Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon

	Oregon Portal Collaboration	About Us Maintenance Participants (Our Blog) DYKs Awards
Main Talk	Recent Talk Recent Changes (Non-Article)	Subprojects Assessment Featured Content Popular Articles Templates & Infoboxes Reference Desk

Article regarding Leach Botanical Garden

I am the Executive Director at Leach Botanical Garden. I am very pleased that there is a wiki on the subject of the Garden. However, I am concerned that information therein is incorrect. I am not a Wiki editor, but wonder if someone can tell me the best way to provide correct and perhaps more complete information to the entry. regards-and thank you for your work. I know it's an all volunteer effort. dporter@leachgarden.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.47.26 (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for approaching us this way. The article's talk page is the perfect place to describe errors, omissions, and additional reliable sources. This entry here is likely to draw local interested editors, and the talk page would attract any other editors who are watching the article, the most likely editors to deal with this kind of material. (Edits which manage the article's templates, layout, categories, linking, etc., are often handled by bots or semi-automated.)

If you are careful not to run afoul of our conflict of interest editing guideline, you may make neutral edits cited to reliable sources. However, the talk page is the greatly preferred method, especially until you get a feel for what material is appropriate and what would not be permitted.

You might find it more convenient to collaborate with the editing community by creating an account, though it is not a requirement. Doing so makes it easier for you to track changes and easier for us to identify your edits. The characteristics of your IP address suggest it will be stable enough to easily identify you and receive notices. Thanks for asking. —EncMstr (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What Enc said. First of all, thanks for posting. Feel free to share reliable sources here or on the article's talk page and state which information on the article needs to be addressed. I am sure I speak for many members of WikiProject Oregon and Wikipedia at large when I say that we want this article to be accurate, informative and of "good" quality. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

David Porter Thank you for your responses. The primary statement in the article which is incorrect is the assertion that "The garden will expand by 5 acres (2.0 ha) in late 2010 or early 2011.[1]" The Garden is not slated to expand in size, but is in the first phases of preparation for substantial development of the approximately five acres in the upper garden. The design process, survey work, and some site preparation have been in the works since 2010 and continue now. The City of Portland approved a Master Plan for the Garden in September 2010. That document is available here www.portlandonline.com/parks/index.cfm?a=267401&c=51821. Other documents are available at the Leach Garden website - leachgarden.org on the "About" section. I am happy to also provide references to our recently adopted business plan and similar documents. Thanks again for your interest and your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.43.124 (talk) 02:19, 24 January 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)

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. http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:1867482.  and "Tri-City CDP". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey. http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:2409349. . —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. http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:1128221. . 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) [First published 1928]. Oregon Geographic Names (7th ed.). Portland, Oregon: Oregon Historical Society Press. p. 968. ISBN 9780875952772. OCLC 53075956. ) 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)

Got Flood Pics?

I do. Have they named this storm yet? My workplace is almost surrounded by water. I'm about to go take a look around. In no danger of flooding at Valfontis-central, but part of my ceiling finally liquified--no reference materials were harmed. Stay dry, y'all. Cheers from the disaster area, Valfontis (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless a better name is suggested, 2012 Pacific Northwest snowstorm is it. —EncMstr (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I took some pictures of the swollen Clackamas River today but they just aren't that compelling. We didn't get the storm as big as y'all down south, Val, but my similarly liquifying garage ceiling sends its regards.

No names for the storm yet; took them a month and a half to name the Great Coastal Gale of 2007 so we'll give them a couple weeks. Stay dry everyone! --Esprqii (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Too bad about the name and the ceiling. How about the Day That Muchas (Gracias) Died? (not my pic--this is where the Millrace diverges from Mill Creek at State and 20th). Valfontis (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed quite a lot of wind and rain. I got a few pictures of the snow last weekend; maybe I'll upload one or two of them. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

PDF of Anticipated flooding in Salem today. I'm asking for photos, it's really hard to take any that turn out from here. tedder (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Decent explanation of what happened (so far). Here in Salem the creeks are going down, but the Willamette is set to crest this afternoon. Good times. Valfontis (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's my first set of pics via a very sloppy bulk upload, which is the only way they will ever see the light of day. Feel free to lighten and otherwise improve upon them, clearly I've got a crappy camera. Don't shoot me, I'm only the documentarian. Pics of flooded Willamette and aftermath coming soon. Valfontis (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you do bulk upload? I get annoyed having to upload twenty separate images from the same location, adding appropriate categories to each. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's what I did, except there formerly wasn't an "upload another image?" button so one had to do a separate upload for each image. So to me that's a "bulk upload". I wish there was a way to upload and tag a bunch of images with the same cat, but I think the current method keeps folks from using Commons like Photobucket or something. (I'm probably perilously close as it is.) I would upload a lot more of my hundreds of images if it wasn't so annoying. Anyway, I'm not so great at the photo thing, I'm sure someone else could explain how to do it faster... Meanwhile, we've got another flood watch... Cross your fingers I do *not* have to take more flood pics. Valfontis (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

*Fingers crossed* Thanks for the feedback. I, too, wish I could upload multiple images at once for the same category(ies). I always upload multiple images, but spend time adding categories to each. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Commonist tool on Commons supports bulk uploading while adding the same category or categories to each image. It might be worth a shot. LittleMountain5 23:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll try it out tonight. Valfontis (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Page move for Joseph Robertson (dean)

Leaving aside the state of the article's editing (it needs some), there is a request to move this to Joseph Robertson (president) but that disambiguation seems pretty ambiguous. Would Joseph Robertson (ophthalmologist) make the most sense? Valfontis (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears OHSU refers to him with a mixture of his middle initial included or not[34], so presumably we would omit that.

He is not well known as an ophthalmologist (practiced for only a year), and has been in several high ranking positions at OHSU, albeit president only since 2006. How about Joseph Robertson (OHSU), Joseph Robertson (OHSU executive), and Joseph Robertson (health care education)? —EncMstr (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I like Joseph Robertson (OHSU). Short and shows what he is most known for. It seems uncontroversial, so I'll go ahead and move it. If there is outcry (doesn't fit rules for qualifiers or something), we can fix it. Valfontis (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm late and the die is cast, but it seems like Joseph E. Robertson might have been better since he probably won't be at OHSU forever; either that or (physician). Definitely should have those redirects. --Esprqii (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to uncast the die--I like both your ideas too. Valfontis (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Portland State University, ownership, etc.

There have been some, uh, interesting edits on Portland State University recently. I got a new user to explain them on the talk page. Here's the dsicussion: Talk:Portland State University#January_2012_cleanup. I'm worried the article is going in the wrong direction, and I'm hoping others can help out. PSU is ranked High-importance by the project, so I presume there are others besides myself who would like to see it improve. Further, I think we have the opportunity to gain a productive new user, even though I'm terrible at communicating in an approachable fashion. tedder (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Oregon will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Oregon's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Any other female WP:ORE editors (who wish to reveal such) around lately besides me? Males can participate of course, but I was just curious. I'm not good at being an army of one. Valfontis (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you care if it is males who help improve a female article? Assuming the club isn't exclusive, you can be The One and choose an article. I'll pitch in, it would be a great COTM. (next month: Cracks and Bottoms of Oregon!). tedder (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec with AB below) No, of course there is absolutely no problem with persons of other genders, like I said, I was just curious if the Wikimedia gender gap was still alive and well here at WP:ORE. I wonder if the recent silliness will attract more women?...Probably not. Oh well. Here are some suggestions, culled from my reading of The Oregon Companion (# in parens is number of incoming links--may be out of date):

• Margaret Jewett "Smith" Bailey (1812?-1882), novelist--Also Margaret Jewett Smith (1) or Margaret Jewett Bailey, see William J. Bailey
• Eliza Barchus (1857-1959), painter
• Rae Selling Berry (1881-1976), see Berry Botanic Garden (redirect?)
• Beatrice Morrow Cannady (1889-1974)--needs own article--in OHS and OE
• Barbara Fealy, landscape architect (1)
• Dorothy Anne Hobson, need to add her and Valsetz Star to Valsetz article
• Julia Christianson Hoffman (1856-1934) of the Oregon College of Art & Craft, and daughter Margery Hoffman Smith
• LaVerne Krause
• Bethenia Angelina Owens-Adair (1840-1926), Oregon's first female doctor, sometimes misspelled Berthenia Angelina Owens-Adair [I really like the idea of doing this one]

A look through our arch nemesis might reveal some other articles that Aunt Betty would approve of us writing. Valfontis (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Considerations?

• http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?c=40004: 1908, Lola Baldwin becomes head of the Women's Protective Division ("first woman hired by an American municipality to carry out regular enforcement duties"); 1985, Penny Harrington becomes Portland's first woman Chief of Police and the first to head a major police department in the United States.
• OHS, Women's History in Oregon
• OHS, Women in Oregon Politics
• Woman Suffrage in Oregon

--Another Believer _(Talk) 01:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you already looked at The Oregon Encyclopedia! (not really our arch nemesis) I like the idea of writing Penny Harrington or Woman suffrage in Oregon (small mention in subsection here). Valfontis (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey everyone! So happy to see conversation taking place! Of course, anyone of any gender can participate! I'm going to take the liberty of adding WikiProject Oregon to Wikipedia:WikiWomen's_History_Month#Upcoming_online_events. When the project is ready to rock on your decisions of article focus or theme, feel free to add a link or add articles (or whatever pertinent information) there. I'll be promoting the event in a lot of places, so let's hope some really awesome things happen :) Excited to have you all on board! SarahStierch (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting on an Eliza Barchus article today. I'll have something ready by March, perhaps sooner. Finetooth (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Finetooth (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well done! --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We're a week into this- does anyone want to choose a collaboration? tedder (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this subject is collaboration-worthy, and frankly I hope it even meets notability requirements, but I think I am going to take a stab at constructing an article for Sybil Plumlee:

• http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/01/she_was_one_of_a_kind_family_s.html
• http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/06/BUPRR9ISE1.DTL
• http://www.lakeoswegoreview.com/news/story.php?story_id=132632260832001200
• http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/print_story.php?story_id=132632260832001200
• http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=130515950153467000

For some reason, this story caught my attention and I think this spunky woman deserves an article! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, at first glance I don't think she is particularly notable, but I'll be glad to be proven wrong. Valfontis (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

She is considered to be one of the first female police officers for the city and lived to be the longest former member of the force. She is also an author. I'll see if these accomplishments equate to notability. I may be wasting my time but I don't think the article will take too long to construct. I posted a few additional sources on the article's talk page. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've completed the article based on sources that were "low-hanging fruit". Hopefully I can find a few additional references. The Portland Police Bureau article needs a lot of work, and it's possible (assuming the PPB article were fully expanded) the Women's Protective Division could use its own section or article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I started stubs for Lola Baldwin and Penny Harrington. I hope to get around to expanding these articles soon, though either would make great COTW/WWHM subjects. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am going to be BOLD here and suggest Penny Harrington as the subject of the collaboration inspired by WikiWomen's History Month. This is based on my own suggestion and Val's aforementioned interest. I welcome any and all project members to contribute to the article! :) --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Betty Feves (1918-1985) ceramics artist

Eliza Barchus

Eliza Barchus is on the main page as a DYK right now. Go Finetooth! Are there any other Oregon articles in the pipeline for Women's History Month? Valfontis (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well done, FT! Ugh, I abandoned my attempt at expanding the Penny Harrington and Lola Baldwin articles. All in good time. --03:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons categorization

BTW, a collection of Oregon-related images has been donated to Commons by the National Archives and Records Administration. If you wish to assist with image categorization, check out this page. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for bringing it to our attention! Valfontis (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oregon State Archives website

I've been meaning to mention...I went to an open house at the Oregon State Archives a while back. After the tour (nerd heaven + great snacks!) I asked the director about the issues with the website. She said to please e-mail them about any broken links you might find. Their programmers are just as frustrated as we are with the mess. You might recall from previous discussions that it has been a little tricky to find things like bios of governors since they rearranged their website. I was impressed by how much Mary Beth cared about this so let's bombard her with update requests! Valfontis (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Will keep in mind. Do share re: future opportunities (tours, collaborations, etc.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I did actually email them about one, heard nothing, and the link is still broken. If the programmers are so frustrated, why didn't they do it properly with redirects? I have to say every time I see the 404 page with Kate Brown's picture on it, it makes me never want to vote for her. If they were smart, they'd put whoever is running against her next year up there. --Esprqii (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Well she sounded sincere. How long has it been since you complained? I was there in October, I believe. Maybe something has changed with the staffing. Valfontis (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice if us civilians could communicate more easily with government. Esprqii, how about you make a list of these broken links? I might be able to fix some of them. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I made a special page for the SOS linkrot here: User:Valfontis/Link Rot. If you click on "en" you'll see everything linked to their domain. Not all of those 800 links will be broken. Feel free to edit the page to keep track of what has been checked/fixed/reported. Valfontis (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. 800. That's a pain. Based on a dozen or so clicks, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them are broken. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out! Valfontis (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Update

I took matters into our own hands, but, Help! Jsayre and I have got most of the archives web pages updated, but it looks like everything linked to elections is also broken. In other words, links to www.state.or.us/elections may all be at oregonvotes.org and there don't seem to be any redirects. I haven't looked to see if there is a pattern for the elections links yet, but if anyone is using AWB (great tool!) it makes it easier to do the updates. Ask me if you need help programming AWB and see User:Valfontis/Link Rot for more info--click on "en" in the second link summary template to see the approximately 600 elections links that need fixing. Vote WikiProject Oregon for Secretary of State! Valfontis (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

We're on the Main Page!

Take a look! Big Butte Creek was unexpectedly nominated, then featured unexpectedly fast. I thought I'd have a little time to give it a once-over prior to its appearance (actually, I didn't think it would make it at all...), but I guess I'll just have to do that now. Cheers, LittleMountain5 00:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! Well done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic work! We got our big butte up there, now we're got to get cracking on our big bottoms! --Esprqii (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Way to go! Jsayre64 (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Impressive work! 28,882 views so far this month with 20,449 on February 10 alone. —EncMstr (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Jack Herer and a pile of quotes

• page: Jack Herer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• diff

Anyone interested in Herer or WP:NOTDIR or WP:CIVIL? tedder (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry no one has replied yet. It's possible no one wants to associate themselves with the topic? Very interesting book he wrote, BTW. I read for purely scholarly reasons. Valfontis (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the quotes and warned the user about civility. Judging by the notices on the talk page s/he isn't making the community overjoyed with his/her contributions. Valfontis (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, valf. (val? valf? valfontis? font? valley? I'm going with valf.) tedder (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

How to update url for my website referenced in several articles

Hello, a website of mine is referenced in several Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, I have lost rights to use the domain name associated with the site, so have registered a new name and am in the process of making all the content accessible again. The inaccessible content is all part of the "Choices that Created the Oregon Mystique: Governor Tom McCall's Foresight and Accomplishments" site, with the main url orgov.org. Presently, the links lead to a 404-not found message, so I don't know whether I should remove all the references until everything is in order, or edit all the references to reflect the new url since I will have to do that eventually anyway.

Whichever you advise, removal or updating, I seem to be able to edit links embedded in the main text of the article without any problem, but don't know how to get access to the references list, so will need guidance there, too. Thanks very much, Janet Bassett JBassett2 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to answer right now except to tell you to read this about Spam just to be safe, and here is a tool to help find the links (click on "en"):

orgov.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com

Valfontis (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

@Valfontis: orgov.org seems to be a snapshot of various state goverment documents, and the site is only used as citation sources, not external links.

@Janet: I glanced at a few links to your site and they look fine to me. Just go through this list (which is Valfontis' first link), edit each article to replace orgov.org with the new domain name, and, if applicable, fix the URL. For simplicity (until you understand wikiediting more thoroughly) edit the article as a whole by clicking "edit" (or "edit this page", depending on which skin you have selected) at the top of the article page. If you click on an "edit this section" or "edit" tag throughout the article, they URL probably will not be visible due to how references are handled. —EncMstr (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, I was delighted to see that shortcut to all the links because I really didn't know how many might be out there. And pleased that there aren't that many to change. The new url should be active within 24 hours so I hope to have this squared away soon. I appreciate your help. Janet JBassett2 (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out EncMstr! (Though you seem confused about my use of the {{LinkSummary}} template--I inserted the url for Janet's old site, and it indeed shows where the links are used in references, though if they were used as els it would certainly show that too. I use the template because that's the one I have memorized. Is there some other way to do it? I know all the other links in the template are mostly for fighting spammers...Oh, it it because the page of hits says "External links search" at the top? I guess it might seem unclear but it means all external links on a page, not just those in the el section.) Valfontis (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

@Janet: If you edit the urls in the text, it will automatically change the urls in the references section, if they are using the <ref></ref> tags. It's a bit of wiki magic. If for some reason it doesn't work, someone will come along soon and fix them, there are several of us watching those articles. And also, thank you for your useful resource! Valfontis (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oregon Historical Society

Next week, I'm going to be at an event with Kerry Tymchuk, the new executive director of the Oregon Historical Society. I'm pretty sure I'll have a chance to talk to him informally afterwards. Here at WP:ORE, we've talked on and off about the OHS and how our project could work better with them, such as getting them making some of their historical photographs available under a Creative Commons license (and not picking on our Aunt Betty). I doubt I'm going to be able to get him to commit to anything in this setting, but I'd just like to solicit some thoughts on other items people in the project would like me to chat him up about, maybe to set up something in the future. Pete and EncMstr in particular had started some points on that, which is here. Sort of outdated though. Just wondering if people have some things they'd like me to hit. --Esprqii (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, let me think of this and come back. I was just at the OHS Museum yesterday (might go back on Saturday, free admission day!), and after discussing with a staff member my interest in Wikipedia/Commons and possible collaborations received contact details for the following people:

• Eliza Canty-Jones, Editor Oregon Historical Quarterly and Public Outreach Manager
• Geoffrey Wexler, Library Manager
• Rachel Randles, Marketing Communication Specialist
• Marsha Matthews, Director of Museum Services

I am not sure who may have been contacted before or who might be the best lead, but I would love to talk to someone at OHS about possible collaborations with Wikipedia/Commons. Please let me know if any meetings are set re: future possibilities. I just applied for a scholarship to Wikimania 2012 hoping I might be able to meet with some members of GLAM to learn about the program, how successful collaborations came to fruition, etc. Let us know how the conversation goes! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll check in with my shadowy cabal of historian friends (who link to Wikipedia in their work) to see if they have any general suggestions. Valfontis (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Shadowy Cabal (tm) says they "wished they would digitize more of their collection and make it easily available. I wish they'd unlock back issues of OHQ and make them freely available on jstor or another digital archiving service. I mean, I can understand trying to monetize current issues in a subscription, but why are issues from decades ago also under digital lock and key? They aren't going to generate meaningful revenues." Not specific to Wikipedia, but it would certainly help our work if OHS did these things. And wouldn't more links from here to their webpages be good for them too? Valfontis (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Shadowy cabal, yes! Wikicop, no! Those are some good ideas. Keep 'em coming! --Esprqii (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did get to talk very briefly with Kerry. He is a pretty gregarious guy and I told him about how we looooove the OHS and would love to have more access to some of their digital treasures for research and reuse. He said, basically, oh yeah, we're looking into that, that's the future, we're all over that, blah blah blah, we gotta get the info out there. It did sound like they were moving in that direction but it was not his particular passion. I wasn't able to pin him down to anything as he moved on to some other admirers. I hope the shadowy cabal will forgive me for not kidnapping him and requesting digitization of the entire collection as ransom.

On the plus side, he had some Oregon historical stories and does a good Bob Dole impression (he used to work for him; I forgot to ask him who ate Bob Dole's peanut butter.) And I got to hold a sliver of the Willamette Meteorite and Meriwether Lewis's branding iron. So that was fun. --Esprqii (talk) 00:34, 23 February 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)

Canterbury Castle (Portland, Oregon)

If anyone has any, or comes across any, images of Canterbury Castle, feel free to upload as I am working on getting this article to GA status ASAP. I posted a link on the talk page to images from the UO archives, but I am not sure these are available to use. The article is still under construction, but feel free to contribute if you wish! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for GA status. Thank you Jsayre for requesting images from a Flickr contributor. Hopefully images will become available very soon. Feel free to improve the article (paraphrasing is always a concern of mine, especially when using succinct descriptions with architectural times from NRHP nomination forms). --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Oregon East Symphony anyone?

The article needs some help and I don't have time or patience today. Take a look at the history to see a mass rollback of legit edits, rendering it to its previous state--an uncited wall-o'-text. Be nice to the redlinked editor, s/he appears to have not been communicated with before. Valfontis (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would love to work on this article at some point, but I am unable to at the moment. Right now I am focused on (in a general sense, no edits very recently) the Portland Youth Philharmonic article, among other Oregon-related subjects. Eventually I hope to tackle other music-related articles. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oregon History Comics

Can comics be used as reliable sources? Who knows, but this looks like a fun set to own: Oregon History Comics release party. The Shadowy History Cabal advised the writer a bit on a certain transportation topic. If you're in Portland, check it out! Anybody who is making history more accessible (like us!) ought to be supported. If someone grabs a set maybe we can finally fill out the history of the X-Ray Cafe. Valfontis (talk) 04:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This was on OPB's Think Out Loud this morning. I haven't had a chance to listen myself, but I note they also had the editor of the OHQ on. --Esprqii (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have to check out the rebroadcast tonight. Valfontis (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Portland Parks & Recreation

I believe the 3-revert rule prevents me from removing the content currently posted on the PP&R article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but it's harder to enforce when you don't give the user welcome templates, warnings, and/or personal notes about what the problem is. tedder (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Note I blocked the first, obvious COI, account here. It's always possible that rather than this being edit warring, it's a case of "huh, why aren't my edits 'sticking'?". It's always nice to try to assume that at first anyway. Valfontis (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

привет

Привет. Можно я тут раскидаю много бесполезных ссылок? очень нужно. Если нет - удалите это сообщение — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.33.171.254 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't spam links. I've invited a multilingual Wikipedian to drop by. tedder (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ни в коем случае. Википедия – это энциклопедия. Шутка, что-ли? Но если хотите, можете нам помочь, добавляя полезную информацию :) Accedie^{talk to me} 00:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Пожалуйста, не добавляйте внешние ссылки, особенно бесполезные ссылки спама. Спасибо! —EncMstr (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Enc- is that through a translator or is it a skill? I knew Accedie had excellent language skills, didn't know you did. tedder (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's the skill of using a translator. —EncMstr (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Важный вопрос

подскажите, где найти бесплатные программы для пк?

Удалите если это претит правилам форума — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.33.171.252 (talk • contribs)

Я не думаю, что вы сможете найти это. В следующий раз, если у вас есть вопросы, пожалуйста, обращайтесь в русской версии этой энциклопедии. Пожалуйста, не добавляйте в статьи текст, написанный на русском языке — это англоязычный раздел Википедии. Ваш вклад на русском будет более чем желателен в Русской Википедии.

Please do not contribute text in Russian to the English Wikipedia. Your contributions are more than welcome at the Russian Wikipedia. Jsayre64 (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Portal links in articles

Oregon portal

A few years ago, if I recally correctly, we had a problem with an unregistered user adding excessive portal links (especially rather tangentially related ones) to articles. At the time, the consensus of this project was to not use Oregon Portal template, or any other portals for that matter, on article pages. Even Aboutmovies, who does 95% of the the thankless task (thank you!) of maintaining the Oregon portal, didn't think we should put the portal in article space (it's on every single WP:ORE-tagged talk page). I thought we should revisit the topic since the portal links are starting to show up here and there. (Note: I'll add the links and diffs when I get a chance--feel free to add a link to the previous discussion in this post if you beat me to it.) I don't have strong opinion right now one way or the other, though I think one- or two-sentence stubs look cluttered with portal links added to them. People get a little cranky with our project from time to time because (rough paraphrase) "WikiProjects don't trump sitewide consensus". I still think it's OK to do things a little differently but we should clarify what that difference is once in a while. Valfontis (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. I add Portal links all the time, thinking it was beneficial to the project and to the encyclopedia in general. If this is not preferred I can stop. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I wasn't gonna name names... :) I don't think you should stop, but we should find out what the consensus is. Should we continue to be different? Is there a guideline somewhere? I think the problem before is that the addition of the links was kinda spammy. And from an "outsider" besides. Oregon: Things Look Different Here. Should they? Valfontis (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess I assumed portals existed for display purposes. I see no rhyme or reason to when they are used and when they are not. I often add Portal links to newly-promoted Featured content and Main Page articles and my edits are rarely reverted. (I use portal boxes in the "See also" section for 1-2 portals and use the portal bar template at the bottom of articles when 3 or more portals are related.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think putting them on featured and mainpage articles is a great idea as those articles reach a broad audience. I do think more than 1 or 2 portal links looks cluttery. And like the use of {{Oregon}}, which we agreed at some point should mainly be used on broader topic areas and mostly on the articles linked in the template (and not, say, on Western Meadowlark) I think the portal boxes go best on more general topics and on more developed articles. BTW, I forgot to mention that our featured portal is completely awesome (except for the color scheme, IMHO) and my concerns don't have anything to do with its quality. Valfontis (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to work on Portland/Oregon-centric subjects such as parks, buildings, etc., which in my opinion make the Oregon portal link appropriate. Perhaps this should be for articles that are expanded to a certain degree, as portals appearing on stubs can be distracting. I would agree with your example of the meadowlark, which is not an Oregon-centric subject. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Here's the previous discussion from 2 years ago. And one from '09. Valfontis (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oregon coast?

Note: The individual page move discussion is a separate discussion is here

Most of us are accustomed to seeing both words in Oregon Coast capitalized. There was a brief discussion about it here. Recently a user Dicklyon (talk · contribs) has been "lowercasing" Oregon Coast--in article titles (moving the pages), as well as in various articles. I'm not sure this should be done without discussion. He has requested a page move for Oregon Coast-->Oregon coast as well. (High desert (Oregon) was also moved.) I don't want to be, ahem, territorial, but I think we should discuss this. If I were to write an in-house style manual, I would say the region is important enough to be uppercase. What do you think? Valfontis (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Per MOS:CAPS, I can't see that's there's any reason to capitalize it. See book n-gram evidence of majority lower-case usage, which puts it very far indeed from "consistently capitalized in sources". Or look at specific books (in this search, I exclude books with Oregon in the title, because there you mostly just see titles in the snippets). Dicklyon (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Per MOS:CAPS#Compass points, though not exactly addressing this situation, I am now sure that the region "has attained proper-name status". Can you articulate a better reason than "the statistics say so"? I think our regional tendency to capitalize the area is because of its notability as a distinct region (and not because of boosterism), and regional usage should carry some weight in this case. Valfontis (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Our previous discussions—as I read them—resulted in no consensus in either direction. Should they be consistent? I think so. Should they be changed to be consistent? Yes.

As for consistency with other articles of similar scope, I found these in Florida which support Oregon Coast: Gold Coast (Florida), Space Coast, Nature Coast, and Emerald Coast. —EncMstr (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That was one of my concerns as well--consistency. If we go with lc (lowercase) there are an awful lot of edits that need to be made and we should probably hire a bot to do it. I think right now we have managed to keep the uppercase form consistent so if we change a few articles we will need to change them all. That's not a reason to not go lc, but I think the fact that we've tried to keep the case consistent throughout the WP:ORE articles is important to note.

You are right that there was no consensus before. I'd like to search for a few in-house form and style manuals to reinforce my opinion--since the previous discussion, I'm solidly uppercase, but I've based that more on intuition than hard-and-fast rules, so I'm curious to see what other people think. Valfontis (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I noted on the page move discussion that The Oregonian uses uppercase. To recap (pun unintended) part of the previous discussion: PSU says uppercase, while George Fox says lc. Portland State is the larger, more important University--does that carry any weight? Valfontis (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

There is also Category:Oregon Coast and possibly subcats to be moved if we go lc. Though this one is already lc. Valfontis (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)