Talk:Eugene, Oregon

Climate

The climate section was poorly edited and now the comparison to Portland makes no sense. The first sentence states the mean annual temperature of Eugene. But the second sentence appears to have had the first part cut off and we are left with a discussion of Portland's average July low with no info on Eugene. This then makes the rest of the section confusing. Actually, the premise of Eugene and Portland having nearly identical climates may not be fully true as it seems Portland gets more snow than Eugene in the winter. I don't have any of these facts on hand so I didn't want to edit the article at this point. But if someone has the necessary data on Eugene and could straighten up this section it would help a lot. Mantisia 04:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Climate Template Also, please consider using the Template:Climate chart below, instead of the current markup (which is more difficult to maintain).

Climate

Eugene
Climate chart (explanation)
J F M A M J J A S O N D     7.7     47 33     6.4     51 35     5.8     56 37     3.7     61 39     2.7     67 43     1.5     73 47     0.6     82 51     0     82 51     1.5     77 47     3.4     65 41     8.4     52 37     8.3     46 33 █ Average max. and min. temperatures in °F █ Precipitation totals in inches Source: Weather.com / NWS
Metric conversion J F M A M J J A S O N D     194     8 1     161     11 2     147     13 3     93     16 4     68     19 6     39     23 8     16     28 11     0     28 11     39     25 8     85     18 5     214     11 3     211     8 1 █ Average max. and min. temperatures in °C █ Precipitation totals in mm

stuttermonkey (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done for a while now. --Tesscass (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue with External Links

There's an external link to a site that claims to be "the" community wiki for Eugene. However, that claim is also made by another site. How should we respond to that situation? Greenineugene (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think since there are "competing" wikis, neither one should be there, so I took it out. Katr67 (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Include something about Madison Meadow?

The story of Madison Meadow would seem to warrant inclusion here, perhaps under Parks and recreation. I started to write this up here, but would prefer to see someone closer to this area and this article tidy up what I've started and decide where/how to insert it. I've included the references I found as of December 2008, with one update today (but there may be some more public coverage now that the project has been completed). Please feel free to just take my copy and use it! or contact me if you would like — I could help some, but don't have the time to devote to "doing it right" at the moment. Thanks! —Martha (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Economy

Molecular Probes is another company that is important in the diversity of the local economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.190.11 (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Anarchism

Is this section still relevant? Most of the anarchist activity was just high school kids acting out and it didn't really last that long. I wonder if it's still notable. Opinions? 198.6.46.11 (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Geography

The infobox says the city area is 40.6 sq mi (105.0 km²), land being 40.02 sq mi (104.9 km²) and water 0.04 sq mi (0.1 km²). First of all, 40.02 sq mi plus 0.04 sq mi does not equal 40.6 sq mi. Additionally, the Geography section states "the city has a total area of 40.6 square miles (105.0 km²).[9] 40.5 square miles (104.9 km²) of it is land and 0.1 km² (0.04 sq mi or 0.10%) of it is water." The area of water switches to listing km² first instead of sq mi, and the sum of the total area seems to be adding sq mi and km² to get 40.6 sq mi. It also lists land area as 40.5 sq mi, which contradicts the infobox value of 40.02 sq mi. I tried determining which values should be correct from the external source but was unable to find the cited values. -Bufori (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The information was added at the fourth revision of the article by automated means from U.S. Census data. Originally it was X km² (X mi²), but of course somebody fiddled with that later. The original is a total area of 105.0 km² (40.6 mi²). 104.9 km² (40.5 mi²) of it is land and 0.1 km² (0.0 mi²) of it is water. The total area is 0.10% water. In those days, editors didn't provide external links or much else in the way of citations for finding the information source. At least the original is self-consistent. —EncMstr (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I updated the geographical values based upon the original addition that you cited. Since kilometers are more precise, I had intended on leaving the square miles blank since the infobox could do the conversion automatically, but the result seemed somewhat misleading since 105 km² is 40.54 sq mi and would be rounded to 40.5 (not 40.6 as the original data stated). Then the total area and total land area would have been the same number, and the total area of water would have been rounded to 0. So I thought it more appropriate to round the values manually to the hundredth decimal place for clarity. Yes, the km² are already listed and could have been used to determine that the total area and total land area are not really the same, but this way is more evident. I'm not sure if there is a rule or standard to displaying such data only to the tenth decimal place though. -Bufori (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

First, and foremost, we must use Wikipedia defined reliable sources. For the editor who wants to add gang info, please click on that link and read what that is. It is not the websites of these groups or one person's website hobby. We need books, magazines, newspaper articles, etc. that have some indicia of being recognized as reliable and having some sort of editorial oversight. One person's website likely lacks editorial oversight. Thing the R-G, The Oregonian, Eugene Weekly, KVAL, etc.

Secondly, this article is about Eugene. Springfield has its own article, so things about its library or police go there, not here. Obviously, some mention of the neighbor and co-habitator of the same metro area deserves some mention, but it is limited to items such as what was left: metro population, dividing line, shared transit, and the bit about the river. In time a Eugene-Springfield metro article should be created to better cover the shared topics, but until then Eugene stuff should go in this article and Springfield info in those articles. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Fox Hollow Road

I'm a little concerned about the picture being used for that road. Can we remove it? First of all, it is needlessly doctored; the colors are way off. Secondly, the author of it said that he "guessed the coordinates", which indicates (to me) that it mayactually not be Fox Hollow Road, but an incorrect assumption that it's Fox Hollow Road.

It just seems like this picture, in its current form, is unencyclopedic at best, and incorrect at worst. YellowAries2010 (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Be bold! Please fix it. An explanatory edit summary to the effect should suffice. —EncMstr (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I almost did. But upon further examination of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fox_Hollow_Road,_Eugene.jpg , and the uploader's talk about "guessing coordinates", I think he referred to guessing the coordinates of the picture, not snapping a photo through guessed coordinates. Therefore, I'm going to let it go. Nothing seems wrong, now that I've investigated more. WP:BOLD is great, but edits fore their own sake aren't. Leads to trouble.

Thanks for the bit about edit summaries. I've neglected that aspect of wikiediting. YellowAries2010 (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have placed on wiki commons perhaps a better image for Bike and walking Trails in Eugene if someone wants to use it [[File:NorthBankTrails.jpg|NorthBankTrails]] The pic location is technically in Spfld (by about 300 feet) however Pre's Trail, the North Bank Path, and the Canoe Canal are all in Eugene.

Chart and table for demographics

I just added this chart I made to the Demographics section. It displays exactly the same population data as in the table below it. Would it be appropriate to remove the table or should it stay? Jsayre64 (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice chart, Jsayre. A few comments, as it seems to touch on a few issues.

• I agree that it's not ideal to have both the chart and the table in the article.
• Personally, I like your chart better. I think a visual representation serves the average reader the best, as it very quickly conveys a sense of the city's growth, regardless of how "numbers-oriented" the reader may be.
• The table, however, offers a few advantages: (1) specific census numbers, (2) specific percentage changes, and (3) citations.

There are probably a few viable options. The solution I'd most favor would be to transfer the table to the image description page for the chart on Commons, and to copy the citations in it into the caption for your chart in the article. I think that would cover it nicely.

Finally, a couple small quibbles, for your consideration: (1) It's probably best not to include the title "Eugene Population" in the image itself, but to use the caption box for it. It's generally friendlier for reuse, whether that's fixing up this article to work well for a sight-impaired audience, or for inclusion on other language version of Wikipedia. (2) For smaller screens, including laptops, I think the present size of the graphic is a little large. It's a judgment call, though.

Thanks for asking -- again, I think it's a good improvement over the existing table, and hope you'll continue to make graphics like this! -Pete (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Pete. So I'll see if I can remove the title to the chart, I'll reduce the pixel size a bit, I'll move the citations into the caption for the chart, and perhaps the percentage changes could be moved within the article's text? I'm also confused about how one would move the table to the chart's description page. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question, this stuff gets a little tricky on the technical end. Basically, you'd want to go to your chart's page by clicking on it; then, in the box that talks about Wikimedia Commons, click the link that says "its description page there." That will take you to the very similar-looking page on Commons. Now, edit that page; and just cut-and-paste in the wiki code for the table.

Doing it this way, again, makes the table viewable by people that find the image from somewhere besides Wikipedia. That's why I suggest doing it there, instead of on the Wikipedia page. Does that clarify what I said enough? Feel free to ask more questions =) -Pete (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I did that, but the template fails and shows up as a red link, most likely because that template does not exist on Commons. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry -- I hadn't thought about the template issue. I'll think it over a bit and post back later. We'll sort it out! -Pete (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)