Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Speaking of the Blue Book

I'm the proud owner of the commemorative facsimile edition of the 1911 Oregon Blue Book. Don't expect me to actually look up anything in it though... Valfontis (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Might there be entries in the 1911 version that aren't in the latest version for some reason? Just a little curiosity. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember. It's around here somewhere. Stay tuned. Valfontis (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam accounts

Some of you may have read about it elsewhere but since they haven't gotten around to notifying this project yet, I thought I'd let y'all know that at Wikipedia:HighBeam you can read about how to sign up for a free 1-year HighBeam account. That's right, free. I did a free trial once and found it very helpful. No more hits on references of which you can't read the full text! Certain restrictions apply, offer void where prohibited. Valfontis (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It probably will not be open until April 2 at 07:00 PT (or maybe, 08:00 PT—they goofed the daylight indicator) at the earliest. It is proposed to be open only for 7 days. —EncMstr (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, for some reason it's OK to sign up already and several of us have. I might forget otherwise. It's not first-come first-served. If they get too many qualified applicants (unlikely) they'll choose at random. Valfontis (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

New Podunk articles and talking about the weather

I don't usually bother to point out my super-informative and overcited micro stubs on podunks, but since Tedderbot missed a couple and they may be of interest to folks who work in other topic areas, I present:

• Cascade Summit, Oregon once an important Southern Pacific locale
• Rieth, Oregon (or is it Reith, Oregon?) ditto, for the Union Pacific
• Clifton, Clatsop County, Oregon, perfect opportunity for the ghost town, Columbia River, salmon cannery, or Category:Ethnic groups in Oregon enthusiast. Also long enough for a DYK, but a fun hook isn't jumping out at me--maybe the part about the roller rink.
• Lees Camp, Oregon, this is the wettest place in Oregon, for all you climate fans. Expansion could mean a decent "mostest in Oregon" DYK. Also the starting point for ORV adventures in the Tillamook State Forest.

Also, maybe some of you world travelers have a photo stashed away somewhere. Valfontis (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good...I think Tedderbot got them all, except for Clifton, which looks like it was added after it did its run. I think that 2006 Central Pacific cyclone might be the storm that created all that rain in Lees Camp so maybe it needs some linking in there. But my quick search didn't find any definite connections that aren't WP:OR... --Esprqii (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

LC is linked at Pineapple Express#Pacific Northwest, 2006, is that the same storm? Wait, the link there redirects to Winter storms of 2006–2007, which redirects to Global storm activity of 2007, which makes no sense as we're talking about 2006. Someone failed to clean up after themselves. Ugh...

Oh, I forgot to mention there are a couple JSTOR references for the above (regarding salmon and railroad barons) to OHQ that I need to track down. You might even have the issue I need (psst, do you need to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/OHQ in regards to our defector comrade?) Valfontis (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like there is an article at Global storm activity of 2006 that is more accurater and mentions the storm in question. Check.

I updated the OHQ guardianship...let me know whatcha need. --Esprqii (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

According to FEMA, you need to either dry (vacuum freeze drying is best) or freeze wet records within 48 hours or mold is a danger. Does your garage need to be declared a disaster area? Valfontis (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to worry, despite early projections of disaster, our state-of-the-art mitigation equipment quickly returned things to their usual spendor. --Esprqii (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

How do I sign up to use your reading room? Valfontis (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings from GLAM-Wiki US

Invitation to join GLAM-Wiki US

tight Hello! This WikiProject aligns closely with the work of the GLAM-Wiki initiative (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums), a global community of volunteers who assist cultural institutions with sharing resources with Wikimedia. GLAM-Wiki US is a new community initiative focused on organizing cultural collaborations within the United States. GLAM organizations are diverse and span numerous topics, from libraries and art museums to science centers and historic sites. We currently have a backlog of interested institutions- and we need your help! Are you interested in helping with current or future GLAM projects? Join→ Online Volunteers We hope you'll join the growing GLAM-Wiki community in the US. Thank you! -Lori Phillips (Talk), US Cultural Partnerships Coordinator For more information visit→ The GLAM:US portal or GLAM-Wiki on Outreach

Hmm, you mean stuff like reaching out to the Oregon Secretary of State, to get a collection of photos relicensed? Hmmm..seems like some folks around here have done stuff like that…

If you guys don't know Lori's work, allow me to introduce one of the most incredible Wikipedians I've met. She's been doing great stuff as the Wikipedian in Residence at the Children's Museum of Indianapolis -- her blog is a great example of ways to get museum-goers excited about contributing to Wikipedia as part of their learning process. I had the pleasure and honor of helping her lead [wikistrategies.net/glamcamp-dc-plan GLAMcamp DC] last month, launching many of the GLAMwiki US projects.

I can't encourage you strongly enough to check out the work being done in this area, and get involved -- among other things, it's a great way to get resources and ideas for outreach to local cultural institutions. -Pete (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Asante Health System article

Hello, everyone.

There are Wikipedia articles about Rogue Valley Medical Center and Three Rivers Community Hospital, but they do not reference Asante Health System, the organization that owns and operates them. I looked for an article on Asante Health System, but there is none. I believe it is important that people know who owns what and who is associated with whom. However, I work for Asante Health System, so I would not want to write an article about it. I would be happy to provide verified facts and info for an article if someone would write it. Please let me know.

Walkfish (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Cottage Grove

Is anyone else watching the Cottage Grove article? Information being added ranges from copyvio to POV realtor/chamber of commerce type additions. I feel alone. So very alone. Is it cold in here? tedder (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's painful to watch a lot of articles, so sometimes I just stop watching. This does not improve the encyclopedia, but it sure feels good. Alas, you are right about Cottage Grove. Now I wish I hadn't looked. Finetooth (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There has got to be a policy about what Finetooth references above: WP:ICANTTAKEITANYMORE or something. Anyway, yep, blah to the max. I'll try and take a pass. --Esprqii (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The external links are annoying, but it's this realtor-feeling content that really annoys me. I'll remove it again. tedder (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I just deleted a lot of it and restructured some more. Hopefully you didn't suffer any needless edit conflicts. --Esprqii (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Just had to say, regarding WP:ICANTTAKEITANYMORE that I blanked my watchlist the other day. It does feel good. It was in the thousands. Valfontis (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Help. Can someone explain (re: the recent edits to the CG page), about why "someone" removed the history section and or find citations about it? See "I can't take it anymore". Valfontis (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw that. Sigh. The user has failed to collaborate or discuss things on the talk page, despite many requests to do so. tedder (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I reduced my watchlist by 80 percent a few days ago, then re-added a few things. An open wiki is a strange beast, constantly in a state of flux, being improved and damaged simultaneously. I wonder if it will someday reach a steady state in terms of quality. Its breadth of coverage is unmatched by anything, but it's difficult to maintain high quality. You already know this. I'm just thinking out loud. Finetooth (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Online Atlas of Oregon Lakes

This is an update of the 1985 text of the same name. Looks like a good source, published by Portland State University. Finetooth (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That is impressively comprehensive and detailed. I added it to the WP:ORE Reference Desk. —EncMstr (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Portlanders --

…or those within striking distance! Selena Deckelmann and I will be hosting a wiki Edit-a-thon on April 21 at PDX-PIE, in the Pearl District. You should come! A great chance to do some wiki editing, some socializing, and maybe even pass on some skills to the next generation. Plus, it would be great to see all your faces! -Pete (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thank you both for organizing. I will be there if possible, though I do have a work-related schedule conflict (fingers crossed I can attend). --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Tryon Creek on the Main Page!

We're on a roll for featured stream/creek articles on the Main Page. Congrats, Finetooth! Jsayre64 (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Great job folks! Valfontis (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, congrats! --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all. Finetooth (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

New old images

While looking for a free image of the old YMCA building, I found this treasure trove of old circa 1914 pictures. Book was published in 1914, so all images are PD. Hint, the book is all pictures, and some highlights include Macleay Park, old Council Crest, Oaks Park, and plenty of old buildings (churches too). Mostly just Portland, but a fair amount of the Gorge. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, great find! I love looking at old images just like these. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Google won't let me look at the book online, but I bet many of its pictures would be great to upload to Commons. Anyone have a scanner? (I don't!) Jsayre64 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you are using some crippled mobile device? A standard web browser works just fine. With that, you only need to press the Print Screen button on the keyboard and then paste from the clipboard into a photo processing application. No scanning needed (Google has already done that). —EncMstr (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, although not as easy as it used to be, there is still a PDF version you can download, you just click on the gear in the upper right and select PDF. It's 4 MB, and maybe a little easier than doing a screen shot. I already uploaded the YMCA building, so no need on that one. Also, some of the pictures look familiar so we might have some or similar enough. The Council Crest, Oaks Park, Forest Park, Congregation Beth Israel, and Portland Armory ones in particular would be of interest for the main contributors to those articles for historical perspective. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm on a laptop computer but there's still no PDF option under the gear icon nor can I take a screen shot. Probably what happened is Google has noticed me reading several books online recently and is blocking further access for some time. I've heard they're able to do that. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeing Enc add the book to our reference shelf here I noticed the book has a connection with the Kiser brothers of Warrendale. The book might help with writing a bio of them. Tangentially, Warrendale founder and salmon mogul Frank M. Warren, Sr. died on the Titanic. If someone was quick I bet they could write something up and get a Titanic-themed DYK if they are planning to do DYKs to commemorate the Titanic sinking on the 15th. Valfontis (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Image used

I discovered the use of an image I took and uploaded to Commons. Hopefully I used the 'published' template on the talk page correctly. Feel free to amend if not... --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Three degrees of Wikipedia: I know Rachael McDonald. By the way, us old people remember the building in that pic as Gilbert Hall. Also BTW, a fun way to find one's Commons photos being used is to drag and drop them into the Image search on Google. I found one of mine that way. Looks like there is a Firefox extension too... Valfontis (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

AB: Congrats! They must have really liked your photo, especially because they gave you credit. Valfontis: I also know Rachel McDonald. She`s a very common voice on KLCC. The UO faculty union effort is another thing we should follow; in case anything dramatic happens soon, I`ll make sure to update Wikipedia articles accordingly. In the meantime, let`s keep the radio on... Jsayre64 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Val. I like discovering when photos I've taken have been used (only two known so far!). --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if these count as "media organizations", but I discovered that images were used by the Acton Institute blog and OpenGlobe:

• http://blog.acton.org/archives/27740-acton-commentary-ows-and-the-lost-sheep.html
• http://theopenglobe.org/wiki/60_days_of_Occupy_Wall_Street:_in_pictures (page 10)

Uncertain of their relevance, or the strictness with using the "Published" template on the talk pages, I did not mark them as having been used by media organizations but will keep a running list of photo credits on my Commons profile page. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles for mayoral candidates

I know some contributors strongly dislike stubs, but after discovering articles did not exist for Eileen Brady and Charlie Hales I went ahead and created stubs for future expansion. I don't have time at the moment to flesh them out further, but hope to soon. Both subjects are certainly deserving of their own articles given the amount of press they have received as mayoral candidates and otherwise. Jefferson Smith had an article already. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Brady is disambiguated as a politician because there is a television character also named Eileen Brady. Perhaps the current Eileen Brady re-direct should become a disambiguation page and a re-direct should be created for Eileen Brady (Hollyoaks)? --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:POLITICIAN is clear- articles for candidates should not be created, though they are appropriate for a central list or article. I'm a big proponent of this, as candidate articles tend to get leveraged by the office of a candidate to include their 47-point plan for making the world a better place. These new users, who claim to be very interested in wikipedia, disappear immediately after an election. tedder (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) What tedder said--I'm pretty sure Brady will meet the WP:GNG due to her New Seasons background, but I'm not sure about Hales. I'm sure a deletionist will be along soon enough to weigh in. The Portland, Oregon mayoral election, 2012 article might also be a good place for further expansion of minor candidates. By the way, shouldn't that article be expanded to include other city races and renamed Portland, Oregon area elections, 2012 or something? --Esprqii (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But do these individuals not meet general notability requirements? I am not creating these articles because they are candidates for mayor, and there is plenty of verifiable information about their life histories, careers, etc. No doubt information specifically related to the election belongs on the appropriate election article, and that all three articles should be watched closely for unnecessary/biased information. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, note that both articles were requested here. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I expanded the Hales article enough to justify its existence; there is plenty more where that came from. I hope to continue expansion soon. I will just consider these projects personal research before participating in the civic duty of voting. For the record, no COI issue here -- my edits are not meant to promote any candidate and my contributions are intended to be completely unbiased. I invite any contributors to check for biased or promotional content. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I added in my Brady edits from a while back. As you can see, I didn't get very far before I moved on to something else. --Esprqii (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So I made a more precise redirect for the Hollyoaks character. I think it would be legit to move the current Eileen Brady (politician) page to Eileen Brady with a hatnote. The character is not on the show anymore and while I don't want to incur the wrath of the Hollyoaks faithful, that seems the most prudent course. I can't do so without an admin's help...anyone? Bueller? (Or it could be a straight-up dab page, I guess...) --Esprqii (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted the redirect, you can do the rest of the work. tedder (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thankee! --Esprqii (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

New article: Tourist attractions near Portland, Oregon

I created an article that I think absolutely everyone will have additions to make. I am often suggesting interesting tourism for visiting friends, relatives, business associates, etc. Tourism in Portland, Oregon is great for sticking close to the metro area, but when I think of other interesting destinations, it is usually well beyond. I tried to suggest the article's scope in the lead: In selecting these sites, less unique attractions are included if they are less than an hour's drive from Portland. For the most unique attractions, up to six hours each way may be acceptable to the most dedicated tourists.

• Should the new article be merged and unified with the old? (Though maybe not right away; give it time to mature first.)
• Should it include more state parks, golf courses, pubs, etc.? (I'm thinking items like Hood River's brewpubs and fine golf course.)
• Should really-in-Portland locations like Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum be moved from one article to the other?
• Should the distances and driving times be cited? (I used Google Maps; maybe add a map link column?)

Like the List of Oregon State Parks, I've gone out of my way to avoid advertising, but yet hint at why one would want to visit a site. This is a delicate balance which I'm sure will elicit other ideas. —EncMstr (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to opt out of this one, since Wikipedia is not a tourist guide. I'm not saying we should delete this or that folks shouldn't contribute, of course. We'll have to monitor it closely for spam additions. Valfontis (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Crater Lake close enough to Portland to be included in this article? 285 miles is a long way. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree: Crater Lake is pretty ambitious for most normal people. I had friends visit from France—their first visit to the U.S.—who felt that six hours each way was conveniently close for something they so strongly wanted to see. It did help that they left my place at 2 or 3 a.m. thanks to their time change. They missed dinner at my place, but reported a wonderful Crater Lake visit. —EncMstr (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I would think that an article like this (with the tourist guide stuff like mileage removed) would be better at Tourism in Oregon or Tourism in Washington (or perhaps the best would be Tourism in the Pacific Northwest). These tourist sites have very little to do with the city of Portland, except that some of them are somewhat close to it. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 17:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And if it's going to be in table format, the most appropriate title would probably be List of tourist attractions in the Pacific Northwest. And perhaps instead of listing the distance and direction from Portland, you could simply have a latitude/longitude column for the location of each site. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 17:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

See User:Scottywong/List of tourist attractions in the Pacific Northwest for what this might look like, let me know what you think. I've got a couple coordinates in there, but not all of them. Don't miss the {{GeoGroup}} template in the bottom right, it'll show you all of the sites with coordinates on one Google map. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 23:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Meetup this Saturday!

Just a friendly reminder… Selena Deckelmann and I will be hosting a wiki Edit-a-thon this Saturday at PDX-PIE, in Portland's Pearl District. You should come! A great chance to do some wiki editing, some socializing, and maybe even pass on some skills to the next generation. Plus, it would be great to see all your faces! While RSVP is not required, it sure would help in our planning if you could add your name to the participants list. (And, the more experienced Wikipedians we can have there, the better -- newbies always appreciate one-on-one attention!) -Pete (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hope to be there for at least part of the session--thanks, Pete! --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Selena and Pete, for organizing the event! I wish I could have stayed longer, but it was nice to catch up and meet some new people too! --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Portland Japanese Garden image

... was used on the Wikimedia blog and as an update on Facebook. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Saw that. What an amazing image. tedder (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

PDX mayors

Should articles be created for all of the redlinked names here? In other words, are all mayors of PDX notable? Some of them served short terms so their articles might be short, but they would make great GAs. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say they're all likely to be notable. I've had Mr. Rushlight on my radar for a while both due to his name that is totally on my list of pseudonyms to use when paging people at the airport as well as his involvement (or lack thereof) in cleaning up the town! --Esprqii (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't tell me you've forsaken Mr. Crumpacker! And yeah, ditto ODGs FTW. Valfontis (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course not, but I think the TSA is starting to catch on about the Crumpacker pages so I need a backup. --Esprqii (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

is Bill Sizemore up for election?

See this edit, and note Bill Sizemore's residence and mailing addresses are 97756. tedder (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy, I'll have to bring this up at the Editathon! --Esprqii (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted twice and added some comments on the userpage. I won't revert further (WP:3RR), hopefully the user will begin to discuss edits. tedder (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

article about community vs. CDP: which is preferable?

I don't know why I haven't come across this before. When an article like Tri-City, Oregon seems to be about both the Census Designated Place and the unincorporated community, which GNIS reference should be used? There is "Tri-City populated place". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey. and "Tri-City CDP". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey.. —EncMstr (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember running into this problem either. The GNIS citation embedded in the article is to a third GNIS ref, "Tri-City populated place". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey.. It's also for "populated place", dated 1980, whereas the one you link to is dated 2000. The elevations are all different: 741 ft, 1089 ft, and 689 ft. I wonder if Valfontis might know what this means. Finetooth (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You rang? As I recall (don't have time to look now), there is even "Tri City" and "Tri-City"--hyphenated or not. Why?! I always thought it was a made up census name, as I don't think OGN lists a place named Tri City. Anyway I feel like maybe this place was retconned into being a populated place. In most cases however, the populated place (hamlet, burg, wide spot in the road) existed long before the Census named a CDP after it, so I would default to the populated place coords. In other words, is it in OGN? As for Tri City? I'd go with whichever one seems to place the pin closest to the "center" if there is one. This is all just my opinion, but I think it makes sense. Valfontis (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Tri City. DOUGLAS. This is a community in Missouri Bottom centered among Myrtle Creek, Canyonville, and Riddle. The name apparently originated with the Tri City School District and was taken up later by the sewer district and Tri City State Airport. (McArthur, Lewis A.; McArthur, Lewis L. (2003) [1928]. Oregon Geographic Names (7th ed.). Portland, Oregon: Oregon Historical Society Press. p. 968. ISBN 978-0875952772.) YBG (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good to know it's legit. Now if only someone would add that info to the article... Valfontis (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. YBG (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I said that Tri City includes the three abovementioned cities, but I'm not sure that includes is the correct term. As it is a CDP and census figures are listed for the three cities, maybe the CDP doesn't overlap with the three cities. YBG (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Since they are separate cities, with separate census data, there is no way that the Tri City CDP includes them. It looks like it simply includes everything outside the cities' urban growth boundaries. It's more that the name is "inspired by", though that sounds like a crappy movie soundtrack. Why not say it is "named for" the three cities surrounding the area. Valfontis (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I just tided up the entry. Some time ago I also wrote myself a note to one day tell USGS that having three separate entries for the same place is a little excessive (they have Tri City and Tri-City listed as two separate populated places). Maybe they should call it Identity-Crisis-City, Batman. As far as the coordinates go, the pin is in the middle of the forest, but it seems equidistant from the north and south sections of the area, so maybe that is fine. If this wasn't what appears to be a recently invented place, I would be tempted to move the pin closer to the where the elementary school is. But I have the feeling there was never an old town center with a school, church, grange hall, etc. (my informal markers for "placeness"), so maybe we should leave well enough alone. Valfontis (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for wikilinking my note above and for the improved incorporation of OGN info into the article. By the way, OGN has an short article on Missouri Bottom; it could be a separate article. YBG (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for fixing my typo. Personally I wouldn't write an article on Missouri Bottom unless a glance at History of Southern Oregon, as suggested by OGN, reveals more than it was named after some Missourians. At least not until we've covered more of the more notable geographic features of Oregon. (Not that I would stop anyone from doing so.) I would like to see an article or redirect explaining exactly what a "bottom" is. UGSG defines the dozen bottoms in Oregon as either a "flat" or a "bend". That said, I love the snickerworthiness of "American Bottom" (actually an important hops-growing area), "Lonesome Bottom", and best of all "Big Bottom". But seriously, Mission Bottom might actually be notable as one of the earliest settlements of old dead white guys in Oregon. Perhaps the eventual bottom articles should redirect to a section of the appropriate river article? Or, less seriously, List of bottoms of Oregon? Valfontis (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, here's a link to a featured Pennsylvania bottom: Upper Pine Bottom State Park. Finetooth (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Bottoms

There's just so much to love about creating a List of bottoms of Oregon. If we concentrated on one particular bottom, I bet we could get a great April Fool's Day type article together...maybe a DYK? There are certainly some, ahem, cheeky hooks we could use. --Esprqii (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm in! Let's do it. We have Jackson Bottom too. Shall we start on a subpage, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/bottoms? That way we can put things in as a sandbox for now, and (erm) wipe it clean later. tedder (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

When I saw Hillsboro, I knew User:Aboutmovies had to be all over it already. Also we have Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge. So there's a possible FA. Butt hey, there are |less than 20 actual named bottoms. I say we go for the featured list/dyk. --Esprqii (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Yes! I'm for an April Fool's DYK. Maybe EncMstr can whip up one of those nifty tables that lists all the Oregon bottoms from the USGS data. For the record, the complete list is:

• American Bottom
• Ankeny Bottom
• Big Bottom
• Bottomless Lake--it's a flat. In Lake County. You figure that out.
• Jackson Bottom
• Keizer Bottom
• Liberty Bottom
• Lonesome Bottom
• McKinney Bottom
• Mission Bottom
• Missouri Bottom
• Mocks Bottom

I'm proud to say my county has the most bottoms. Valfontis (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm jealous that you got the GNIS query to link despite the dire warning at the top of the page. Valfontis (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This needs some serious research ASAP. I think I might be able to get a picture. If there is something to take a picture OF. It's not too far. --Esprqii (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Careful on that one, Esprqii. It should be under several feet of snow, and the road might not be passable. —EncMstr (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll just take those windy forest service road short cuts...what could go wrong? Headline: WIKIPEDIAN DIES OF HYPOTHERMIA IN ATTEMPT TO PHOTOGRAPH BOTTOM

Yeah, don't worry, that did occur to me. But I think at least part of the bottom is pulled down far enough to not be a problem. --Esprqii (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's see. Some Google results-inspired items:

• Oregon bottom fishing
• Bottomless Lake [1]
• Rock Bottom Brewery
• Rock Bottom Ranch [2]
• Oaks Bottom [3][4][5]
• Mocks Bottom [6]
• Bottom School Park [7][8]
• Jackson Bottom Wetlands [9][10]
• Crater Lake bottom [11]

name	type	elevation	coordinate	USGS Map	GNIS url
Missouri Bottom (Douglas County, Oregon)	Flat	617 ft (188 m)	42°59′45″N 123°19′16″W	Canyonville	[12]
North Fork Bottom Creek (Douglas County, Oregon)	Stream	699 ft (213 m)	43°21′44″N 123°44′30″W	Cedar Creek	[13]
McKinney Bottom (Marion County, Oregon)	Bend	282 ft (86 m)	44°43′01″N 122°56′28″W	Crabtree	[14]
Little Bottom Creek (Linn County, Oregon)	Stream	1,014 ft (309 m)	44°27′29″N 122°31′54″W	Green Peter	[15]
Jackson Bottom (Washington County, Oregon)	Bend	135 ft (41 m)	45°30′17″N 122°59′24″W	Hillsboro	[16]
Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge (Multnomah County, Oregon)	Park	26 ft (7.9 m)	45°28′13″N 122°39′34″W	Lake Oswego	[17]
Mission Bottom (Marion County, Oregon)	Bend	118 ft (36 m)	45°03′30″N 123°02′21″W	Mission Bottom	[18]
Big Bottom (Clackamas County, Oregon)	Bend	2,093 ft (638 m)	45°00′26″N 121°54′04″W	Mount Mitchell	[19]
Hay Bottom Canyon (Wheeler County, Oregon)	Valley	1,401 ft (427 m)	44°51′07″N 120°24′18″W	Muddy Ranch	[20]
Bottom School Park (Clackamas County, Oregon)	Park	161 ft (49 m)	45°22′12″N 122°37′08″W	Oregon City	[21]
Lonesome Bottom (Clackamas County, Oregon)	Bend	52 ft (16 m)	45°22′06″N 122°36′29″W	Oregon City	[22]
Rock Bottom Reservoir (Harney County, Oregon)	Reservoir	4,462 ft (1,360 m)	43°29′21″N 119°21′13″W	Palomino Buttes	[23]
Rocky Bottom Reservoir (Malheur County, Oregon)	Reservoir	4,915 ft (1,498 m)	43°24′13″N 117°02′02″W	Pole Creek Top	[24]
Mocks Bottom (Multnomah County, Oregon)	Bend	46 ft (14 m)	45°34′13″N 122°42′18″W	Portland	[25]
Liberty Bottom (Wheeler County, Oregon)	Flat	1,519 ft (463 m)	44°45′06″N 120°13′47″W	Rowe Creek	[26]
Keizer Bottom (Marion County, Oregon)	Bend	141 ft (43 m)	44°59′19″N 123°02′12″W	Salem West	[27]
American Bottom (Polk County, Oregon)	Flat	167 ft (51 m)	44°48′31″N 123°07′11″W	Sidney	[28]
Ankeny Bottom (Marion County, Oregon)	Flat	197 ft (60 m)	44°47′08″N 123°05′06″W	Sidney	[29]
Bottomless Lake (Lake County, Oregon)	Flat	4,308 ft (1,313 m)	43°10′28″N 120°49′08″W	Thorn Lake	[30]
Bottom Creek (Coos County, Oregon)	Stream	482 ft (147 m)	43°19′34″N 123°47′06″W	Tioga	[31]

That should be adequate for posterity.  :-) —EncMstr (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, you kick ass on those tables. Copied over and sorted the true bottoms from the pretenders here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/bottoms. --Esprqii (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I've dabbed all the bottoms in the first table. Valfontis (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I drive by the so-called Bottom School Park (Clackamas County, Oregon) just about every day. Butt, it backs up to (the puns never end here) Bolton Primary School. I bet this is a hilarious USGS typo that is propagated everywhere. If we could get them to correct it, I bet the fine people of West Linn would hail us forever. --Esprqii (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh, Val has a WP:COI: [32] --Esprqii (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's true, but I wasn't going to say anything, yeesh. Valfontis (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's OK. Please take note of this important feature of the Big Bottom watershed. Clearly Wikipedians can grow up (?) to become USGS feature-namers. Or vice versa.--Esprqii (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As long as creative license is acceptable, should Hole in the Ground and Crack in the ground be included? —EncMstr (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Like --MZMcBride (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, boy, is this amusing. And, thanks to a Google search, I just found another bottom (or at least a place with "bottom" in its name)! [33] Jsayre64 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This could be considered moving in the direction of social media, but hey, why not? WP recently gave up on WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NPOV quite publicly and quite spectacularly. YBG (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WP gave up on WP:NPOV? Huh? Its spectacularity escaped me. Anyway, I disagree that this is totally specious. Any truly complete encyclopedia would include such a list. Many of these are not only geographically significant (Big and American), but historically as well (Mission and Missouri). But I won't deny that the silliness factor moved this ahead of, say, a list of swamps in Oregon. --Esprqii (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with a little humor? I like the idea of having a list of bottoms in Oregon, because "bottom" apparently plays a big role in our state's place names, and each one can be verified by citing the GNIS. By the way, to answer Esprqii's question about NPOV, I think that was a reference to the recent blackout in protest of the SOPA and PIPA bills. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahhhhh, I see. Thanks, that puts YBG's comment in a new light. Anyway, it's not my intention to violate any of those principles in this or any other article, and I don't believe WP has abandoned them either; but that's not a discussion for this page. --Esprqii (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured Bottoms

If this effort is going to make the front page for April Fools Day, isn't it about time to get cracking? —EncMstr (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...I was thinking that too. --Esprqii (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

At first, I was bummed I didn't have anything to contribute here.. but it occurred to me, isn't this the perfect opportunity to show off the smallest park in the world? Leprechaun butts!! -Pete (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this is going to take a well-rounded effort. But I'm sure we will prevail in the end. Valfontis (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I admit I missed the original pun because I was feeling guilty about not working on the article. I can't help it, it's the way I was reared. --Esprqii (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Time for a move to mainspace? We blew the April Fool's idea, but it would still be funny. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say moving it over makes sense if we lose the table about the "bottoms that may not be bottoms." I has sort of hoped we could round out the redlinks so that there aren't as many dead ends. But it's stub-worthy even without that. --Esprqii (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Postcard publication date

When is a postcard considered legally published? If it is printed to be sold (which would seem to be the case most of the time), does that make it published upon the day of mass production? I ask because various on-line collections of digital images include Oregon-centric images from postcards created before 1923. Are those fair game for copying and uploading to the Commons? Finetooth (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• When a postcard is printed for sale it's published, same as a magazine. Which mean any postcard published before 1923 is now in Public Domain.--Orygun (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Orygun. I've now retouched and uploaded File:Salem flouring mills.jpg, first published in 1908 then scanned and uploaded later by the Oregon State University Libraries to its digital collection. Finetooth (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Oregon Iron Company

Congrats to Esprqii on the GA! WikiProject Oregon has had many successes recently, including new GAs, article appearances on the main page, etc. The collaboration of the week may have stalled but contributors are making great additions to the project and to Wikipedia at large. Keep up the fantastic work, all! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I note that our project is approaching 100 GAs--I know we have a ton of good article candidates that just haven't been nominated. I've been sitting on a couple possibilities myself. How about we have a Good Article drive for our next Collaboration of the Week? Everybody go identify articles you've started or worked on that might qualify and let's prove how good we really are! --Esprqii (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

*Pokes project members to comb through Finetooth's work* (Eliza Barchus, for example) :p. FYI, I have nominated David Hattner's article for Good status and the Clinton Street Theater article is almost GAN-ready. The articles for Couch Park, Jamison Square, Mill Ends Park, Laurelhurst Theater and Tanner Springs Park could possibly be promoted to GA status easily with a bit more expansion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge of shipwreck lists

A heads up that it looks like List of Oregon shipwrecks is going to get merged into List of shipwrecks in the United States and changed/reduced. There's another separate list here that doesn't yet have a notice on it. Shipwrecks of the inland Columbia River. Cataobh (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:List of Oregon shipwrecks#Merge: it doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Also, there are no merge notices on either article, just an informal note on the Oregon shipwrecks talk page. —EncMstr (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Free Oregon images

Nice ones. An example is used here: File:Craterian Ginger Rogers Theater.jpg. I think the terms and conditions work for Wikipedia. That is all. Valfontis (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are great, thanks! 1, 2, 3. LittleMountain5 16:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for using them. The photos may make up for the fact that we otherwise aren't very happy with the Secretary of State's office right now. Valfontis (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure these photos are ok to use. When I first started working on Oregon articles, I asked folks on Wiki-media query page about using these images and they said last use criterion was stumbling block—i.e. user may not sell or transfer the rights to use the photos to other parties. Wiki-media folks said that didn’t meet standard for wiki-images. That didn’t make sense to me, but I figured they knew rules better than I did. As result, I’ve never used any Oregon archive images. If we can use them after all, they are gold mine of ultra-high quality photos from every county in the state.--Orygun (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh. Let's hope they're okay. I couldn't find where you asked about them in the MCQ archives, so I've opened this section on the media copyright page. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not the end of the world if we have to delete them. Is there a difference between leaving them here on Wikipedia vs. putting them on Commons? I bet we could also ask the photographer. Note there is a difference between the free-use 72dpi images found on the S.O.S. website and purchasing the 300dpi images. The only criterion for the 72dpi appears to be giving the photographer credit, not the "may not sell or transfer the rights" part. Valfontis (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. I know we're not here to help people (or the state) sell things, but it seems like more people would purchase the images if they saw them on Wikipedia, not buried on the S.O.S. website. Valfontis (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I see--The terms and conditions here are slightly different from the ones here. The first does indeed attach the "the user may not sell or transfer the rights" to the 72dpi images. Damn gubmint. Valfontis (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Checked my archive and Wiki-media rep referred me to Pete, who told me it wasn’t useable. Here’s dialog we had.--Orygun (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this discussion, Orygun. I had actually spotted it a couple days ago, and was hanging back..because I didn't want to spoil the party :) I think the provision Valfontis just spotted is an inescapable problem. Funny, isn't it, how while the National Archives is doing cartwheels about the WikiProject Oregon member they were able to engage as an advisor, the local Archives don't seem to pay us much mind. Le sigh… -Pete (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) I sent an email to Gary Halvorson and the State Archives pleading our case, and they are willing to change the 72-dpi images' conditions! The new conditions will look like this:

"The 72 dpi JPEG images displayed in the Oregon Historical County Records Guide may be used free of charge without permission provided that the photo credit shown below is given. Use of the photos implies agreement to the following terms and conditions.

1. The images are taken for use in the copyrighted Oregon Blue Book and other state publications.
2. The Oregon State Archives holds custody of the photos and sets conditions of use.
3. The photos may be used in Web sites and other personal or commercial activities.
4. Derivative works are allowed."

The troublesome line "the user may not sell or transfer the rights to use the photos" will be replaced with "derivative works are allowed." What do you think, will that meet Wikipedia's (or Commons') criteria? It certainly sounds good to me. LittleMountain5 01:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello? You rock! Thanks for following up on this. Since I started this mess (and got it wrong), I'll withhold my opinion on whether we can now use these or not. Valfontis (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This looks fantastic! I don't see any problem with the license terms. I'd be interested to see the message you sent to Mr. Halvorson, if you're willing to share -- always useful to take stock of effective outreach efforts. Great job! -Pete (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I emailed him back saying we'd love it. You can read my original email here, for lack of a better place to put it. Cheers, LittleMountain5 21:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) And... it's done! I set up a Commons category for the images we upload. Have fun! LittleMountain5 23:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot upload

A bot could easily upload the ~2500 images. If someone wants, I'll write the simple bot. How should we categorize the file names...for example: [34] "Marys Peak View (Benton County Scenic Images) (benDA0140).jpg"? Should there be a link to buy the full resolution images?Smallman12q (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

An outsider peaking in- yes, I'd include a link, if for no other reason then 'I'll scratch your back for scratching mine.' Or put another way, they just changed the terms on their images to donate them to us, so we should do something for them. Just my thoughts though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've uploaded a sample file: File:Beacon_Rock_View_(Multnomah_County_Scenic_Images)(mulDA0021a).jpg. I'll also add relevant county categories with the uploads. I've asked Little Mountain 5 to contact the archive again to get an OTRS ticket filed and to get permission for all the images to be uploaded and the website to be scraped. The website will be scraped, which will take 36 counties * 100 images * 150kb will use up about 500MB-1GB bandwidth over several hours. Once the OTRS ticket is filed, I'll do the upload. Cheers.Smallman12q (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks mostly good to me – only things are "Higher resolution images may be purchased from the Oregon State Archives" could be Higher resolution images may be purchased from their website" (because I'm a grammar Nazi ;-) ), and I don't think the keywords are necessary, unless I'm missing something! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I've filed a bot request at Commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/Smallbot 2. Though the images are under an acceptable license, I don't believe the image descriptions are. Should we get permission for the descriptions?Smallman12q (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done-The bot upload is complete. See the 4.2k images at Commons:Category:Images from Oregon Historical County Records Guide.Smallman12q (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thank you! --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

All of these images are within the hidden category "Images from Oregon Historical County Records Guide". Should images remain in their respected "scenic images by [x county]" categories or should images be re-categorized by subject? For instance, should this image stay within the 'Scenic images of Multnomah County, Oregon' category or be placed into the Hawthorne Bridge category? --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Dang, this is so fabulous! Thank you to everyone who made it happen! Valfontis (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The original "secnic images by x county" should stay...that's how they're classified on their website. You should simply add additional categories=D.Smallman12q (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, will do. Just understand that some people could add the "scenic" images category to other images or remove it from uploaded images not knowing the purpose of the category or what qualifies an image as "scenic" within a county. Thanks again for everyone involved in this great addition to Commons/WP. Time to start adding categories... --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much for setting up that bot! So many great photos, and the filenames are good, too. Also, thanks again to Little Mountain 5 for contacting the Oregon State Archives about their photos. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This will featured in GLAM's monthly newsletter. Feel free to make corrections at outreach:GLAM/Newsletter/April_2012/Contents/USA_report.Smallman12q (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Just read the GLAM report--very cool! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: I tagged every image (I am pretty sure) in the Multnomah County category with at least one additional category. These images make a great addition to the project! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Kvinneakt

I started an article for Kvinneakt, the infamous nude woman bronze sculpture in downtown Portland featured in the "expose yourself to art" campaign with Bud Clark. 1973 and 1975 are both cited by reliable sources as the year of creation, so I've included "Designed and created by Norman Taylor between 1973 and 1975"... hopefully this works. For the category I went with 1973 as the year of conception, but perhaps the year of completion is more fitting? Feel free to contribute to the article if interested. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Most things I've read say 1975, but it seems fine as is. Should we add its actual coordinates? The articles cited say it's at SW 6th and Morrison, but the Google Street View doesn't show it (taken in 2009, so maybe before it was placed there). I saw another link that said it was at SW 5th and Washington but it's not on that view either. --Esprqii (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Update, I guess 5th and Washington was the location before the transit mall construction. Guess the Street View Mobile snapped the photo before it was moved. --Esprqii (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The sculpture is definitely on 6th currently (I walk by it frequently). Thanks for adding the coordinates. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the streetview photos along SW 6th between Morrison and Alder were taken April 2009, and the Oregonian blurb says it the statue was installed September 9, 2009. The excellent Oregonian photo shows it is clearly opposite the north end of Wells Fargo adjacent to Meier & Frank Macy's here. (Just spin the photo around 180° and match the building facades above Max.) Hmmm, I was sure the article was lacking a coord, but in the time it took to write this, Esprqii beat me—the cad. (Nice work, and we agree on the location.) —EncMstr (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Woohoo! I was trying to be very exact in the placement based on other photos, so I was sure someone would scoop me on it. Maybe next time they go down her alley, Valfontis can send the Google people over to retake the photo. --Esprqii (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on me starting an article specifically for the Expose Yourself to Art promotional campaign? I think enough coverage exists and would outweigh other content that currently appears on the Bud Clark article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Was it really a promotional campaign? It was a poster to make money, right? I don't think there was some high-minded purpose to get the public to enjoy public art. Either way, it's probably notable enough. --Esprqii (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my impression (though honestly I only scratched the surface) was that the poster began as a VD campaign but morphed into a support-the-arts campaign. Will definitely do more research, though I have come across multiple parodies and variants of the poster which helps with notability. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This link seems like a good place to start about the poster history. He does sort of vaguely mention some kind of arts campaign, but it doesn't sound like he raised any money for anyone other than himself and Bud (not that there's anything wrong with that), and there doesn't appear to have been any sort of typical "support the public arts" program that this was part of. --Esprqii (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the photo you used will likely be deleted as a copyvio on commons at some point. While the photographer may have properly licensed his photo, it is a derivative work of the sculpture, which is likely copyrighted (I checked the 1973 copyright entries and did not see a listing). As in without the permission of the sculptor, the photo can't be used at Commons (a fair use claim could be made, but it would have to be hosted on Wikipedia). Aboutmovies (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh no. See, this is why I usually upload only scenic photos I have taken. I saw they were available on Flickr so I uploaded them, thinking public works of art (in the middle of the sidewalk) could be pictured on Wikipedia/Commons. Do I need to raise this issue at Commons or just wait for someone to do something about it? --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Before reading this, I posted a note about likely copyvio to the article's talk page and a link to freedom of panorama. If you go to the Commons by clicking through to the image's description page, you can click on the "toolbox" in the menu to the left of the page. In the toolbox, you will find a "mark for deletion" choice. If you mark the image for deletion, giving the reason, it will save a bit of trouble, I think. In any case, I'd recommend removing it from Kvinneakt right away. It won't (or shouldn't) pass GAN. Finetooth (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I nominated one image for deletion [Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kvinneakt - Portland, Oregon.jpg here] and asked that the other images be deleted as well if they violate copyright rules. Sorry for the trouble, all. Still hoping to expand the article and get to GA status, even without available images. See article talk page re: image I took this morning of plaque. Thanks, FT. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As Aboutmovies says, it might be OK to make a fair-use claim and re-upload to Wikipedia rather than the Commons. I'm not sure the 3-megabyte version would meet the fair-use requirements, though. It might have to be of even lower quality. Not sure. Finetooth (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You could ask the sculptor if he'd mind...here's his contact info. --Esprqii (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If he were to respond granting permission, how would I prove this and to whom would I present this evidence? --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure some of our copyright experts know the answer to that one. Meanwhile, I'm wondering if Mr. Taylor got any compensation from the poster. If he owns the copyright, it seems like he would, but there is no mention of it in the description. Kinda weird, and I wonder if that would indicate the status of the copyright for the statue. Not everyone is Raymond Kaskey. --Esprqii (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If he grants permission, you send it to the volunteer team at wikimedia. They stamp it with the "granted by copyright holder". His email address certainly helps with verification- it isn't at hotmail or something like that. tedder (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will give it a shot and see what happens! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Once again, all hands have been on deck to discuss this article. Much appreciated, fellow WikiProject members! I found half a dozen additional articles in the Oregonian archives, so I will expand the article further ASAP. Hoping to have the article GAN ready by the end of the weekend. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

And just to re-emphasis and explain a bit, his sculpture may not be copyrighted at all. If it was "published" in 1973 or 1975, he had to go through the formal registration process and place a (c) symbol on it. Automatic copyrights in the US came later. Still, getting his permission resolves any potential issue. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Does there exist an example of how to approach a request for permission? I just want to make sure my request and his response provide the information needed for inclusion on WP/Commons. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

But of course there is! --Esprqii (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Esprqii. These are great examples for requesting permission to use text or images. For Taylor, am I requesting if images taken by others can be uploaded to Wikipedia under a specific license? Sorry for the hand-holding here, but this makes me uncomfortable unless I really know what I am talking about. Hopefully I will learn a thing or two at Wikimania! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess what's interesting to me is that he must have already dealt with this issue with the poster, since that's how most people know the sculpture. So he must have cut a deal there or not have any copyright to images of his work. I agree it's uncomfortable asking him to surrender copyright of an image of his three-dimensional work, but perhaps it is something sculptors deal with. --Esprqii (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Despite the current image issue, I believe this article is GAN ready (articles should be illustrated if possible). Unless anyone suggests otherwise, I will nominate the article for Good status soon. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's ready. It's quite interesting and well-done. Regarding the image questions, which I agree could be dealt with in due course, I have no direct experience in asking authors or artists to surrender their copyrights. They have a right to make a living, and if they say OK to free-use publication on the Commons, they may be surrendering possible income. Commons images can't contain non-commercial (NC) restrictions; anyone can copy the image and use it, non-commercially or commercially. If I were an author or artist who was not rich, I might not agree to surrender my copyright. If, on the other hand, Taylor were to agree, I think several of us could take a better photo than the one posted to Flickr. I think the appropriate license for free use would be this one. Finetooth (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: Article has been nominated for Good status. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC) --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A Discrepancy with Portland Public Figures

Hey guys-

I am a student from Indiana University who just relocated to Portland. I have been doing some research in to some local figures primarily in the hospitality business both in Portland and other areas of Oregon. I was surprised that in some cases there is a bit of inconsistency between the way a person is referenced on Wikipedia and how they are reference in publications, etc. The one that really jumped out at me was a local figure by the name or Gordon Sondland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_D._Sondland

I noticed that the internet seems to view this single individual as two different people. For example, searches between Gordon Sondland and Gordon D Sondland show two different sets of results.

Seeing this as an opportunity to build up my resume, I contacted a representative of Mr. Sondland and described the situation. After a good conversation with his representative, I soon received a call back indicating that the individual would like to be referred to without the middle initial in place. This seemed like a perfect project for me to accomplish while I am job hunting in the area, and one of the primary citations which affects these listings is Wikipedia.

Do you guys think it would be possible to have somebody work with me in fixing this small issue? It would involve changing the title of the page, along with the URL, and most likely creating some kind of redirect for any links pointing to the old page. I am pretty motivated to get this done, and I heard this was a friendly community so I would love to get in touch. What do you guys think?--maggletooth (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, please log in to Wikipedia so that signing a talk page comment works properly.

Second, we don't place much weight on what a person wants to be called in titling an article. We use the most recognized name. See the article titling policy, which is not just a guideline. If you can establish that the sans D title is the most used, then simply move the article. A talk page comment (on the article) providing results of your research would be very helpful.

Third, welcome to Oregon! —EncMstr (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I did this correctly, and I apologize for my lack of experience. I must admit I am intrigued by this Oregon Wiki group, this is really cool. You mention a talk page comment on the article, does this just mean I go to the article I would like to move and present my findings, etc? I appreciate the help. --Maggletooth (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To get to an article's talk page, go to the top left and click the "talk" or "discussion" button (it seems to periodically change between the two, for some reason). Anyway, welcome to Oregon! I hope you like it here better than Indiana, though I must admit I've never been there. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the help and kind words everybody. I have gone ahead and followed the proper guidelines to make the change. If any of you are satisfied with the links provided in the discussion of the mentioned article and want to conduct the move feel free, otherwise I will try to wait it out until I am auto confirmed. --Maggletooth (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with this guys, it has been pretty cool to see how the whole system works. Now that the article has been 'moved' is there any kind of a transition period where the old listing is still active etc? How does Wikipedia handle the redirection of moved content, do they just place a 301 or something? Like I said, pretty interesting how the bots are able to almost interact with the human element...--Maggletooth (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The old article will continue to exist as a redirect unless someone deletes it. That usually doesn't happen because we don't know what someone will type into a Wikipedia search and we want to capture as many alternative spellings or name formats as possible. Read more about it here. --Esprqii (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it's a common quip that "redirects are cheap". Redirects that are straightforward (adding/removing an initial) stay. Crazy unsourced nicknames or slang are removed. For instance, Dude Sondlandmeister shouldn't exist and might get deleted if it was created. The only other thing that happens to redirects is they get turned into disambiguation pages. 18:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

OR-7, Journey the Wolf

Informing project members that I have started an article for OR-7, the wolf also known as Journey, who has traveled throughout Oregon and California and captured the attention of many people in the process. No question about notability here, as far as I am concerned, given the amount of attention this wolf has received. This article would make a great collaboration for WikiProject California, WikiProject Dogs and WikiProject Oregon. May the adventure continue... --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Good story (I had missed this) and good start to the article! I'll keep an eye on it and pitch in if I find a little time. -Pete (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Just a stub to get things started--there is certainly a lot of detail that needs to be added to the article, including timeline (dates, locations), media attention, conservation efforts, background ("family" history, capture, collar fitting), etc. I posted the above over at WikiProject California and WikiProject Dogs hoping for additional eyes and collaboration. Potential here for a great, fun article! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A map would be awesome! Valfontis (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know it's not necessarily a good idea to attach names to such charismatic megafauna because they are wild animals and not pets, but would it make sense at some point to move the article to, say, Journey (wolf)? How well-know is the name "Journey"? OR-7 sounds like a highway and doesn't give enough context. Of course to me, Journey sounds like a band... Valfontis (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been wondering the same thing, and initially struggled with starting the article at "OR-7" vs. "Journey (wolf)". More research is necessary to determine which is more commonly used, though I seem to recall reading about OR-7 more frequently in the news. Many of the "Journey" references have been a pun/double entendre on the so-called journey of the wolf. If needed, the article could be moved. A map would definitely be helpful, though the wolf is still on the move so additional updates would be necessary. If the article is seriously fleshed out enough, multiple maps might even be necessary! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't stop..believing. Looks like "lone wolf or7" or "or7 wolf" is common. Otherwise OR7 sounds like a highway name. tedder (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I opened an article (re)name discussion at talk:OR-7#Proper article name. —EncMstr (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If enough detail is added, subsections of the History section could include "Oregon", "California", "Return to Oregon", etc. I have not yet done enough research to determine if this is necessary, but I can tell there is definitely a lot of detail out there about the wolf's exact whereabouts during specific times between September and present. I look forward to expanding this article and following the wolf, hopefully others will too! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, a picture of OR-7 would be great for the infobox, though I am not sure about copyright rules. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Is B-300 OR-7's mom? Anyway, it looks like ODFW pics are in the public domain, and they might have something useful. Valfontis (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It does sound like B300 is the she-wolf. I think one of the photos of her, or one of the other members of the Imnaha pack would be ideal. I wonder if ODFW puts their maps in the public domain as well. If only the other state agencies were so progressive. --Esprqii (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad you started this article! I almost started it a couple of weeks ago and got hung up on the Journey/OR-7 naming and used it as a way to procrastinate the project. I made a redirect for now. The common name for now seems definitely to be OR-7, but Journey is gaining a little bit of steam. --Esprqii (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I could create a crude public-domain map of OR-7's journey by using Orygun's File:Goose Lake Valley, Oregon.PNG as a base map, with Oregon and California OR-7 maps as reference sources. It would not show all the complexity (twists, turns, and backtracks), but it would show the general track through early March. Since this wolf saga is essentially an ongoing news story, the map would have to be updated eventually. Do you think such a map would be worthwhile? Finetooth (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a map would be very much appreciated and would make a great addition to the article, though I would leave it to you as the map maker to decide whether it was worth creating now or to wait until OR-7 was no longer on the move (I don't know how easy or difficult it is to update maps). --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll do one soon, and we can update when OR-7 settles down somewhere. It won't be hard to update; it will just be a matter of deciding when. My hunch is that OR-7 will head back to the Wallowas eventually unless he meets with a mishap. Finetooth (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It would definitely be great for the article to have a map, but it could certainly be a long time until the wolf settles down. In the meantime, I think Oregon Wild or the ODFW have already made some maps that they're updating now and then. I'll try to hunt those down and link to them as external links. Nice article, AB! Jsayre64 (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Much thanks to project members for assisting with the expansion of the article and for providing feedback. I encouraged discussion on the talk page. WikiProject Oregon members have made this an unofficial collaboration of the week it seems, with additions from several frequent contributors! I added a few more references and dates/locations this morning, but additional research is still needed to flesh out the journey and the public reaction. I hope to continue working on this article until it reaches GA status, but please feel free to contribute in any way you see fit. It is nice to take a break from parks and buildings on the National Register of Historic Places to work on a living subject/current event! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Charismatic megafauna for the win! Valfontis (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, if not for Tom McCall, we'd need to disambiguate this for Oregon's Seventh Congressional district. -Pete (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, there is now a photo of the wolf. I don't have time to see is CA public employee's works are PD. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Boy, I can't tell. From their Conditions of use page: "In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use." I think that means if they use someone else's copyrighted photo it can't be used. This is a DFG photo, so it should be OK, right? --Esprqii (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I did some reading up and I think it's legit since it was taken by a California employee in the course of his duties. Too bad he didn't use a longer lens... --Esprqii (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Clinton Street Theater

For your general awareness. Feel free to upload an image, expand, copyedit, etc. as I continue expanding the article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Update: Uploaded three images from Flickr. None are brilliant but they are better than nothing and provide a 'Commons category' link for future uploads. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I have done what I can do using online references. If anyone has access to additional resources (The Oregonian archives, etc.) and is able to expand the article in any way, please feel free. I might reach out to the new owners to see if they would have copies of additional articles to use for expansion. The article is short, but might it be GAN ready? --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Congrats for two more GAs, AB! Jsayre64 (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Wicnic 2012

If you have any interest in Wiknic on June 23rd 2012 - if so go here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Wiknic Epistemophiliac (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the one we had in San Francisco last summer was super fun! This doesn't take a ton of effort to plan, and is a great way to chat informally with people interested in Wikipedia. I highly recommend it to anybody in striking range of Portland, and wish I could join you! -Pete (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Gibbs Street Pedestrian Bridge

The Gibbs Street Pedestrian Bridge is scheduled to open later this month. Be on the lookout for references in the press and post accordingly on the article's talk page! --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

User:PSUArchives

Someone from WP:ORE should probably reach out to this editor before a general spam patroller knocks them on the wrist. ;) Steven Walling • talk 23:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoe, those look like some pretty high quality additions to me! I agree, a welcome message might go a long way. Along with my fellow reverse-californicator here, I defer to any current Oregon residents who might want to do the honors :) -Pete (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Important dead links

Sadly, I noticed that the Oregon State Library's links to its biographical pages on Oregon governors are dead. [35]

Fortunately, it appears that the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine has cached at least some (or perhaps all) of the text content. I fixed one entry here: [36] but a search of Wikipedia articles seems to indicate it's used in a few dozen articles. Perhaps one of our more tech-savvy folks can figure out a way to replace these links systematically?

Another nice thing might be to insert full bibliographic data. I noticed, for instance, on the Benson entry, the text was reprinted from another source, and updated the entry accordingly. -Pete (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We discussed a similar problem with the SOS site here...Valfontis and Jsayre 64 did most of the work to fix it. Is the OSL separate part of the SOS problem, or did they separately manage to muck everything up? Maybe we can take the same approach as that fix? --Esprqii (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Grr, looks like a new dimension to that problem. I knew I had seen something about that here -- thanks for the link. We should probably add this one to the page Valfontis set up: User:Valfontis/Link Rot -Pete (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. On closer inspection, the items in question are indeed included in the "arcweb" section of Valfontis' list. They were republished there "courtesy of the Oregon State Library." But…the one thing they did not transfer over, at least on the Frank Benson page, is the attribution! The old OSL page indicated that the text was "reprinted with permission" from the publisher Mecklermedia. But the "new and improved" SOS version leaves that statement out, attributing the text to the OSL! <insert sound of head hitting desk> See these links: [37] [38] -Pete (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Did a spot check of a few more. The source thing was also removed for bios of Charles H. Martin and Douglas McKay. But keep bangin' that head, Pete...at least those guys still HAVE a bio on the SOS site. Zenas F. Moody, Jay Bowerman, and T. T. Geer (among others I'm sure) don't have bios on the new site AT ALL anymore, even though they existed on the old site. Here's the archived OSL governor bio page; here's the new and unimproved SOS governor portal if you want to compare and contrast. What a mess. --Esprqii (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if the new links always have "pages" added to the URLs; example: http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/50th/columbia/coulumiabackground.html is now http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/exhibits/50th/columbia/coulumiabackground.html (fixed). I remember noticing that before, while fixing some of the broken links that Valfontis kept track of. It would be nice, though I don't know if it's possible, to set up a bot to update all the links if we now know exactly how the URLs have changed? Jsayre64 (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Categories for neighborhoods?

Is it overkill to have categories for neighborhoods? I am thinking of Portland, but I suppose the question is universal. Think of the many articles that could be categorized within "Pearl District, Portland, Oregon" or "Hawthorne, Portland, Oregon". Public art, buildings, houses on the National Register of Historic Places, parks, etc. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's overkill when a neighborhood has a lot of entries here. But we should be careful about naming conventions. "Pearl District" is an official neighborhood of Portland, according to the Office of Neighborhood Involvement; Hawthorne is not. (Of course, official recognition is not necessarily required. I think the existence of Hawthorne, Portland, Oregon, described as a "district," is probably appropriate. The fact that there's a business association helps in defining the area.) Anyway, I'd say go for it, where there are enough entries. I'm not sure a neighborhood like my old one would qualify, though. -Pete (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Pete. I started with Pearl District. I believe all current entries are located within the Pearl District, though I am not certain about the boundary around Union Station. There are certainly more entries needing to be added; I'll have to go through the National Register of Historic Places listings in northwest Portland. Hopefully more neighborhood categories to come. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: I removed Union Station and the Albers Brother Milling Company building from the category as they reside east of Broadway. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Great! I think a useful related project would be to upload maps of the boundaries of the neighborhoods. We should be able to modify the official maps, because they are very literal; as long as an image is simply communicating factual information, and does not have an element of creativity, it is not eligible for copyright. Here's a sample: [39] It's currently linked from the Pearl District article, but a version on that article would be much more useful to the reader! -Pete (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitely. Maps are essential. Unfortunately, image creation, manipulation and/or uploading are not my specialties, apart from my own snapshots which I upload to Commons. The map you provided for the Pearl District was very useful and helped determine whether Union Station and the Albers Brothers Milling Company lived within the Pearl or not (one did, one did not). --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough :) -Pete (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

List of categories for neighborhoods

• Category:Goose Hollow, Portland, Oregon
• Category:Laurelhurst, Portland, Oregon
• Category:Old Town Chinatown, Portland, Oregon
• Category:Pearl District, Portland, Oregon

Feel free to assist by creating additional (or filling in and/or checking entries for existing) categories. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Horse rings in Portland

Love this! Most suitable article title? --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the title of the project instead? Lots of cities probably have these horse rings (esp. in Europe) but the art project is what makes Portland's notable. Steven Walling • talk 23:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

See article talk page for additional discussion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: Nominated for GA status. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You're a GA machine!! -Pete (talk)

It has passed the review and is now a GA. Nice work, Another Believer! SJ Morg (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, A.B. I like the photo of the horse ring at 37th and Belmont. Finetooth (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I've been on a bit of a roll lately and having fun in the process. Looking for those quirky Portland-related subjects... need to return to Roses in Portland, Expose Yourself to Art, Velveteria, etc. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Old Town / Chinatown discussion

I was about to create a neighborhood category for Old Town / Chinatown until I realized the article for the neighborhood did not have the slash included in the title. It appears there is some inconsistency with the name of the area: Old Town Chinatown, Old Town/Chinatown, Old Town / Chinatown, etc., which is further confused by the "slash-inclusive" districts within the neighborhood. Would anyone care to contribute to this discussion regarding the article's title? I inserted a horizontal row separating discussion which began six years ago. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, from my experience on MAX, I think the full name of the neighborhood is actually "Old Town/Chinatown, doors to my right (puertas a mi derecha)." --Esprqii (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That was my first thought too. However, I haven't heard a slash. It sounds like Old Town Chinatown. Or Old Town-Chinatown. —EncMstr (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You may be right there. Seems like I recall seeing the slash on the display indicating the next stop, but I note that the MAX station itself doesn't use it, apparently, though apparently a line break is required. More discrepancies! (Mas discrepancias a mi derecha.) --Esprqii (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am hesitant to use the name of a MAX stop to determine the most appropriate name for a neighborhood. These seem like more reliable sources:

• http://www.oldtownchinatown.org/
• http://www.portlandmaps.com/detail.cfm?action=Explorer&zoomlevel=5&GE_theme=Neighborhoods&x=7645394.182&y=685089.72
• http://www.portlandonline.com/oni/index.cfm?a=58612&c=35281

--Another Believer _(Talk) 19:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that was just my feeble attempt at humor. I noted some of those same links over on the OT (/) CT talk page. --Esprqii (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh! :) I might have picked up on the humor if I weren't quickly dropping in between work deadlines! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully these entries are accurate. I will have to look at a map later to see if I can recognize addition entries from a bird's eye view. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Exploding whale

We all love our exploding whale, and the Wikipedia article has some important history for our project...it was one of, if not, THE first WP:ORE featured articles (though it has since been de-FAed). The title, though, seems wrong. Shouldn't it follow the current standards of an event and include the year? That would circumvent the issue of the somewhat odd first sentence: "The term exploding whale most often refers to..." If we called it, say, 1970 Oregon whale explosion, it wouldn't be an issue. Just wanted to get some thoughts before I consider proposing this on the article talk page. I'm not hung up on it, so feel free to tell me to take a flying leap through the nearest puerta a mi derecha. --Esprqii (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The article title Exploding whale is well known. At present, there are over 53,000 links to it. Anyway, it is about more than our whale—it also describes one in Taiwan and mentions several others. Do you also propose to split the article? —EncMstr (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

What would you call the article incorporating the other occurrences? "Exploding whale" with a main article link and summary to the Oregon event? I like "1970 Oregon whale explosion" but only if prose about other occurrences are not within the same article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

{ec) That's true, I forgot about the other whale. I never realized that both whales were mentioned from the beginning of the article. I just always assumed the Taiwan whale part was glommed on later. Yes, ideally we could move the Oregon part out to a separate article and leave behind a "main article" link, but hey, who am I to mess with a piece of Internet lore. --Esprqii (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am OK with the current title but would love to see the article back at Featured status. I'll add it to the "to do someday" list... --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The article definitely needs a lot of work. I was surprised to see it had been de-FAed--but it probably never should have gotten there anyway. --Esprqii (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

WP Chicago

I noticed a group of Portland buildings on my watch list were added to WikiProject Chicago by a bot. Selling Building, for example. Anyone have an idea as to why? I'd be happy to notify WP Chicago or the bot manager of the possible error. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

First guess- Selling Building is in Category:Chicago school (architecture). tedder (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

So are the North Bank Depot Buildings, which was another one the bot tagged, so my guess is the same as tedder's. SJ Morg (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, right. OK, if WikiProject Chicago wants to include every Chicago-style building under their umbrella, by all means. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Tech-inclined folks near Portland: Wikimedia at Open Source Bridge

June 26-29, a bunch of Wikimedia technology folks will be in Portland, Oregon for the Open Source Bridge conference to give talks, hack together, and teach. Interested in joining us? Feel free to contact me on my talk page. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager 10:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, you can register for a free pass to go to part of the event. 70.42.240.21 (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Pacific/Mountain Time Zone Boundary Description and Facts in Oregon. 6/25/12 0342 UTC

I would like to have listed, detailed info regarding the time zone boundary in oregon. The reason I find this interesting, is that there is a discrepancy between the following:
-highway signs
-map labeling
-federal law
-what people go by.

Im a little new to wikepedia so here is my user talk page. I wanted to make edits directly to pages, but I am unclear in how it should be discussed, or how this page operates or how it is monitored. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.160.137.69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.137.69 (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Time in Oregon article needs some work. You might consider adding prose information about the discrepancies to that article. Be sure to provide citations to reliable sources, and a photograph of the signs would be useful. --Esprqii (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"Satan's Testicles"

OK, not really, but this sculpture across from Powell's has been referred to as such. This article is my second attempt at a public sculpture in downtown Portland. If anyone has access to any additional information or articles about the subject (surprisingly I have not come across any Oregonian articles yet...) please share. I feel this article is just shy of GA nomination. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it too "bro" of me to think it's more like Lance Armstrong's than Satan's? Anyhow, great article on a cool sculpture. Have you considered contacting the artist to get a photo release? tedder (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hah! I had actually always been reminded of a sperm fertilizing an egg, but to each their own. I have not attempted to contact the artist, but I think I took a picture of the plaque once... I will search when I get home and try to upload. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Image uploaded. I also added an image of Powell's with a caption referring to the intersection, the store and Michael Powell (who is quoted within the article). I don't feel strongly about the second image. I went ahead and nominated the article for GA status, having also searched The Oregonian archives on the Mult. County Library website for additional articles. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Wikimedia Cascadia

• http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cascadia

--Another Believer _(Talk) 19:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Who Links to Wikipedia?

Willamette Heritage Center (The newish Marion Co. Historical Society + Mission Mill Museum combo) for one. It definitely makes me feel like we're doing something worthwhile! [Pay no attention to that woman behind this message. I'm kinda busy right now, but if you want to know how to meet in Portland for coffee, drop me an e-mail. Incoherent messages may not get a response.] Valfontis (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

100 project GAs

We've made the milestone! I checked Category:GA-Class Oregon articles and found a couple there that hadn't been copied onto Portal:Oregon/Good articles. We're officially at 102, but I'm waiting for the outcome of one article's GA re-assessment before adding that one to our portal page. Congratulations to all of us! Jsayre64 (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, all! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I was tempted to add Oregon (Awake) to WikiProject Oregon, which is currently at GAN, but decided the article does not have much information about Oregon itself. I wouldn't be opposed if another project member thought it was worth associating with the project. Pod (sculpture) and Roses in Portland are currently at GAN. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)