Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Oregon DEM relief map.pngWrench.svg

Madison Street Bridge (Portland, Oregon)[edit]

I had no idea! I created a stub for now, but in terms of article structure, I'm wondering if there should be separate sections (and separate infoboxes) for the two bridges? Unfortunately, Commons only has one image of the bridge and it is unclear if it depicts the first or second. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

OK first, very cool, and second, should we list this bridge in a separate section at List of crossings of the Willamette River? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I added a subsection for the bridge(s) at that list. If someone knows how to fix the column width so the table looks nicer, that would be great. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The table-width issue, which might not have been visible to some readers, depending on their browser or user settings, was being caused by the inclusion of the photo at the top of the page. Although the photo was kind of interesting, I feel it's not worth keeping there in light of this discovery (that it's negatively affecting the table's appearance for some readers), so I have removed it. – SJ Morg (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
That's not what I meant, but it is a helpful change. Sorry I wasn't very clear – the table I just made here doesn't take up the full width of the page like the tables in the other sections do, even though I used the same code as in the first section of the list. Also, I think it would look good for corresponding columns in all sections to have the same width. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a mystery to me, too. I cannot figure out why that table acts differently from the others. SJ Morg (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The tables each took up the least width they could, dependent upon the content within their cells. The first four tables had enough content to push them wider, although they were all of different widths and with different column widths. I've aligned the table and columns widths (diff), though whether that's a good thing to do, I'm not entirely sure: depends whether it makes it better or worse across the range of devices that'll look at it. So, revert away should you wish. Help:Table is your friend in these matters. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
So it's about using wiki code to partition the width percentages, I see. Well, it looks a lot better on my laptop, so thank you. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Yup. Specify the table width, and the cell widths, either as percentiles or (probably bad) as pixels. Glad you find it improved :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, very cool. Was it at the same location as the Hawthorne? Its name suggests it might have been slightly north of where the Hawthorne is now. Actually, as I look at the map the west end is aligned with Madison and the east end is aligned with Hawthorne. Maybe the Madison went from Madison to Madison? —EncMstr (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I have checked a 1901 map, from the Sanborn historical maps available here to holders of a Multnomah County Library card, and confirmed that the alignment was the same as that of the present-day bridge: From Madison Street in downtown to Hawthorne on the east side. SJ Morg (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Grand Street Bridge[edit]

Related to the above discussion, does anyone know more about the Grand Street Bridge? There is a photo at Commons (File:1907 Grand Street Bridge Portland, Oregon.jpeg) but I am not familiar with Sullivan's Gulch. Wondering if there should be an article about this bridge, too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

After searching for a few minutes, I came across this, it seems the Grand Street Bridge currently functions as an overpass over I-84, which generally wouldn't warrant an article unless it is on NRHP. MB298 (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Sullivan's Gulch appears to be the area in NE where I-84 currently exists. Some sources: [1], [2]. This map shows the railroad winding through the gulch. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Sullivan's Gulch is the small-canyon/gorge where the west end of I-84 comes out from near the Willamette to about E. 90th. The gulch also has main freight rail tracks, and Max runs in part of it. Surrounding is a Portland neighborhood named after it. That could well be where Grand Avenue crosses it, but it sure looks a lot different 110 years ago. —EncMstr (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Tangentially related to all this bridge stuff, I've recently been transcribing Frederick Van Voorhies Holman's 1910 Address at Oregon Bar Association annual meeting, an interesting doc that has a lot to say about the Initiative & Referendum system, and also about...jurisdiction (state vs. county vs. city) over bridge construction. -Pete (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The bridge in that photo is what's nowadays most commonly referred to as the Grand Avenue viaduct (over Sullivan's Gulch and I-84), and as MB298 said, it does not warrant its own article on WP. It is also almost identical to the parallel viaduct on MLK Blvd. (ex-Union Avenue). The photo of the bridge under construction is looking northeast. The Vintage Portland blog (by the City of Portland Archives and Records Center) has a couple of photos, including this one from 1958, with the same bridge at bottom of the frame, and this one showing the two parallel bridges (with the one on Union Avenue, now MLK, being slightly wider). Also one photo taken underneath one of the two bridges. Anyway, neither of these bridges/viaducts is on the NRHP, and I've seen very little written about them, even in books specifically about Portland bridges, so I'd say they do not meet notability requirements for a Wikipedia article. – SJ Morg (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, all, for helping to solve this mystery! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:ORE activity statistics[edit]

As previously discussed here, I have revised the format of the project activity statistics to the last as was suggested by YBG, and upped the coverage to the last 5,000 edits. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Activity. It took 3 hours 6 minutes for the task to complete.

Everyone knows how to read ISO 8601 timestamps, right? —EncMstr (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hooray for lexical consistency! :) tedder (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As no one has reported any errors to the activity summary, I have updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Participants according to the analysis of recent activity. 20 members are resurrected from being inactive since they have made WP:ORE edits in the last two years. 46 others are now inactive.

For the resurrected people, I made an attempt to find the date of original signups, but the participant history only goes back to 2009-11-16 and there are no log entries of moves or anything. Usually the history page has a previous 250 entries link, so I am stumped. Maybe there is a software bug? —EncMstr (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I went to figure it out, saw that I was the first editor, so I went to my edit history around then. Looks like it used to be on the main project page, which also explains why it was a copy-and-paste creation of the new page. tedder (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah! That explains it. For some reason I did not believe that the edit history actually began at that time, but was instead simply not being shown or not accessible. Did you really split the page without giving hint on the new article edit summary?  :-) That is a good edit summary in WP:ORE btw. —EncMstr (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The new article edit summary said "move paricipant list to new page", which was a hint (to me) that it came from somewhere. Sure, imperfect, but that was 2009 Tedder. (and if you know me, the timing of that is telling of other things) tedder (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Camera aabb.svg Photo request: mosaic at the Oregon Zoo[edit]

If a project member happens to visit the Oregon Zoo, I'm in need of a photograph of the mosaic at the conservation education center for the article The Continuity of Life Forms. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: The Old Church Concert Hall (Portland, Oregon)[edit]

Resolved

Do project members agree with the article about the Calvary Presbyterian Church being moved to The Old Church Concert Hall (Portland, Oregon)? Maybe "The Old Church" would be better, if "Calvary Presbyterian Church" is no longer appropriate (even though I assume this is how the NRHP listing refers to the building). ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No. It was inappropriate for that requested move to be listed as "uncontroversial/technical" in the request, posted by user PdxUrbanHistory (who has a grand total of 4 edits on WP as I write this, all related to that page and its move). A discussion might or might not have supported a move to "The Old Church (Portland, Oregon)", but certainly not to the Old Church Concert Hall, which is not even mentioned in the article, let alone backed up by multiple independent sources to support a claim that the new title is the most common name for the building. As its stands now, the article's text almost entirely concerns its time as a church and its transition out of that usage – text that was mostly added by me – and the only paragraph about its current use is completely unreferenced (not counting one sentence referenced solely to a primary source). If I were an Admin, I'd move it back to the old name. (Any admins reading this, feel free!) Thanks for the heads-up, AB, but right now I'm too busy in real life for practically any WP editing, so I don't want to spend any time on this right now, such as with communication with User PdxUrbanHistory. But there's my two cents. SJ Morg (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I have moved the article back to its previous name, after I belatedly remembered that, under certain conditions, adminship is not needed for such a move. SJ Morg (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, and I agree with your move back to Calvary Presbyterian Church. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Update. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Another update: See discussion at Talk:Calvary Presbyterian Church (Portland, Oregon), where the consensus appears to be favoring a move to "The Old Church (Portland, Oregon)". SJ Morg (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Ballot Measure 97's gonna be a doozy[edit]

Anybody want to help work on an article? Oregon ballot measure 97 (2016)

Here's the latest article to cross my desk: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/08/state_officials_decline_to_cha.html

-Pete (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

2nd Phil Knight daughter?[edit]

I checked on a comment on the talk page of Phil Knight which questioned the accuracy of listing "Alexis Knight" as his daughter in the infobox. I did a search and found no evidence of a daughter named Alexis, so removed it from the article. It's always difficult to prove a negative, so I'm happy to defer to anyone finding evidence to the contrary... Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Grand'mere Eugene: It seems that Phil actually has a daughter named Alexis, see here. MB298 (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I added her back to the article, though I have misgivings about using a blog post as a source. The disclaimer on the right of the page also has unusual syntax: "We are an independent organization dedicated to finance news & events about this amazing represent." Maybe non-native English speaker? Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, now I've noticed the date of the blog, and the link on the right side of the page to Phil Knight Wikipedia. I've posted to the citogenesis talk page. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Harrison Court Apartments[edit]

Resolved

Someone (or multiple people) keep trying to change the content and name of the Harrison Court Apartments article (see history). The NRHP database clearly says "Harrison Court Apartments", but am I being out of line when I keep reverting changes, or is there another solution here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No-one has provided a citation for another name. The article has two for the existing name. The URL offered by a recent IP points to the Tower, and thus is of no use. Stick to your guns. I'll watch the article lest you be concerned about 3RR. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I am concerned about 3RR, but I did add the "distinguish" note to the top of the article, which may help. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I left a note on the IP page asking them to talk about it first. We'll see what happens. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The person seems to be confused. Adding the "distinguish" note was a good idea. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

PDX streets[edit]

(Portland is not Manhattan, but) There are so many Wikipedia articles about streets in Manhattan. Should there be articles about more of Portland's streets? Sure, we have Template:Streets in Portland, Oregon/ Category:Streets in Portland, Oregon, but the downtown streets? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

At least for the major streets (such as Naito Parkway, MLK Blvd., Powell Blvd., Grand Ave., just to name a few). MB298 (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Considerations[edit]

You might also consider a List of eponymous roads in London -type article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

DeNorval Unthank[edit]

I have created DeNorval Unthank. This link displays an image that says it's public domain, but gives no source or author. MB298 (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Nice! -Pete (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Camera aabb.svg Image request: Duckbill, the (now toppled) rock formation[edit]

Resolved

I am hoping to illustrate Duckbill (rock formation), if anyone has an image they would be willing to donate. I was surprised one does not already exist at Wikimedia Commons. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Another Believer: here's a free use image from Flickr (it does have a person in it, but still the best I could find!) MB298 (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing. If no project members have any images to offer, I'll consider this one, or perhaps a crop if that's allowed? ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's a rather lush photo of it, and then another lush photo of it, both cc-by-2.0, which works for us [3]. The photographer's shadow and watermark could, I think, be removed from the first image by the image workshop people on the Commons. The second image seems problem free. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
And is now on the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Tagishsimon! ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Portland skyline photo in the infobox[edit]

Portland collage
Portland architecture collage

A few days ago Drown Soda (talk · contribs) created a new collage (bottom at right) and replaced the old infobox picture (top at right) at Portland, Oregon. First, nothing wrong with that as it does get changed from time to time. Secondly, no offense to any of the photographers.

However, I have concerns about the images themselves from an aesthetics stand point. They seem mostly dark and less representative of the city. For example, we have plenty of pictures of Union Station sans snow, and given the rarity of snow I don't think we should have a photo with it in the infobox. Both the Reed and theatre pictures have the light at the back, so the part of the buildings we see are in shadow. The church one is a good photo, but is that the best landmark? Pioneer Courthouse is a good one, but not at dusk if a lot of the other photos are also darker. Plus, with the newer photo, excluding the panorama that has a mix of buildings, all of the others are I would guess at least 60 years old.

The old photo to me had a better mix of new and old, and much better lighting and color. Certainly the top image in the old photo needs to updated since it is missing several newer buildings, but overall, it just works better for this type of collage. I have no objection to a new one in principle, just should be better pictures.

But, despite my hopes and desires, it is not all about me. So, what are other's thoughts? Aboutmovies (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Photo quality aside, the replacement image focuses on architecture only (as evidenced by the file's title). The infobox collage should show more than just architecture and be more representative of the city and its culture. I have no problem with the second image being used in a section dedicated to architecture, but I think the previous infobox image is more appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • For what it’s worth, I agree with both comments above. Original collage had a nice mix of old and new features, architecture and infrastructure, and lighter and darker images plus a lot more green landscape. Together the selected images represented the city very well. On the other hand, it was nice that Drown Soda took the time to build a new Portland collage. Still I like the original… at least that my opinion.--Orygun (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Orygun and Another Believer. MB298 (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Add me to the list. I agree with all of the above comments, including all of the detailed points mentioned by Aboutmovies. Although I, too, appreciate Drown Soda's efforts, I detect a pretty clear consensus here to restore the previous collage to the article. By the way, it's worth noting that Drown Soda also created that previous collage, last November, and in my opinion it was an improvement over its predecessors (various collages tried out during fall 2015, starting on Sep. 15). SJ Morg (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Status of new article bot[edit]

Resolved

Looks like New Oregon Article Bot isn’t working. It has been several days since anything was added. Anyone know how to report bot problems?--Orygun (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

User:AlexNewArtBot says "The bot is superseded by InceptionBot by User:Bamyers99". Perhaps User:Bamyers99 can help? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Orygun: Maybe you need to clear your browser cache. Here is the new article page history. --Bamyers99 (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it is running fine, I just think your recent article was not included due to the rules. As in your last article had lots of mentions of other places, so the rules deduct points to try and keep articles about say Portland, ME or Oregon, IL out of the list. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I watched bot for couple of days and didn't see anything new pop-up. However, you're probably right since several new article have now been picked up. Thanks for taking time to look up my article and rating it.--Orygun (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Race in Oregon - "draft" started[edit]

Some of you will remember this recent discussion about a possible new article. I came across another good source for such an article, so I started a basic "draft" (at this point, just a collection of the various links people mentioned): Draft:Race in Oregon -Pete (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the ball rolling, Pete. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Question re: article title[edit]

Resolved

I've nominated Packy (mural) for Good article status, but I am starting to question the article's title. Currently, the title suggests the artwork is called Packy. I'm not sure the mural has an actual title, though campaigns like "Save Packy" suggest a common name. I wonder if Packy mural or Mural of Packy might be more appropriate, or is "mural" the best disambiguator? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Packy mural gets my vote, with Packy (mural) second and Mural of Packy third.. It appears from a minimal reading of sources that it was referred to (common-name) as the Packy mural. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I am leaning in the same direction. I very much welcome others to chime in, but I've gone ahead and moved the article to Packy mural in the meantime. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
      • If reliable sources call it "Packy mural" or something close, that should be the article name until and unless the official name turns up somewhere. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Kimpton Hotel Vintage Portland and Imperial Hotel (Portland, Oregon)[edit]

Do we need both Kimpton Hotel Vintage Portland and Imperial Hotel (Portland, Oregon)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not. They should be merged. I didn't spend enough time at the articles to see which name should be the canonical target, but it's probably similar to the Old Church above: what do current reliable sources call it? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)