Jump to content

Talk:List of parks in Portland, Oregon

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

Splits?

[edit]

So I have completed the list of parks according to Portland Parks & Recreation, apart from a few that I may have missed (here is the complete list). Seeing the number of parks listed, does anyone object to me splitting the list into five separate lists based on geography: List of parks in North Portland, List of parks in Northeast Portland, List of parks in Northwest Portland, List of parks in Southeast Portland, and List of parks in Southwest Portland)? This way, each list can be tailored to the region, and it appears to me that each list would have enough entries to justify the splits. The current "List of parks in Portland, Oregon" could be moved to "Parks in Portland, Oregon", with more general information about the history of parks in Portland, PP&R, perhaps contain a list of the largest or most popular parks, etc. Any supports, opposes, thoughts, or comments? I'd like to receive feedback from several WP Oregon members before I make the move. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a thought, not a push. The five lists idea seems fine to me, but I'm not sure a "Parks in Portland, Oregon" article is necessary. Maybe a general lead with slight modifications would work for each of the five lists. Finetooth (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK--just seems having one main article would make sense, then have offshoots from there (as opposed to five non-connecting lists). I appreciate your feedback, though. Ultimately, I think it will depend if there is enough information out there to warrant having a "main" article or not. For the record, I support the split, but I will not make the moves until enough feedback is received, as I could understand a preference for a single list. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Year column instead of Type?

[edit]

Currently, a Type column is displayed. Based on List of National Parks of the United States and List of Pennsylvania state parks (both of which are Featured), I suggest adding a Date/Year founded/opened column for sorting based on the year it was official opened. Besides, it seems to me that the information in the Type column would end up in the Description column as well. Thoughts? --Another Believer (Talk) 23:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I'm not being clear. See List of Oregon state parks for a similar role of how the type column might work. The compromise for type there is two columns which give an effective type: Open year round and Camping. These provide a major clue of the general character of the park. I envision similar clues in the city parks article as well, but the types seem like they should fall into only a few classes: wilderness (like Forest Park and Smith-Bybee), manicured (lawns and sidewalks, the majority of parks like Laurelhurst Park), mixed (like Gabriel which has wild woods, fields, and baseball fields—plus a rec center), and trail or something like that for the Springwater Corridor and Marine Drive bike paths.
Also, in the state parks article, the region column has the same role as this article's sections; if sections were done there, it would need eight sections. But if you want an alphabetical list of all our state parks, it is possible with a single click—not possible with a sectioning. The column close to might seem redundant to the region. But the usage is complementary. When I'm planning a trip, I use the region; when I'm already somewhere and want a state park, I find which is closest by close to. Or I use the map all coordinates link and see which is closest via practical road. —EncMstr (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

My understanding is that Creative Commons-licensed content hosted on Flickr can be uploaded to Wikipedia. If so, some of these links may help:

Feel free to post links to other pictures that could be uploaded. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though the person taking the pic may license their image as CC, be careful about pics of artwork as covered under the Portlandia discussion. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the links to pics for Glenhaven, Westmoreland and Peninsula Parks because I just uploaded one for each, but a Westmoreland one was already there. However I'm copyright-cautious with the sculpture photo and the sign pic doesn't seem of much use. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I am copyright-paranoid myself! Thanks for the uploads and for adding them to the list. Oh, this list... it will take forever but will be such a great resource once completed. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been e-mailing a bunch of Flickr contributors asking for the rights to some photos of these parks. Hopefully some of them will reply back and agree. And I'm thinking of having a photo drive (maybe a COTW) next summer to get images for the parks in need of them. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! I attempted to organize a photo drive last summer--this could be great to do again. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

[edit]

I'm starting another to-do list and providing some comments and questions as well.

  • We need a final decision about which PP&R sites to include. Should we just use the sites named "park" or just list all the PP&R sites? I'm open to either one, but if we choose the latter, we would probably have to go through the trouble of doing a page move.
  • What about the parks that aren't managed by PP&R? How do we track down those online?
  • I don't think we need the Type column. The Name column pretty much gives that away. We could replace the Type column with a Coordinates column, which is more important.
  • I'm opposed to adding a column for the year of acquisition, because oftentimes that's the only information PP&R provides. If we had that column, descriptions for McCoy Community Garden and many others would be left blank.
  • I agree that if PP&R doesn't provide enough information to fill one column, we can just put a —.

Other than that, the section above pretty much covers everything else we'll have to do. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that we should list only PP&R sites as there are clearly other parks in the city not managed by PP&R. If we were to list only PP&R sites then we would have to create a different list (List of Portland Parks & Recreation sites). That being said, I am not sure community schools, etc. constitute as parks. I am not a big fan of the Type column either. I am still wondering if we should create separate lists for Portland's five sections (List of parks in north Portland, Oregon; List of parks in southwest Portland, Oregon, etc). Happy to start working on this list again!--Another Believer (Talk) 01:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see we are in agreement about community schools. What else shall we discuss? Cultural centers? Golf courses? --Another Believer (Talk) 03:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dance studios? Community gardens? Pools? --Another Believer (Talk) 03:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking through other city parks lists (Indianapolis, San Francisco, Louisville, etc.) and it looks like each one is generally limited to parks, preserves/conservation areas, squares, and gardens. We should probably eliminate the pools and community centers. I think golf courses should count, though. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with eliminating pools and community centers. I wouldn't consider golf courses as parks (List of golf courses in Portland?), but I'd rather others chime in with additional opinions as I do not feel too strongly either way. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this should be a list of parks, and should include parks not managed by PP&R. Golf courses deserve their own list. Community schools belong in a list of schools. Another useful list -- especially for parents and grandparents -- might be a list of schools with public playgounds. Also, if the list is long enough that it shouldn't be in a single sortable table, then we may as well break it into separate geographic lists. But I would prefer the parks inside the downtown freeway loop have their own list, rather than being broken into the geographic quadrants (quintants?) YBG (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we can eliminate golf courses as well. For the downtown Portland parks, I say we start another section called "Downtown Portland." For the rest, I agree with YBG; maybe there should be four sections (NW, NE, SW, and SE) instead of five. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, PP&R has six categories on their website: Downtown, NE, NW, SE, SW, North. However, I don't believe they are non-inclusive (am I saying that right?). For example, a park can be both Downtown and in Southwest Portland. IF we are keeping a single list rather than constructing separate lists by geographic region, I don't think we should separate Downtown from the 5 sections. IF we decided to create 5 separate lists, then I wouldn't see the harm in having a sixth list of parks located in Downtown Portland (though these parks should still appear in their appropriate "quintant"). --Another Believer (Talk) 16:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I understand your reasoning. It helps to be flexible when making these tough decisions. I removed all the pools, community centers, and golf courses and I found some good news: two Flickr photographers agreed to license their images under CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, so I was able to add two more park photos. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great job re: images! Do we consider museums and memorials to be parks? --Another Believer (Talk) 05:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list continues to improve. However, I would much prefer either a single sortable table or five(6?) separate articles; either of these options is better than five separate lists in a single article. If people hesitate to break it into separate lists (which could detract from a FL mention), then I suggest the sections merged into a single table. It is more likely someone would want to sort by size to find the five largest (or 10 smallest) parks in the city rather than the largest/smallest in a quintant. We could easily prefix the quintant to the location or description columns. Oh, and by the way, if we include Downtown, would quintant become sextant?!?! YBG (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could color code a particular cell depending on which of the five geographical sections the park lies within? Or, as YBG suggested, we could simply state the quintant. Again, I don't think we should separate downtown parks from others unless that is a separate list. And what would be the purpose of this list? --Another Believer (Talk) 06:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Color coding sounds nice, but not as the exclusive directional indicator, which would mean we'd need a color key which on a list this size would almost never be visible. Also, there is some benefit to seeing the parks in separate quintant lists, and using N/NE/SE/SW/NW as a sort key would accomplish this. I'm not particularly stuck on the idea of downtown as a 6th quintant, but I think it is nice to see the number of parks we have within the I-5/I-405 freeway loop. YBG (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to the idea of eliminating the different sections and listing all the parks in alphabetical order with a column for the quintant. Is that what you meant, YBG? Jsayre64 (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to a single table either as long as the quadrant is identified in some manner, be it text column and/or cell shading. I think this will be the true test as to whether or not a single sortable table is best or multiple lists separated by quadrant (keep in mind the table will expand as non-PP&R sites are added and descriptions of the parks are expanded). --Another Believer (Talk) 00:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

[edit]

I saw EncMstr's suggestion of a table format in the first section on this page, and I realized that the coordinates could go in the Location column instead of in their own separate column. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Location

[edit]

Is it necessary to include the actual address of the park? How helpful/encyclopedic is this information, especially when the PP&R site can be referenced and used to determine the location (or Google)? Perhaps this column is where we can display the quadrant (North, Northeast, Southeast, Southwest, Northwest). We could also include Downtown as an additional location on the second line for appropriate parks. Thoughts? --Another Believer (Talk) 02:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the format I support.
Name Image Location Size Description
Cathedral Park A series of arches on the underside of a bridge; trees and a manicured lawn are visible in the background. North Portland 45°35′15″N 122°45′36″W / 45.587374°N 122.760115°W / 45.587374; -122.760115 23.09 acres (9.34 ha) Citation
Chimney Park In the forefront is a large rock along with a sign displaying the name, management, and hours of operation for the park; in the background is a lawn and scattered trees. North Portland 45°36′24″N 122°45′31″W / 45.606802°N 122.75857°W / 45.606802; -122.75857 16.76 acres (6.78 ha) Citation

Tell me if this isn't exactly the format you're proposing. --Jsayre64 (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer:

Name Image Location Size Description
Cathedral Park A series of arches on the underside of a bridge; trees and a manicured lawn are visible in the background. North Portland
45°35′15″N 122°45′36″W / 45.587374°N 122.760115°W / 45.587374; -122.760115 		23.09 acres (9.34 ha) Citation
Chimney Park In the forefront is a large rock along with a sign displaying the name, management, and hours of operation for the park; in the background is a lawn and scattered trees. North Portland
45°36′24″N 122°45′31″W / 45.606802°N 122.75857°W / 45.606802; -122.75857 		16.76 acres (6.78 ha) Citation

My preference would also be to have the acreage on one line with the ha # on the line below, though I am not sure if this is possible (Can you tell I have a fear of text wrapping?). Any thoughts on identifying parks located downtown? Also, the image column should have a fixed width (100px for example). --Another Believer (Talk) 04:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you did. It indeed looks much better to have the coordinates on a line below the text for the Location column. I'm not sure how to do the same thing for the acre-to-hectare conversion, though it looks like the hectare text is always going to be below the acre text anyway (if a problem arises, WP:VPT is usually a great place to ask). For the downtown parks, I'd just write "Downtown, North Portland" (for example) in the Location column. I don't quite understand what you're saying about the Image column. It looks like the column is already a fixed width in the list since all the images are set to 100px. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Placing "Downtown" before "North Portland" would affect the sorting unless we force it otherwise. All I meant about the image column was to fix the width at 100px rather than have it determined by a percentage. That way there would be no blank space between the image and the column lines. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about this?

Name Image Size Location & Description
Cathedral Park A series of arches on the underside of a bridge; trees and a manicured lawn are visible in the background. 23.09 acres (9.34 ha) North Portland 45°35′15″N 122°45′36″W / 45.587374°N 122.760115°W / 45.587374; -122.760115
Citation
Chimney Park In the forefront is a large rock along with a sign displaying the name, management, and hours of operation for the park; in the background is a lawn and scattered trees. 16.76 acres (6.78 ha) North Portland 45°36′24″N 122°45′31″W / 45.606802°N 122.75857°W / 45.606802; -122.75857
Citation

This gives much more room for the description. Also, what about left-justifying the location/description column? YBG (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be my preference. The descriptions are each awfully short, so I don't think they need that much space. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This way the image column is smaller:

Name Image Location Size Description
Cathedral Park A series of arches on the underside of a bridge; trees and a manicured lawn are visible in the background. North Portland
45°35′15″N 122°45′36″W / 45.587374°N 122.760115°W / 45.587374; -122.760115 		23.09 acres (9.34 ha) Citation
Chimney Park In the forefront is a large rock along with a sign displaying the name, management, and hours of operation for the park; in the background is a lawn and scattered trees. North Portland
45°36′24″N 122°45′31″W / 45.606802°N 122.75857°W / 45.606802; -122.75857 		16.76 acres (6.78 ha) Citation

By the way, once we agree on a format, I can get it all ready in my sandbox and then move it to the list once it's done. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like this last version, though I think the image column width can actually be defined as 100px rather than a percentage. I do wish text wrapping did not interfere with the acre/ha figures, but I will pick my battles. I would recommend adding locations (N, NW, SW, etc.) to parks now while they are still separated. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll get to that soon. I tested defining the width of the image column as 100px, but it actually makes the column wider. Using 2% (as I did above) makes it more or less the right size. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it does not really matter if the list contains a single table (with multiple tables one would strive for consistency amongst column widths). Looking forward to getting this list completed, however long it takes! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After I looked back at the article, I realized there were only a couple of long descriptions, so my idea of combining location and description really isn't necessary. YBG (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final revision:

Name Image Location Size Description
Cathedral Park A series of arches on the underside of a bridge; trees and a manicured lawn are visible in the background. North Portland
45°35′15″N 122°45′36″W / 45.587374°N 122.760115°W / 45.587374; -122.760115 		23.09 acres (9.34 ha) Citation
Chimney Park In the forefront is a large rock along with a sign displaying the name, management, and hours of operation for the park; in the background is a lawn and scattered trees. North Portland
45°36′24″N 122°45′31″W / 45.606802°N 122.75857°W / 45.606802; -122.75857 		16.76 acres (6.78 ha) Citation

--Jsayre64 (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paring down the list

[edit]

In looking at [[]]'s recent deletions, I have the following comments:

Anyway, that's my take. Any other ideas out there? YBG (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to comment on the deletion as well. I agree w/ the deletion of the sports venues. I would keep Hoyt Arboretum for sure and probably even Peninsula Crossing Trail and Eastbank Esplanade. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I took care of the most urgent issues [1]. I can work more on this later. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, YBG, in case the question marks above meant you were uncertain about Laurelhurst Dance Studio... the building lies within Laurelhurst Park in southeast Portland. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, I didn't know where it was located. It being inside Laurelhurst Park, I'd put a mention of it in the description of that park. YBG (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about community gardens? Shall we consider them parks or create List of community gardens in Portland? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should have their own list. They are fun to photograph, but they are not parks. Members of the public generally don't wander in and out of them unless they have specific gardening business in mind (or are taking photos for Wikipedia). Just my two cents. Finetooth (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I will transfer info for now. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, AB! The community gardens list looks great. Meanwhile, I've been preparing the design for the parks list here, and you are all welcome to help. I'm almost done applying the new format to the Location column, checking alt and rollover text for images, and adding descriptions for the parks without them. So far I've only been working on the North Portland parks. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Great work on the list so far (the one in your sandbox). The community gardens list will certainly need more work, but it's at least there for now and can be dealt with at a later date. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) If some feature (building/stadium/etc) in a park is notable enough to have its own WP article or to be mentioned separately on the PPR website, then it ought to be mentioned in the description field in this list. This is the idea behind several of my comments above, but I mention it here so that others can agree or disagree with it. YBG (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. --Another Believer (Talk) 07:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And me. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parks in each quadrant have been marked (N, NW, SE, etc.)... note that J is working on North PDX in his sandbox. Technically, since they are marked, we could go ahead and merge the 5 tables into a single sortable table, though I propose that we keep the different sections separated for now. This way multiple people can work on the list at once and not worry (or, at least worry less) about edit conflicts. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your edits here, AB, and don't get me wrong: this isn't because I disagree with your changes, but because I feel like having the addresses in the list is useful for me while I'm working in my sandbox. The addresses are what I use to find the coordinates of each park. Once I'm done adding all the coordinates, though, I'll restore your changes. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Ok, no worries. I was not sure how coordinates were generated. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think I've given up on this project! I'm still working on it in my sandbox. It is certainly rather slow-going work, and to be honest, I don't really see any reason to hurry. But I am working on it, and any of you are still welcome to help. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additions?

[edit]

I noticed that Pioneer Courthouse Square isn't on the list, despite having its own Wikipedia article. It may be that this is because it's under some other agency's jurisdiction, it if that's so, this list might better be renamed something like List of DP& R Parks in Portland, Oregon. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a strange omission. It appears to be a city park. Maybe someone who has dug deeper will comment? —EncMstr (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved
[edit]

Has 12 parks mentioned. Along with other sources, might make for a good start for the individual parks. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Dawson Park

[edit]

Not sure where else to put this link for future article expansion: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/05/legacy_emanuel_medical_center_7.html. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Portland

[edit]
Unresolved

Portland has a new sextant: South Portland, Oregon. This list requires some updating. @Jsayre64: Do you have any interest in helping with this effort? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently tied up in off-wiki work, but I look to get back to this list and other things in a few weeks. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parks in Portland, Oregon

[edit]

I'm sure there are ways to further improve the template, but I've created Template:Parks in Portland, Oregon and added to all entries in Category:Parks in Portland, Oregon. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Green

[edit]
Unresolved

Reminder to add Gateway Green ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beggars Tick Wildlife Refuge

[edit]
Unresolved

Reminder to add Beggars Tick Wildlife Refuge ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons category

[edit]

commons:Category:Parks in Portland, Oregon has more than 100 subcategories. Thoughts on subcategorizing by North, Northeast, Northwest, South, Southeast, and Southwest Portland? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Discovery Park

[edit]
Unresolved

Reminder to add Gateway Discovery Park ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Portland

[edit]

What to do??.. Graywalls (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly missing: Cully

[edit]
Unresolved

I think Cully Park is missing from the NE section ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error: Portland Firefighters Park

[edit]
Unresolved

Portland Firefighters Park is listed under Northwest Portland, but should be moved to the Southwest section ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing: The Fields Park

[edit]
Unresolved

The Fields Park is missing from the Northwest Portland section

---Another Believer (Talk) 15:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elk Rock Island

[edit]
Unresolved

Seems Elk Rock Island is part of Milwaukie (?)

Do we keep listed as part of Southeast Portland for historical purposes? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oaks Amusement Park

[edit]

Oaks Amusement Park appears in Template:Parks in Portland, Oregon, but not in this list.

Should we add Oaks Amusement Park here, or removed the entry from the parks template?

---Another Believer (Talk) 15:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re: Butterfly Park

[edit]
Unresolved

I think Butterfly Park should be moved to the South Portland section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Waterfront Greenway

[edit]
Unresolved

I think South Waterfront Greenway is missing from the South Portland section ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re: Willamette Park

[edit]
Unresolved

Should Willamette Park be moved from the Southwest Portland section to the South Portland section?

---Another Believer (Talk) 16:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_parks_in_Portland,_Oregon&oldid=1230246348"