I am sure they will soon. I've been searching Flickr for public images to use with little luck, but I have never uploaded an image taken by someone else before so I am not sure I am looking in the right places, searching properly, etc. Looking forward to seeing what additional images you will be adding! --Another Believer (Talk) 00:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Your images look quite good to me. I especially like Pier Park, Peninsula Crossing Trail, McKenna Park, and Johns Community Garden. I've added another four, three of them from Sellwood. Looks like the weather will be favorable for quite a while, so perhaps more images will appear. Finetooth (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thank you so much for taking the time to upload additional images--they look great! By my count, we added 19 images or so to the list, which is a great success for two days. And you are right, the weather does look pretty favorable for a while, so I am anxious to get out and get more pictures. Thanks again, Finetooth! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Added two more tonight, got a couple more that I'll upload tomorrow. Planning another excursion tomorrow. I may have over-sharpened some of those from yesterday. The sharpening of the individual leaf edges bothers me sometimes. I tweaked the Oaks Bottom image, and I think it's a bit more like what the eye sees. Finetooth (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Great! I am still working on adding PP&R references (almost done--just SE Portland to finish), but I've started adding some park descriptions as well. Additional references could certainly be used for the Description column, but I am just going ahead and making sure we have at least one primary reference for each park on the list. I will try to take more pictures soon as well, and I look forward to seeing your additional contributions! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to do this, it's just that I don't live in Portland. But I may be going there this weekend so I hope I get the chance to snap a few pics. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Feedback regarding List of parks vs. List of PP&R sites, please

Sorry to keep directing attention to List of parks in Portland, Oregon, but I am requesting feedback here about whether this list should contain just parks or all of the sites listed on the Portland Parks & Recreation website. If the latter, should this list be moved to "List of Portland Parks & Recreation sites"? I am requesting feedback because I am at a point where I don't want to invest a lot of attention to community schools, community gardens, pools, etc. if they are just going to be removed. Also, I may need assistance adding parks that are not listed on the Parks & Recreation website if it is determined that this list should not be moved to focus specifically on PP&R sites. I am dedicated to completing this list, but some feedback for some of the issues raised on the talk page would be much appreciated so I/we can see what direction this list needs to be heading in. Thanks so much for any assistance or feedback you can offer! (And if you see a park without a picture that is around the corner from where you live or work, snap some shots! :p) --Another Believer (Talk) 05:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Portlandia: possibly unfree

Hi all, please note the following discussion: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files#File:Portlandia.jpg tedder (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, a copyright infringement assertion. Those always make me go batty since there is no rhyme nor reason to the assertions. The claim on this one asserts that the artist, Raymond Kaskey, vigorously guards his copyright. I wonder if the hundreds or thousands of flickr photos of it also are being disputed? —EncMstr (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The nominator is correct that freedom of panorama doesn't apply to artwork in the States. But to assume that the artist wants a photo taken down is absurd. Even if it's unlikely, it's possible that the photographer got permission to take the shot. Also, for all we know the artist is just fine with our use, or is even pleased. Steven Walling 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The statue is most likely copyrighted (the uploader can ask the author about it if he's not sure), so we've got to treat the image as a non-free file. If the photo taken of the statue is focused on the statue, then the photo remains property of the copyright holder of the statue. But if the photo isn't zoomed in on the statue or the statue is part of the background then the author of the photo can treat the work as he wishes. And looking at the photo, it's definitely focused on the statue. So the license tag should be the "non-free 3d art" template, but then it would be speedily deleted. So the uploader should probably read WP:COPYREQ to see if he can get the rights to use the image. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I’m not expert, but its pretty hard to claim that a statue’s copyright prevent people from taking photos of public buildings or urban landscapes that happen to capture piece of art somewhere in the photograph. This downtown Portland landscape is perfect example of that point. With that in mind, here’s Wiki-able photo of The Portland Building. While building’s front door decoration can be seen above entrance, photo is clearly framed to capture the entire building—including the building’s name. Wiki picture police are relentless so Portlandia photo is probably toast. Might consider uploading photo of The Portland Building for use in various Portland-related articles—would make sure upload description focused on building, not add-on features. If you want to continue discussion with picture police on current Portlandia photo, here’s interesting photo of an interpretive sign. It shows Portlandia statue and appears to be signed by Raymond Kaskey which may indication that the artist doesn’t mind photo’s of his statue being shown in public.--Orygun (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, with an entire article on the statue itself, we can easily make a fair use claim. The pic can't be huge, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering when someone would finally get around to nominating that picture, and many other pictures of statues still under copyright. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, a valid fair use claim wouldn't be that hard, especially if the author of the statue isn't too tough on his copyright. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, we can always just a take a photo that's kind of a side view, showing the building on one side and the statue on the other, and then note both in the caption. That probably wouldn't land the pic in the statue owner's hands. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon/Archive_14&oldid=1146031722"