Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pittsburghangelsforever (talk | contribs) at 23:07, 8 March 2017 (→‎article for deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Shortcuts

This England nominated for Featured article status

I've nominated This England (album) for Featured article status. Project members are invited to participate in the Featured article candidate discussion. Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twist! The article has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This England (album). Feel free to contribute to the ongoing discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The article was kept, but I withdrew the Featured article nomination when an editor (who never followed up with criticism) wanted to remove too many details from the article, IMO. Oh well, was worth a shot... ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2009 establishments in Portland, Oregon nominated for merge

Resolved

I thought this was debated once before, but Category:2009 establishments in Portland, Oregon has been nominated for merging. All are invited to contribute to this discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Aboutmovies for providing this link for additional context. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The category was kept (or, really, deemed 'no consensus'). Marking this section as resolved since the discussion has closed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Bridge (Reed College) nominated for Good article status

I've nominated Blue Bridge (Reed College) for Good article status and welcome project members to review or improve the article before or during the review. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Nomination withdrawn per talk page discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New mayors

Oregon's "big" cities have a bunch of new mayors, and their articles could use some expansion. I created two that were missing, but they are very stubby. The easiest way to get to them is through Template:Oregon cities and mayors of 100,000 population. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with some extra research time on their hands or access to one good source could have a lot of fun with List of mayors of Bend, Oregon. It is not accurate. I have added a pile of sources and lots of HTML comments in an attempt to start sorting it out. I don't know where the original list came from, but everything on the list (names and dates) needs to be verified. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm late to the party, weird small towns aside, but has anybody tackled updating the all the city infoboxes with the new mayor names? I usually use the Oregon Blue Book website as a reference. Valfontis (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did only the cities over 100,000, including the navbox template (linked above) for them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017 winter storm - Portland, Oregon

I am collecting images of the winter storm at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Photography/Winter Storm, January 2017 if anyone wants to contribute. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So Eugene was still recovering from this December ice storm when the 2nd one hit. Weather.com called that one "Decima" (as in "decimate Eugene's trees). Some info here. Does it merit a separate article? I'm scared to ask the weather people. Valfontis (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not familiar with weather article standards. I'm all for being bold and creating new articles (I'd rather the community debate the notability of a subject than never get around to creating articles for notable topics), but you could always start by creating a redirect and using that as an excuse to ask the weather folks if they think the redirect might be worth expanding. Just a thought! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historic post offices need articles

The three NRHP-listed post offices in Oregon do not appear to have WP articles. Anyone interested in taking on the creation of these articles? I'll be happy to help with cleanup of a rough draft. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all 11 of the Oregon post offices listed in the above-linked article are on the NRHP, not just three. The phrase "listed on the National Register ...." was added for those three entries as a (piped) link to the relevant county's NRHP list, to establish notability for inclusion of red links in that list. SJ Morg (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: I've created a very basic stub for the La Grande one. MB298 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MB298. I might get around to creating a stub or two later, but hopefully someone willing to do more than a stub will beat me to the punch! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Go team! – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dibs on Eugene. If I don't get something put together by Monday you can revoke my dibs privileges. Valfontis (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the broken promise to the Lane County Historical Museum that the previous post office would be the site of an expanded museum facility, in trade for the property the vacant downtown post office occupies, a deal broken only by the outbreak of WWII when the space was needed for federal offices. Local history buffs believe the U.S. govt owes the museum, still...sources available on the LCHM site.— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women's March on Portland

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Women's March on Portland.

I totally admit this draft article for the Women's March on Portland is premature and its content may end up being merged if a standalone article is not warranted. But I'm going to throw some prose together and share sources on the talk page, hoping there may end up being enough coverage to justify an article. If not, that's fine, too. My purpose for sharing here is to invite other project members who may want to contribute. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: If it does attract as many demonstrators as intended, it will most likely receive enough coverage to warrant an article. I would recommend keeping it a draft until after the event actually takes place, then we'll wait and see. MB298 (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll be working in the draft space for the time being. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought we'd need weekend coverage before establishing notability, but I'm quite sure there is enough coverage already. There's been quite a bit of leadership conflict reported by multiple outlets. I'll be swinging by the march this weekend to show support and document the event for Wikipedia. Expect some pictures, then a move from the draft space to main space. Again, all are invited to help improve this article. Right now I'm adding as much detail as possible, which can then be trimmed as appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if this image is appropriate to upload under fair use? My concern is that the artwork is it too similar to the image that appears in the Women's March on Washington infobox. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be fine, especially given they are separate articles. MB298 (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I might try uploading tomorrow, along with the rest of my event photos. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, thanks for taking those. MB298 (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! I still have 20 or so more to upload, hopefully soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting page view analysis

Graph showing page view statistics for w:Hillsboro, Oregon related topics in 2016; top 10.

While this may not sit well with our propensity here at WPORE to write articles about more obscure topics (of which I have done plentymyself), I was curios about pageview stats for Hillsboro and topics related to Hillsboro (objection, vague and ambiguous as to related). The results to me were very surprising, and sort of ended up tying into some recent deletion discussions on some ORE articles. Definitely not my intent, not that there was an intent anyway.

As you can see in the chart to the right, which is roughly a top ten list of articles viewed in 2016 related to Hillsboro, the big winners are companies. Parks, schools, government agencies, and even roads were simply not up there in numbers. Now, I did not analyze people, as there are way too many people to try to sort through, and the database only lets you look at 10 at a time. That said, given our recent loss of a few company articles on Wikipedia, which there tends to be a trend on Wikipedia to delete company articles, it seams to me to be counterproductive to delete topics that get more traffic than say another old dead dude. My guess is that we would find similar results for other cities, maybe even the state as a whole.

While this data may stress the need to ensure proper articles on the topics, I think it also demonstrates there is more notability than what some would like to believe. And it is notability that tends to be one of the deciding factors in the deletion debates. The former state rep. for Seaside in 1948 is automatically notable, even though their article might only get a handful of looks a year, but we seem to have a bias to keep some company out that could be viewed by thousands a year, and we can control that narrative about the company.

Anyway, off my high-horse that is on a soapbox. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't taken part in any of the deletion debates because I'm often busy working on obscure topics that may very well set records for low interest. Perhaps because of that interest in little things, I agree with you. What I generally try to do is to be inclusive if possible and to resist the temptation to jump straight to cleaning up by deletion. It takes a lot of work to save an article that starts out as a PR puff piece and to keep it from being re-puffed. Saving an article, if possible, seems much better than throwing it out. Finetooth (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • AB, I’m glad you wrote the post above. From what I’ve seen, article on businesses (no matter how interesting and well written) are inevitably magnets for conflict. When I was getting started as an editor, I wrote a couple of articles on large, well established non-profit organizations, but got push-back about notability and sources. Both got rating from appropriate wiki-projects, but never shock-off the issues and one was eventually deleted. That was very disappointing. I later tried an article on a restaurant, since those articles seemed to be passing in peace. However, I had to take it out a section on menu/cuisine, because it was considered advertising. I just don’t know how an editor could do a good quality article on any medium-size business without ending up in a fight about something. As a result, I write a lot of semi-obscure articles. Someday, when I run out of innocuous history stuff to write about, maybe I’ll try a business article … til then, I think I’ll steer clear of the drama business articles seem to generate. Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful comments.--Orygun (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting post, Aboutmovies. We'll have a piece in the upcoming Signpost about paid editing of company articles, which I think speaks to Orygun's point somewhat. I wonder if there might be an interesting Signpost article in the kind of data crunching you've done here... -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homepage exposure

Oregon Cultural Heritage Commission is about to get some homepage exposure, and members of this WikiProject are asked to please chip in, because the article is in poor shape. Please see its talk page. Schwede66 18:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added infobox and reorganized article; add some new text and several new sources. It's still short article, but I think it's better now--Orygun (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing up that terrible stub I started in 2008! I recently looked at the group's website and it's possible it's not much of a going concern anymore. At least someone needs to give them money for a web redesign. In any case, there might not be much more material on the group out there? Valfontis (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stats plots of WP Oregon

Hello all,

I am a PhD student from the University of Minnesota, and am doing some research project on the effects of member turnover in WikiProjects. I am doing some project-level analysis on the project performance, and find something interesting.

Some explanations about the variables:

group_article_productivity: this is the total number of edits on the articles claimed within the scope of the project.

project_art_comm: this is the total number of edits on the talk pages of articles claimed within the scope of the project.

project_coors: this is the total number of edits on the project page and project talk page.

project_user_comm: this is the total number of edits on the project members made on the user talk pages of each other.


The variables are aggregated by one month. We can see there is an obvious burst on project article productivity and project article communication around time interval 160th, which is around October, 2014. I don't know what happened at that time that caused that burst. I wonder if someone has been working on the project for a while, and could recall that. Also, if you have any thought about this plot, please feel free to share to me :)

Bobo.03 (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look through the talk page archives (upper right corner of this page, in a box), you may be able to do some detective work. For example, one conversation there led me to this series of edits, which are 234 edits on a single article in the fourth quarter of 2014. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weird small town edits

An IP has been changing mayor names. Not totally sure what's up with it- they appear to be false, but I can't figure out the rationale. Examples: 1, 2, 3. Does someone have the time to look through the edit history and straighten it out? Looks like it's a school IP, those may be the names of kids or something. tedder (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted/revised pages for Moro, Wasco, Grass Valley, The Dalles, and Mosier after checking their official town websites, and added a second third disruptive editing warning on the IP user site. Probably won't have much effect, but at least the affected pages have been fixed. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. tedder (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are the edits weird, or the small towns weird? Asking for a friend. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or are the editors of small towns weird? Valfontis (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
---Another Believer (Talk) 17:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking AfD discussion participants...

Resolved

Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands was kept after the first AfD discussion, but has been nominated for deletion again. The discussion has been relisted and needs more participation, so I'm posting notes at a couple WikiProjects. Project members are welcome to share their thoughts at the following link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands (2nd nomination). ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O how far my pal Henry Kraemer has come, his first appearance on Wikipedia didn't last nearly so long. (Apparently the Oregonian has scuttled old comments on its site, but I'm pretty sure mine said "relax dudes and dudettes, Henry's edit was live for all of 3.5 seconds." (And to be honest, I can't even remember who I voted for in the '08 senate primary.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazis/Hitler

I swear there used to be some sort of essay or the like saying how you know its over when the discussion devolves into comparisons related to Hitler (or Nazis). Anyone know what I'm talking about? It seems we are there on Facebook, so can an admin delete it for me? Thanks in advance. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's law --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's it, thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I am not an admin, so I can't delete Facebook for you, sorry. I think we're going to see a lot of Godwin's-Law-related activity in the next few weeks/months/years, unfortunately. Just based on the facts of the situation, the parallels are strong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Winter Light Festival

Resolved

The newly-created Portland Winter Light Festival article is unillustrated, if anyone happens to have a pic they can upload. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MB298! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page, y'all!

Johnson Creek (Willamette River) is makin' a wonderful Main Page appearance at the moment. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Finetooth: Beautiful work, as usual. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both. Finetooth (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Past protests?

See also: Category:Protests in Oregon

Recent events have made me wonder, are we missing any Wikipedia articles about notable protests/demonstrations in Oregon's history? The South Park Blocks article mentions a few protests, and Keller Fountain Park mentions the Portland State University protests (1970). Do any others come to mind? ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex I? YBG (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Munk's Red Guide to Portland would be useful for identifying any historical protests worth covering.... if anyone has a copy at hand. --Lockley (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guerilla Theater of the Absurd! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Paris Theatre (Portland, Oregon)

Resolved
See also: Paris Theatre (Portland, Oregon)

This theatre and former adult movie cinema was converted into a live venue and nightclub last year. One or two singele-purpose editors have been trying to update the Wikipedia article, understandably, but not in ways that comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. I've reverted several edits to the article and made notes of these proposed changes on the talk page. I've also received a request for help on my talk page, and also see this request at Teahouse. I am trying to update the article, but could use some help, if anyone is available. Someone is clearly trying to reduce this venue's porn past, but I think really the primary goal is to note the building's current use. This article could make a nice companion to Oregon Theatre once expanded. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the user's talk page, at the Teahouse discussion, and on the article's talk page. I've also restored the article multiple times, so I'm now in need of additional eyes so I'm not just edit-waring. I really want to help here, but patience is needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully things have slowed down a little. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article still needs some work, but I am marking this section as resolved for now since the article has at least been updated to reflect recent changes. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New COTM! Insert your alt facts today!

So, I remembered I'm supposed to do this occasionally, so today I take the occasion to do this occasional thing. Now up for bid are Malcolm A. Moody and List of parks in Portland, Oregon. Moody (not to be confused with the blues) is really thin for a Congress person. For the parks list, plenty of photos needed and even many descriptions. Or if you're feeln' like a pimp, maybe make a new article on a park. Whatever floats your boat, which given the river levels you may need. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't have time this week, but the last few pages of this application for the NRHP has information on Malcom Moody's relationship with Teddy Roosevelt and their mutual interest in dam projects on the Columbia. You can skip the couple of letters between Moody and TR; aside from being primary sources, they are pretty boring stuff. On a Google search, you may also be tempted by entries about Malcolm in the Middle, but I advise against them. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major kudos to User:Aboutmovies for creating Cathedral Park (Portland, Oregon) from the neighborhood article. I've been meaning to do this forever, so thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't improved List of parks in Portland, Oregon yet, but I did a bunch of behind-the-scenes work by creating redirects for all of the listed parks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Distraction

Knight Ryder
I see what you did there. Let's keep it on topic, please:
Ore Gun
Ore
Gun
Insert Flo Rida/Flo Ryder/shape of the state of Florida/Ore Gun/Ore Gon nth-degree-pun here. Jsayre64 (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will Lamb ET

Oregon Women in Red

WikiProject Women in Red wants your biographies

Greetings, Oregonians, from WP:Women in Red. We've put together a redlist of women from The Oregon Encyclopedia. I'm wondering if I might encourage some adoption of that list by WP:Oregon.

Right now, only 16.85% of Wikipedia biographies are of women - that's less than one in five [1]. Which is a disgrace. I know this is an active & able project - please do what you can by way of adding biogs for these women. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Oregon at Commons?

There's Category:WikiProject Oregon, which contains media related to this project at English Wikipedia. But I'm wondering if there should be a WikiProject Oregon at Commons. There are other WikiProjects at Commons (see Category:Commons WikiProjects), and this could serve as a central location for any Oregon-related discussion. No worries if there's a lack of interest, or limited number of people who visit Commons often enough to notice watchlist updates. If there is interest, I can create a page and we can see where it goes...? ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, on a tangentially related note, Eugene's mayor just used a pic from Commons as her Facebook cover photo. I pointed that out to her. More or less outing myself as a Wikipedian to much of Eugene. And so it goes. Valfontis (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can thank me for bravely taking a stand for Wikimedia later. Valfontis (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and welcome to the club! I came out (oh, right, as a Wikipedian) a long time ago. :p ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 4 Trump

I invite folks to contribute to Draft:March 4 Trump, specifically the upcoming Lake Oswego event. Hopefully the draft will be moved to main space in the near future, as more coverage is published. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

article for deletion

Oregon journalist Mike Bivins's article has been nominated for deletion. Please weigh in. Pittsburghangelsforever (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburghangelsforever, you are not allowed to "campaign" for votes at an AfD. This posting is in violation of the behavioral guideline WP:CANVAS. I'd suggest you remove it. A neutrally worded notification to involved projects is fine; advocating a position is not. John from Idegon (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Sorry about this I was unaware Pittsburghangelsforever (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon&oldid=769343550"