Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16


Portland Center for the Performing Arts / Antoinette Hatfield Hall

The template for architecture in Portland includes the Portland Center for the Performing Arts, which is not actually a building but an organization. I am thinking a separate article should be created for Antoinette Hatfield Hall so that we can focus on PCPA as an organization and Hatfield Hall as a venue. Then, Hatfield Hall could be added to the architecture template and PCPA could be removed. I would be bold and make the change myself, but I don't know how to change the re-direct for Antoinette Hatfield Hall so that it does not automatically direct me to the Portland Center for the Performing Arts article? Thoughts or help from an admin? I did start a section for discussion at the template talk page, but I thought a note here would receive more attention. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The method of editing a redirect is:
a) Click on any link to the redirect. It will redirect and display the indirect page.
b) Notice the top of the indirect page where a small text header says Redirected from xxxxx. Click on xxxxx.
c) Edit the redirect by clicking on edit this page. It is otherwise a normal page.
I'm surprised that PCPA is not also a building, but if it truly is not, then your suggestion makes sense. —EncMstr (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Thank you for the explanation, EncMster. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Eugene Public Library

I see on the project page that an article about the Eugene Public Library still hasn't been created. I just Googled the library and there are not many sources other than on the "City of Eugene" page. I know the library is pretty notable, but can anyone find some good outside references? With only this much, I don't think it's right to create the page. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Here're some other links that may be of use...
--Tesscass (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, Tesscass. I was able to find some more sources, mostly via the library's website on the City of Eugene. I'll make a list of what we have now:
  1. cited the library's lighting as notable
  2. AIAS Southwestern Oregon 2003 Award
  3. blurp from its designers Shepley Bulfinch
  4. Library's mission statement
  5. A KVAL News article about the library
  7. The library's 2009 award from the Library Journal
  8. "Eugene Public Library 25 years old Thursday." (The Register-Guard, Aug. 20, 1931.)
  9. "Public library lists big gain in 1937, report shows." (The Register-Guard, Jan. 23, 1938.)
  10. "New city library to go on site of old, councilment decide." (The Register-Guard, May 10, 1955.)
  11. "Eugene Public Library receives $1.1 million gift." (The Oregonian, The Associated Press, Nov. 15, 2009.)

So that's about it. Seven references. I couldn't find any books. I searched The Register Guard 's archives and there were plenty of results, but each article was of minor importance and way out of date. Is this enough to create an article? Might it be good enough as a stub? Jsayre64 (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about old newspaper articles being out of date, those work great for creating a history of the library, and they still help establish notability. Also, you might try your own public library's website for some online databases you can access using your library card (or if in college try your college's website) which will often provide journal and newspaper articles. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay then, I'll see what I can get. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I have found some newspaper articles and added to the list. Now the list is up to 11. It looks like enough information. What do you think? Jsayre64 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you should be bold! :) For future reference Jsayre, it's great that you found so many sources, but for a pubic institution like a city library just a few is okay for establishing notability. Steven Walling 19:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm not concerned about the notablity; after all, an article about the library was requested on the project page, just sitting there when there could be a good article. I'm just trying to make sure that I get enough information to write a decent article because in my opinion, a topic that's very notable doesn't deserve just a stub article on Wikipedia, and that's what would have probably happened if I had settled for fewer sources. Now I'm seeking a few more thoughts. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I misunderstood. Steven Walling 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I now have an article, User:Jsayre64/Eugene Public Library. I'd appreciate some feedback. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It looks like it is more than ready for a move to main space. Nice work! —EncMstr (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Good, thanks! I've moved it to the mainspace. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

attention: cunning linguists

I need someone to figure out if these edits are an improvement or not. I don't know if it's "the museum" or "the Museum" - I hardly know my nouns and verbs, let alone proper nouns, articles, foobars, etc. tedder (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Just to clarify, all this is based on what grammar and other knowledge I know (I am not the most expert user here, but you have asked for feedback, so I am giving it to you): the first two paragraphs should be written the first way, the third edit didn't ever change so there is nothing to do, the edit to the fourth paragraph sould be reverted, because that's not how a section title is written on Wikipedia, the first version is better for the fifth paragraph, again the first revision is a bit better for the sixth paragraph (but did the art school open in 1936 or 1909? That is unclear.) For the seventh paragraph, the latest edit looks a bit suspicious like the editor has a bias favoring the museum, so I would revert that. Again in the eighth paragraph the latest editor's changes from "museum" to "Museum" and the additions of the adjectives "memorable" and "many well-known," seems to favor or defend the museum. The facts in the ninth paragraph seem to contradict each other, but the first version is referenced so I would probably go with that. For the tenth paragraph, the more concise, later revision is more clear to me as a reader. I would revert the edit in the 11th paragraph for formatting. Perhaps other than the capitalization again in the 12th paragraph, use the latest revision, because you wouldn't normally say, "it toured in..." Instead you would say, "it toured..." The latest revision in the 13th paragraph sounds more clear. And alas, in the 14th paragraph, use the earlier revision, but check if the opening is "official" or not. That may not matter too much, though. Overall, the latest edits are not improvements. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Yup, I think 'museum' should remain lowercase (it's just a noun, not a proper noun), and the section headers should definitely be de-capitalized per MOS:HEAD. As for everything else, I agree with Jsayre64. LittleMountain5 21:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I see there's one more edit since then. The section header should be lowercase, again per MOS:HEAD, and museum should also be de-capitalized. The next three paragraphs sound clearer in the new version. I'm not sure about the last paragraph, the ref is a deadlink. Anyway, that's my two cents. :) LittleMountain5 21:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh great, five edits now on the page that Little Mountain 5 linked to. Darn. They're more than minor edits. And by the same user. And again, they look like the user has a bias. Take a look. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I have a feeling its PAM's marketing person making the changes. I returned the headers to the proper standard and hit a few of the Museums, but yes it should be the museum or the Portland Art Museum. Though I'm sure PAM's style/branding manual would disagree. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey folks, long time no see. I don't have time to look, but this caught my eye, naturally. Here's my two beaver coins... I believe this has come up before in this article. I am against Capitals of Great Metaphorical Significance. PAM's marketers can do whatever they want with their own materials. Ta! Katr67 (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

New question related to unincorporated community

We did COTW on Algoma, Oregon sometime ago. Produced nice little article on that small unincorporated community, but we never found a photo to go in info box. Think I may have found one on Flickr. It requires attribution, but that’s normally usable in Wikipedia. However in this case, there’s another license symbol I've never seen before. Does anyone know what: "Request to license slideshow photos via Getty Images" means and how it affects use of photo for Wikipedia?--Orygun (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Getty request link has no effect on the applicability of the Creative Commons license. Here's the Flickr post introducing the program. Also, be sure to add {{Watermark}} (or just Photoshop it out) when you upload the image to Commons. Steven Walling 17:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It does have the copyright symbol in the image, but perhaps it is better to trust the given Flickr license. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Creative Commons doesn't actually revoke an individual's copyright over the image, it just means that it's more like some rights reserved instead of all. Still, the CC license allows for altering the work, so removing a watermark is kosher. Steven Walling 20:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I see. That makes sense. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a nice weekend!

I hope everyone has a wonderful Labor Day weekend! Weather should be nice. FYI, the List of parks in Portland, Oregon is coming along slowly but surely (Finetooth has taken some great photos--check them out!), so be sure to take pictures if you visit any of the sites on the list as part of your weekend celebration. Enjoy! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! You enjoy the weekend too. =) Steven Walling 17:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
This might not be quite the right place to ask, but I seem to have trouble with images taken in leafy places (like parks) in bright light. The individual leaves often look over-sharpened to me even when I don't sharpen the images. Any thoughts about what might cause this or what I might do about it? Finetooth (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
It might get better if you adjust the resolution on your camera. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

French Pete Trail

I've started a userspace draft about the French Pete Trail, the first-ever mountain valley forest to be added to the Three Sisters Wilderness area. The users in the feedback forum said the notability was questionable. Thoughts? Jsayre64 (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If the question is about serious verifiability, then there are many hiking trails that are described in depth by Gorge hiking guides. If French Pete Trail is in the guidebooks, then it's certainly notable enough as a natural landmark (of sorts). Steven Walling 07:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Whew! That's good, because one of my sources in the article is a hiking guidebook by Bill Sullivan. Another one of the sources is a newspaper article from 1972. Two other sources were added by users who helped me in the feedback forum. So if I move the article to the mainspace at this point, it will probably be added to WikiProject Oregon and marked a stub, right? Jsayre64 (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's what will happen. Be sure to link it from here when you move it to the mainspace. Steven Walling 16:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
You can add it to WikiProject Oregon yourself, just add {{WikiProject Oregon|class=|importance=}} at the top of the talk page when you move it to mainspace. tedder (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Just my 2c, I think this is more than "stub" class, I'd probably rate it "C". Several references, well-wikified, has a map AND and image AND an infobox..looks good!! I'd say, move it on into main space already :) -Pete (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
oops, late to the party, I see! -Pete (talk)
And you have a COI with this trail. After all, look at its name. tedder (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In case you didn't know, I already moved the article to the mainspace, at French Pete Trail. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • What do you mean, Tedder? Is the name not specific enough? Jsayre64 (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I was trying to tease Pete Forsyth, since he shares a name with the trail. tedder (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Problem is: Yobot says the article is an orphan, and it's right. Just one or two other articles link to it, but there's a group of other pages Jsayre64 (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Waterfalls at Silver Falls State Park

Do you think the ten waterfalls at Silver Falls State Park should each have their own article? I was not sure of the notability requirements for waterfalls, or if it would be considered content forking since technically details about each of the waterfalls could be included in the SFSP article. I'd be happy to create the stubs for each, but I wanted to get some feedback before doing so. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be better to just have a section in the Silver Falls State Park article about each waterfall, that is, if there's at least a paragraph, perhaps, to write about each one. I think the waterfalls are too closely related to be written about separately. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Or you could do something like Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park. I don't think each waterfall is notable, but as a whole they definitely are. LittleMountain5 14:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Helpful? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally from what I've seen they are. They are updating the populations and the citation, so that's good, and with Josephine County they eliminated the second mention in the lede of Grants Pass being the county seat. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was going to say. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
And they aren't using bare URLs in the refs, but using full cites. That's better than what I do some of the time! tedder (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Three Sisters Wilderness area

I think the Three Sisters Wilderness article could use some work. Maybe it should be a collaboration. It's fairly short, and there could be much more to add to it with new sections. Through the Forest Service there's paragraph after paragraph of info. about it that's in the public domain online. I've already greatly expanded the "History" section of Willamette National Forest with text that I've cited as PD material from its website. Before, the section was a mere sentence long, so it definitely looks better to me. This convenience also let me use the map for French Pete Trail, which, according to Peteforsyth [:-)] gave the article a better quality grade. Do you guys think we should take advantage of this PD material, or would excessive use of it not be right for Wikipedia and instead we should be writing this ourselves? Jsayre64 (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Restaurants in Portland

I recently started articles for Huber's, Jake's Famous Crawfish, and Portland City Grill, and Aboutmovies created the category Restaurants in Portland, Oregon. Any other notable Portland restaurants that should have their own articles? --Another Believer (Talk) 15:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The Zagat guide might be a good place to poke around for good restaurants with enough source material about them (list here). I'd also make stubs for the Oregonian or Willamette Week's restaurant of the year for the past couple years, which I'm sure you can find in their archives. Steven Walling 19:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I've heard of Blue Hour (French) and Ringside (steak) quite a bit, and Willamette Week is likely a good source too. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure about Blue Hour, but the Ringside definitely. It's been around a long time and is pretty much a Portland institution. Steven Walling 22:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe Clyde's, but you'd have to look at Oregonian archives. Same with Sandy Jug, and the Acropolis. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Started a stub for RingSide Steakhouse. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

After I saw the Virginia Cafe and the VC, it made me remember the VQ that likely would pass as notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Portlandia (TV series)

I started a stub for the upcoming television series Portlandia, in case anyone is interested. Let's hope the show does the city proud! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Aw, it's gonna make all our Oregofornicators homesick! Or maybe not. I expect we will look silly. But hey, let's hope it beats Hello, Larry. --Esprqii (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
For all you youngsters who missed out on the wonder that was Hello,'s a taste...don't miss the money shot of grim-looking late 70's Portland (it's a long way from L.A. you know, Tedder). (P.S. I watched this show only because of my huge crush on Kim Richards). --Esprqii (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This Oregofornication has to stop

HEADLINE: San Francisco claims another WP:ORE star! Congrats to User:Steven Walling, but geez! The wikibraindrain is getting ridiculous! --Esprqii (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I know what you mean. Thanks for the congrats! Steven Walling 01:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Congrats, Steven! --Another Believer (Talk) 04:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Please, will the last one to leave Oregon please turn off the zero-mercury compact fluorescent? tedder (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Good one, tedder. :) Steven Walling 06:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Big congrats to Steven -- he's been down here doing some contract work for several weeks,and it's been awesome working with him. Glad it turned into a fellowship! -Pete (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oregon articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Oregon articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Award tables

What do you guys think of having these tables for The Register-Guard's readers' choice awards? I added the tables about two months ago and now I'm curious if they're revelant enough to the subject or maybe just not worthy of inclusion. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say no to those awards, much as we don't mention every topic the paper has covered. Mentions of those winners would only belong on the subject's article - if it exists. Otherwise, a mention that they do these awards might be in order, but it would belong in the non-existent "coverage" section. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I see. So it would be better to just mention the Market of Choice award on the Market of Choice page, the Eugene Saturday Market award on the Eugene Saturday Market page, if they seem to fit in, and so on. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, then, I'll do that. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling all people with extra free time to answer email ;)

Hey WP:ORE folks. So there is currently something of a backlog of support email to be answered in the English queue in our OTRS system, so new volunteers would be most welcome. If any Oregon Wikipedians would feel comfortable stepping up, I would be glad to support you. If interested, please read Meta:OTRS/info-en recruiting. Steven Walling 20:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

New community articles

I don't recall if we've gone through "what is an unincorporated community" before, but I see that User:E2eamon has started adding a bunch of new unincorporated Oregon communities. Some of them don't really seem like actual communities to me; not that I've heard of every community, but some just sound kind of made up (New Idanha? The old Idanha wasn't big enough??), or seem to be ghost towns. They are all being referenced solely from doesn't seem like a super reliable source. I don't want to squelch the enthusiasm of a new member, but maybe someone can provide some guidance on what is a community. I put a note on the user's page suggesting that another reference in addition to would be a good first step. Anyone else got ideas? --Esprqii (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

New Idanha is in fact real, but I can't find good sources for it and it may not be that notable, so I don't think all these unincorporated communities are notable. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
some significant communities remain unincorporated. In other words, it isn't a good indicator of notability. Perhaps existence of a post office? tedder (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
But maybe there wouldn't be as many sources for information about unincorporated communities as there would for incorporated ones? Jsayre64 (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Are these census-designated unincorporated communities? I'd say the U.S. census is enough to back creation of some small community articles. Steven Walling 00:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
From little I've seen, these are not CDPs, but they all have entries in USGS' GNIS as populated places. Notable? Probably if we had all old newspapers available. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
While making these articles, I was under the impression that all unincorporated communities were notable- mainly from examples like this which are being created en-masse. I would be happy to check them all against USGS GNIS, if that makes them notable...but if not, we will need some sort of consensus about what makes an unincorporated community notable.--E♴ (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest these options: we could judge each type of article's topic notability based on length, the number of sources, or not have any kind of project guideline and just judge notability article by article (probably not the best idea). Jsayre64 (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Normally we like to see a couple of newspaper, book, magazine, etc. mentions of a subject, where the mention is more than about two sentences (WP:NOTE). Communities get somewhat of a free pass, so I'd say if you can write a sourced multi paragraph article on it, it's good. If not, we could create pages that group these communities based on whatever, so that we do get a few good paras. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
We could also do something like "List of unincorporated communities in Oregon." We could provide a description for each one. Nine other U.S. state WikiProjects have that, by the way. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
That's a good idea Jsayre. Steven Walling 03:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The states which have unincorporated lists are Connecticut, Iowa, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. The most useful is Oklahoma which has the most information about the towns: historic notes and sometimes a coordinate. Most others only give the associated county. Washington adds an interesting twist of an associated postal address—probably the post office? —EncMstr (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all the feedback. I guess my concern is that while these places certainly exist--are they really considered "communities" by the people who live there, or by any governmental entity? I dunno. I guess I'd like some context to the names: is it an old name, a neighborhood name, or what is it? Just lumping them all into the "unincorporated communities" seems incomplete and unhelpful. --Esprqii (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The ninth state is Illinois, EncMstr. Anyway, I read this column, and it said this: all populated locales that are unincorporated must be communities, not towns/cities, because towns and cities are always incorporated if they're called towns and cities. The column is kind of confusing, but I'm confident that that's what it's trying to say. So I hope it answers your question, Esprqii. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback, and while I like the idea of a nice looking table, I don't think we should be so quick to get rid of the articles. According to Unincorporated area, an unincorporated community is basically just a populated place that isn't anything more official sounding. If USGS declares them populated places, then they are unincorporated communities. According to WP:DEFACTO (I realize this is an essay), any populated place is notable. If the option is between a couple nice looking, easy to read stubs and a cramped table, I would always vote for the stubs. Plus, stubs leave room for expansion. These aren't the only geo-stubs on wikipedia. This example is showed is hardly the only one... the same user has created 23,000 other, similar stubs. If consensus is to get rid of the articles, I would be happy to work on a table- but I think we should look for the wikipedia consensus on this, not just the wikiproject oregon consensus.--E♴ (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── One difference with examples like Kukuljanovo is that there is probably a sign saying "Welcome to Kukuljanovo!" somewhere. Not that that's the only criterion, but I'm just saying we should have some kind of local recognition for the entity. That said, I am definitely not advocating eliminating these articles. I just think they should be created with more information than a one-liner and a link to I'd really like to know is it a ghost town, a post office, a neighborhood--whatever.--Esprqii (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would a table have to be "cramped"? It would just be a long list. And in the case of Oregon populated places like the Croatian Kukuljanovo, the short description would only be as long as the article now, unless we find something else to say. The table could have photos, a description for each place, and maybe something to show the location in Oregon. There is only so much info. on each place. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I added some more information to the Mayger, Oregon and Mayville, Oregon articles. If this is the sort of thing you are asking for, I would be happy to do it for all of them- It is kind of interesting to dig through the old records.E♴ (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's looking good. Also there is this on Mayger. That one looks interesting. Not sure all of them are going to have that rich history. The ones like Newport Heights, New Idanha, and South Lake Oswego--I just don't think there is any there there. I think JSayre64's table idea could be pretty good: for the ones that have a lot of detail, we just have links out to separate articles. For the ones that maybe don't--they could just be in the list, and expanded if new information is uncovered. We could do a really nice list, maybe similar to List of National Historic Landmarks in Oregon. Some folks around here (like AnotherBeliever) have turned such lists into Featured Lists, which would be great. Just some thoughts. --Esprqii (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw that seems to be some sort of blog or online journal- not sure if it meets WP:RS I also added a bit on Niagara, Oregon I guess I like the idea of a table that links for places with some history. It could be seperated into seperate tables by county, or all in one table- whatever you guys think.E♴ (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I made a quick preview to see what a table would look like...It's at User:E2eamon/oregon unincorperated communities. It would be nice if we could get some pictures off to the right, and another thing I thought about was making lat/long link to google maps or something for that place. Check it out.--E♴ (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we should use a style like in List of National Historic Landmarks in Oregon. And Oklahoma's list of unincorporated communities is also good, with the coordinates and lots of images. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I am fine with articles on these little places, as most do have a history, its just tougher to track it down than it is for say Portland. But, as Esprqii has mentioned, I too really dislike little one sentence stubs. If all we are doing is just repeating one source's information, we are not really adding any value, as in why look at the Wikipedia article if you can get just as much info from the other source? Personally, I don't think we're doing our "job" if we don't have as much info as could be found in the websites found on the first page of any Google search on the topic. That's what make Wikipedia great, we have all the info. So if it is sources you need, this often has a little bit of info on lots of little obscure places, as does Google Books and other like archives of out-of-copyright work. If you want info on Washington County ones, I have a good source for quite a few. Just for examples of little places with roadsigns and nothing else, see Wilkesboro, Oregon and Mountaindale, Oregon and Farmington, Oregon for examples. One great source - if you have access to it - is the Oregonian archives that includes about 1906 to 1972. If you have a Multnomah County library card you do, as well as some other select libraries/universities. Plus Oregon Geographic Names is a good book to have as well. And if you want to write about Tonquin, Oregon in Washington County between Tualatin and Wilsonville, then here's a pic of the old railway station. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
While I understand how itsy bitsy articles might seem to demean Wikipedia, understand that they are starting points for anonymous editors to expand. When Aunt Betty notices that Podunk, Oregon's article fails to mention that it has a Moose grange hall, she can add it. She can't do that if the article doesn't exist. As annoying as the stub is, it also provides a marker on Google Maps (and similar distillations) if it has a proper {{coord}} which also invites the world at large to view and improve the article. —EncMstr (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Right, stubs are meant to be expanded, but as AM said, if the only information about such a place comes from only one source, it's not worth rewording (to avoid plaigiarism) the content of the source to fit it into a Wikipedia article. Instead, if someone wants to look up information about the place, we'll let them read that source alone. Also, if an article does reword all the information from that source, there may be nothing more to add and the article will forever remain a stub unless it's deleted. Like Esprqii has pointed out, so many of these articles are so-called "one-sourced," in this case from Hometown Locator, that their odds for good potential are not so great. This is why I'm proposing a list of all these places, so there aren't numerous articles on each place to which there will be difficulty adding info. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see this has led to List of cities and unincorporated communities in Oregon. Looks good to me. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

E. Max Frye

Need a little help. The subject of the above article has been less than enthusiastic about the entry for several years. He went away for awhile, but now he or someone within his circle is back trying to craft the bio to their liking, which goes a bit against WP:NPOV - not to mention RS with the source they are trying to use. I have now reverted 3 times in the last 5 hours or so, thus I cannot for awhile. So if someone else could keep an eye out for further attempts at removing the sourced content, it would be appreciated. Note, much of the conversation regarding this has been via email with the subject/his people making veiled threats and to go so far as to not only sleuth around on the internet about me but to email my wife who has nothing to do with Wikipedia. So, I'm a little personally involved. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why the article exists at all. IMDB isn't a reliable source (as we all know), and the one Oregonian article is not a profile of the subject per se. I'm going to just PROD/AfD it. Steven Walling 06:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Back in the day I did a more extensive search, and there are a lot of mentions of him in movie reviews, making the topic borderline notable in that there is a good chance there is more extensive coverage during pre-internet times. Now the coverage was rather trivial, and was often not particularly flattering of the subject's writing abilities/the films he wrote, thus why I left those sources/mentions out, as it could be seen as UNDUE. Plus there is the Emmy nomination as well. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Roses in Portland, Oregon

Between its nickname, susceptible climate for growing roses, the various events and landmarks named after or involving roses (International Rose Test Garden, Portland Rose Festival, Rose Garden, etc.), do you think there is enough content to support the article Roses in Portland, Oregon (or something similar)? I think it could make for a fun yet interesting culture-related article for Portland/Oregon. If a new article is not created, the "rose" section here could be greatly expanded, unless that would take away from the importance or relevance of the other nicknames. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Broadway (street)

This poor article, Broadway (Portland, Oregon)‎ was created just over a year ago. It still awaits some TLC, your generous contributions, and support. Please, give generously.  :-)

Seriously though: I searched for notable mentions, but was confounded by being completely saturated by advertisements (Broadway Toyota, Broadway Furniture, etc.). It seems like there would be some notable history of how logs and cattle were once run up the road, or that Teddy Roosevelt followed horses, scooping, in the Grand Floral parade, or some such thing. But I cannot find any. I tagged the article for notability when it was created, but that hasn't helped. Should the scraps of an article be merged somewhere, or simply deleted? —EncMstr (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Found this (Broadway info starts on page 5) in the context of why it should not be renamed. Guess 39th Avenue didn't have as good of a lobby. --Esprqii (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! An impressive find! Pages 5–6 and 9–10 have plenty to develop the article. You want to do it? —EncMstr (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure when I'd get to it. Go fer it if you're so inclined. --Esprqii (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I helped it out a bit, adding another paragraph, citing that document. Still doesn't look like enough though, yet. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Chetco River on the Main Page today

Just a heads up. (And if anyone could watchlist it and revert vandalism as it pops up, I would really appreciate it.) Thanks, LittleMountain5 02:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Template oddity

your notice of collaboration appears on the oregon template. its confusing when the template appears in an article not directly related to the collaborative work, such as here. you might want to fix this (i have no idea how this works).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to help with WikiProject United States

WikiProject United States logo.svg

Hello, WikiProject Oregon/Archive 15! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject United States, an outreach effort which aims to support development of United States related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about template order for bottom templates

Hello. Is there any rule or consensus about what order to place templates that go at the bottom of articles? Like the ones at United States Senate election in Oregon, 2010#External links. Should Template:Oregon_elections go above or below Template:United_States_elections,_2010? TimeClock871 (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's an exact rule, but WP:NAV, although an essay, could help answer some questions. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that helped. It looks like there isn't really a consensus beyond having the most relevant templates on the top. TimeClock871 (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Oregon ballot measures

Someone requested an update to List of Oregon ballot measures. I went ahead and created a stub for Oregon Ballot Measures 68 and 69 (2010). I was about to create stubs for all of the November 2010 ballot measures, but I wasn't sure if it was necessary based on notability and forking rules. Has the creation of stubs for all Oregon ballot measures been discussed at length? I can see the benefit of having separate articles for each measure (or small groups like Ballot Measures 66 and 67), but I don't want to create a bunch of stubs if they are mentioned here and will never be expanded. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are very many ballot measure stubs. Usually when a ballot measure article is started, it tends to get fleshed out pretty well. I wouldn't bother creating stubs for measures which failed, unless they were especially notable. But even for measures which passed, sometimes they just aren't very interesting, like legislative housekeeping measures, etc. —EncMstr (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Oddly enough, the two measures that failed are arguably the most interesting and received the most coverage (the casino- and marijuana-related measures). --Another Believer (Talk) 04:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with EncMstr. I don't like the idea of creating stubs that will never be expanded. Creating articles for the ones with the most regional news coverage would be best, since Wikipedia depends on secondary sources. Some measures are written about all over the newspapers and some are hardly mentioned at all. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about wine

Can someone help out? tedder (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an alcoholic beverage made from fermented grapes. But in all seriousness, I can't help with that edit either. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates

I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{WikiProject United States}}. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Housekeeping of Oregon-related redirects

Just a heads up, if anyone cares about the routine tagging of redirects that point to WP:ORE articles (Category:Redirect-Class Oregon articles), I left a note here: User talk:Koavf#WikiProject Oregon redirect tags. We made this housekeeping decision a while ago, maybe it's time to revisit it. (Here is the text I wrote on the category page: "For redirected Oregon articles that may merit a separate article. See Template:WikiProject Oregon for more information about article classes.") P.S. Discussion continues on my talk page. Valfontis (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

My opinion on this is that, asymptotically, all articles should have at least one project. That includes redirects. I don't know about policy, though, and I'm curious what the consensus among WPOR folks is. tedder (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Aboutmovies went ahead and assessed all the newly tagged redirects as such, so I'd take that as an opinion. I'm cool with that, as long as it doesn't annoy tedderbot, but hopefully we aren't going to put the banner on alternative spellings and the like. Seems like overkill to me. Valfontis (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It would be tedious work if we can't get some 'bot to do it, but if someone's up to it, why not expand the scope of WP:ORE? Jsayre64 (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, right. Tedderbot can do it if it doesn't get exhausted. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Tedderbot's human has worked 12-14 hour days for over three months, but it would be easyish- look up Oregon articles, look up redirects without a project on the talk page, tag 'em. tedder (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The only reason I started tagging those as they were filling up my our un-assessed articles category. Otherwise, I don't think redirects should have article tags unless they are of the variety that could be come articles at some point. For instance, pages that are for typos, old names, common names, and such that will never become articles should not have project tags, IMHO. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we should tag most of the redirects but not all. I don't support tagging redirects that are typos because they were never intended to have been created. But redirects for old names of the same subject should be tagged, in my opinion, since they were meant to be created. Old names of a subject shouldn't be forgotten and after all, some people might still refer to a subject by its old name. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Several questions for discussion. What is the point of tagging "our" articles? For me it mostly is so we can keep an eye on them via our recent changes watchlist. So why tag redirects? I'm only interested in the ones someone might flesh out or split out as an article someday--I'm talking about something like Oregon State Hospital Historic District split out from Oregon State Hospital. Why tag alternate names? Why do we care? I think it could make us look even more territorial than we've already been accused of being in the past. (And BTW, we can always request that any dubious tagged pages be blanked.) Valfontis (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in that I want to do the same thing with WikiProject United States and if you want I would be happy to do a bot request to tag the redirects for your project. I do agree that if there are redirects for typos that we just delete them rather than tag them as redirects but that woudldnt be doable for a bot. Just an additional nickel in addition to my first 2 cents for those folks that only want to tag redirects for ones that might be articles do we know if we have absolutely no visibility of the redirects? --Kumioko (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Re: "articles someday". Well, when I was on here 18 hours a day I kind of kept track of them... I think AM did too. Because they were items in bold that redirected to an existing article. "What links here" is a certain kind of visibility. Valfontis (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Well true but what links here only works if you are on an article and only shows you the ones that apply to that article. There is nothing project wide. Plus its easier to cull out the bad redirects if you have a central way of viewing them. If all the redirects are captured as a class then one can just pull that category in with AWB and look at the list. --Kumioko (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Side note, I don't think typos should be deleted, and in some cases they were intentionally created. Typo redirects serve an important purpose of getting people to the correct page when they may not know the correct spelling (see Willamette River's redirects for a perfect, local example). Aboutmovies (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point, and it makes me realize that there are two kinds of typo redirects: ones that are there for common misspellings and ones that are there simply because, for instance, when an article was created its name was accidentally misspelled and someone searching for the article would be certainly be smart enough not to make the same mistake. Heart in oregon is a good example of this second type of typo redirect, and that Willamette River one is a good example of the first. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Most of he typo redirects date back to before we have the autofind feature in the search box. Now that the search box will automatically home in on the related articles I don't think we need most of them. --Kumioko (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
That presumes that one uses the Wikimedia search function. There are all kinds of third party Wikipedia search facilities, like Yahoo! Answers (when answering a question) which does not use autofind.
According to WP:REDIRECT, external websites often link to old names of articles or outright misspellings: the redirect should not be deleted. In fact, the only reasons for deleting redirects are basically when they cause trouble, which is certainly not the case here. —EncMstr (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Even more reason why we should tag them as redirects rather than leave them scattered throughout the mist. If they are important enough to exist and they have a purpose as you have demonstrated then they should be accounted for by a project. --Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Very well put. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


I am currently working (in my sandbox) on a major overhaul to the article for the Portland Youth Philharmonic (formerly known as the Portland Junior Symphony, and its predecessor being the Sagebrush Orchestra Symphony). Unfortunately, there are not any images at Commons to supplement the article, and I'm afraid image uploading, licensing information, etc. is not my forte. I have found a few images online (here, here, etc.), but I am not sure which ones can or cannot be uploaded due to copyright restrictions. I know there is a Graphics team associated with WikiProject Oregon, so I was hoping that I might receive some assistance with not only determining which images could be uploaded but making sure they are licensed properly. I am determined to get this article to FA status in 2011, so any help with imaging would be much appreciated. By the way, if you are not familiar with the organization and its history, be sure to check it out as it is wonderfully "Oregonian"! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded one, hopefully correctly. Since the picture was taken in 1916, I think it qualifies as PD in the US. Most of the other pictures I am finding, however, are not taken before 1923, so copyright restrictions get a little more tricky... --Another Believer (Talk) 23:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
You can definitely upload photo of newspaper article about Sagebrush Symphony and symphony program from OPB web-site since both were published in 1916. Also, photo of Sagebush Symphony float on OPB web-page probably qualifies since caption says photo was published as a postcard—Sagebrush Symphony was disbanded before 1923 so postcard must have been released before then. On other hand, photo you uploaded probably doesn’t qualify for Wikipedia since there’s no evidence it was actually "published" before 1923. Unpublished photos don’t pass into public domain until 70 years after death of photographer (which requires you know who took photo and when they died) or 120 years after photo was taken.--Orygun (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I went ahead and uploaded the logo as well under non-free media use rationale. I will try uploading additional photos as soon as possible, although the slideshow presentation prevents me from easily saving the pictures to my computer. Do I need to delete the Sagebrush Symphony picture, or notify an admin to do so? My intentions are honest, I just find copyright restrictions confusing... Edit: I requested that the image be removed here. If anyone comes across any PYP-related images that can be uploaded to Wikipedia, please upload them or let me know so that I can. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded Sagebrush Symphony on Fouth of July Float in case you want to use it.--Orygun (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a million! The other image has been deleted. Hopefully I can find more, as this article could use some great imagery! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


Again, I am not familiar enough with image uploading and copyright restrictions to know if these can be uploaded or not, but I am displaying the links here as a reminder for potential future use. I may need to contact the Harney County Library to ask about use, or if any other WP Oregon members are familiar with uploading please feel free to take a stab! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That 5th image from the Sagebrush Symphony gallery is certainly uploadable (is that a word? :-) ), because it was published as a postcard in 1916. It would be eligible for the {{PD-1923}} copyright tag. The 6th image from the gallery most likely would be accepted, but only if it was actually published. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
So images can be uploaded without contacting the Harney County Library? I'm all about being bold, but I'm also all about staying legal. :) One would think there would be plenty of free images out there for an organization with a hundred year history and thousands of members, but surprisingly there are not too many out there. I am hoping to hit a jackpot and then fill the Commons category with dozens of images to choose from. Be prepared for featured article status in 2011! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
If an image was published within the U.S. before 1923 it is automatically in the public domain. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Statesman Journal anyone?

Anyone have access to the SJ's archives? Lots of university's have it via their library websites (usually part of an all newspapers database). If so, could someone see if "Babies stole the show at county fair", Statesman Journal, Sally Ho, Jul 13, 2008, p.C.1 supports the assertion that Jacob Young is a former Tillamook resident? Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Yikes, when did the SJ get pulled from the Multnomah Cty Library's Newsbank archive?? -Pete (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
UO Libraries can't find it either. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Salem Public Library still has it: Anyone besides me have a Chemeketa Cooperative Regional Library Service card? Here's the proof: "Actor Jacob Young served as the sole male judge, among five female judges. After the contest, Young spoke to a crowd of 100 about growing up in the Northwest in Tillamook, and playing J.R. Chandler on the soap opera 'All My Children'." Hope that helps. Valfontis (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I technically have one, but since it wasn't issued in Salem it doesn't work for that database. And yes, that helps. Now the important and monumental task of citing that this important figure in Oregon history/culture is indeed from the great metropolis of Tillamook, Oregon (nestled along the scenic Oregon Coast) can commence. Though maybe it should be a COTW. Thank you 'mam. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmph. What good is a regional library if you can't use your card throughout the region? It looks like OHSU has access and WSU (!) and the UO (Go Ducks!) have access for the S-J archives through 2002. WOU might have access, I can't tell... Yer welcome. Valfontis (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, I gotta know. How did you *find* who has access?? -Pete (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Google-Fu. "statesman journal" +library +database. I didn't actually look all that carefully, there might be more. Valfontis (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Another redirect question

I've written a new short article on Irving Park in Portland and added a hat note saying that readers might be looking for Irving Park, Chicago. The Irving Park, Chicago, article has an associated redirect that send readers automatically to the Chicago article when they key in Irving Park. What should I do? Should I create a disambiguation page listing the two possibilities? What's the best thing to do with the current Irving Park redirect? I'm guessing that I should change it to redirect to the disambiguation page (after I create it). Have I got this right? Finetooth (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd just be bold and edit the existing Irving Park redir so that it becomes a dab page. (And you should probably collapse the Irving Park (CTA) station dab page into the new dab page while you're at it.) --Esprqii (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Good suggestions. Should I name the new article Irving Park (Portland) or Irving Park, Portland, rather than Irving Park?
Finetooth (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The park article should probably be Irving Park (Portland), or maybe even Irving City Park, which looks like the official name. The dab should just be Irving Park. BTW, I'd do a Wikipedia search on Irving Park because there are several more that could also go in the dab: Irving Nature Park, Washington Irving Memorial Park and Arboretum, Irving Park Road, all the Irving Park transit stops, maybe even R. Irving Parkes! --Esprqii (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Very helpful advice. Here's the new dab and the new article, Irving Park (Portland). Finetooth (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to rain on all y'all's parade, but wouldn't the naming conventions say it should be at Irving Park (Portland, Oregon)? Valfontis (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Where do the conventions live? I see some park article titles in the form X (City, State), as you suggest, but I also find other forms such as Central Park, Louisville, and Central Park (Ottawa). I don't have a personal preference. Finetooth (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Admitting now to not reading any of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), the link might help. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Per the conventions: "The canonical form for cities, towns and census-designated places in the United States is Placename, State (the "comma convention")." I don't think Portland rates as a stand-alone, as it is still at Portland, Oregon. Don't want to piss off Maine, England, etc. Valfontis (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The ones that stand alone are listed here. tedder (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha! I've made a page move to Irving Park (Portland, Oregon), updated the link on the dab page and the Portland Parks page, and filed the guidelines link for future reference. Thanks, all. Finetooth (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fantastic! This makes me want to take another stab at List of parks in Portland, Oregon (Which, by the way, I am still considering re-naming to "Portland Parks & Recreation" or "List of Portland Parks & Recreation sites" since a general "parks" list seems ambiguous. Define "park"? Portland Parks & Recreation operates community gardens, schools, centers, golf courses, trails, pools, etc. Plus the list is likely to be too long with PP&R sites alone--it will be even longer after adding non-PP&R parks.) by creating stubs, filling in tables, and adding additional images. Unfortunately, the weather is not very inspiring this time of the year. I motion a Portland Parks Photo Drive and/or Collaboration of the Week in late-spring? the-most-likely-ideal-time-of-the-year-as-recommended-by-Oregonians/Portlanders-that-have-lived-here-longer-than-I 2011! :) --Another Believer (Talk) 02:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Would something like "List of city parks in Portland, Oregon" be better? A note might explain that "city parks" do not include federal, state, regional, county, or private parks in the city. Finetooth (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Or gardens, trails, pools, etc. It might be easier to list all of the exclusions than to make the title explain all. Finetooth (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Fun fact: The guy why made the original Irving Park redirect back in '06 is Portland resident, WikiWednesday wonder, and Chicago expat Ted Ernst. One suggestion -- instead of organizing the dab page by place, my inclination would be to provide headings like "parks", "transit stations", and "neighborhoods". Also, the use of wikilinks within descriptive phrases on those pages is discouraged..I believe you'll find that somewhere on WP:DAB. Regardless, nice job cleaning up this little knot of articles! -Pete (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've re-organized the dab page using your headings, Pete, and you are quite right about the wikilinks. Thanks for removing them. MOS:DABENTRIES says, "Each entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line." Finetooth (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Portland Parks & Recreation

FYI: It's just a stub for now, but I think this illustrates the need for an article for Portland Parks & Recreation. I am sure there are additional articles that need to be linked to PP&R, and of course there will be many more created in the future. Feel free to help expand the article or add helpful links to the talk page! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Very good point AB! I'll try to pitch in a bit. -Pete (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sheridan peer review

I notice that Sheridan, Oregon is listed for peer review. Just wanted to let you all know. tedder (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Portlandia: TV and great video

There's a new TV show called Portlandia coming soon. Most notably, there is a must-watch musical promo for it. Do yourself a favor and go watch the video. tedder (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I love the promo! Hope the show does well. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Expanding unincorporated community articles

I've recently been expanding some of the articles about unincorporated communities in Oregon created by E2eamon (talk · contribs). I've gotten past Millwood. I've also already expanded Mayger and Mayville. The source for information has primarily been Oregon Geographic Names and occasionally there's some website that tells a bit about each community. If anyone wants to help that would be great. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to introduce myself Jsayre, I don't think we've actually "met". Thanks for the expansions and the interest in my favorite topic! As you can see I have a thing for articles about small towns. I tend to overcommit and underprovide, so I can't promise anything, but I'll probably help out with those stubby stubbys now and again. Cheers! Valfontis (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Nice to meet you too. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I couldn't bear to read that entire recently archived thread generated by E2asmon's contributions, but in my world anything listed by USGS as a populated place counts as an unincorporated community, and thus "notable" enough for a Wikipedia article. Anything listed as a "locale" needs some decent sourcing and some incoming links to have an article. And it has to have a dot or label on a map. That's my unoffical policy. Seems to have worked for folks so far. Seems like once an article was created for a placename that was actually just a school and not a town. That's the only one I would like to have seen deleted as it was completely non-notable, even by podunk standards. Valfontis (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I've now made it through McKee on the list, not quite halfway through the list. I'm getting the feeling that none of the rest were ever expanded by E2eamon besides the sentence used to introduce each one. That seems pretty likely. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Cool! BTW, I'd nix the hometownlocator links in favor of GNIS, upon which, I believe it is based but best to go directly to the source. Valfontis (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I've also heard that ORHometownLocator isn't reliable for Wikipedia standards. Some of the stubs cite USGS instead, but I realize they're saying exactly the same thing. It could be that the USGS info. is being copied to Hometown Locator. And the latter is nice because it provides a map (from Google) as well. If they won't be tagged for notability, going through all of 'em again to change sources but not info. feels like a waste of time. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Clicking on the USGS ref provides an assortment of maps (my favorite includes the topo in Google maps) as does clicking on the coords on the Wikipedia article, so I don't see the use of hometown locator. I don't think they are going to get tagged for notability, since as discussed earlier, communities more or less get a free pass (as long as they actually exist). If they do, let me know--I'm pretty good at rescues. But it's rare that it happens. They do sometimes get speedied--see Surf Pines, Oregon. I wouldn't go through all of them again, but I like to fix them as I go along, that is, if I'm fixing something else in the article. Thanks again for all your hard work! Valfontis (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. So for the rest I review, I'll switch the source and continue expanding (I hope some improve to start-class rating, although unlikely). Jsayre64 (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I found one that has questionable notabilty: Modeville, Oregon. It's a populated place per USGS, so I wouldn't delete it, but I wouldn't have created it either. Nothing in OGN. Nothing online. There might be something at the Polk County Historical Society. Likely it was a hops station/camp, but I've been there, and there ain't no there there (current or former school, grange, store, church, etc.--just a collection of houses). BTW, here's that school article: Muddy Creek School it was formerly at Muddy Creek, Oregon. I would vote to delete this, but I need a second opinion because of past issues with another editor who said it was "real" (see page history). Valfontis (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm… I don't know. Like Modeville, Marlene Village had nothing good on a Google search and isn't mentioned in OGN either. But in contrast, Marshland had a page of info. from City-Data.Com, an entry in OGN, and even a free image from USGS, which I uploaded. Unless there's a Wikipedia policy on the notability of unincorporated communities (which I believe there isn't, per previous discussion), we'll need consensus about what to do. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
No no, there's nothing that needs to be done. It was just an example. Unincorporated communities pretty much get a free pass. Just pointing out an article that may not have had a compelling reason for creation. Valfontis (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, okay… I misunderstood. :-) Jsayre64 (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done I have at last finished this project, expanding all community articles on E2's list that had something reliable come up in a Google search or that had an entry in Oregon Geographic Names. About half of these articles had their source switched to USGS GNIS. And I see that, Valfontis, you have pitched in a bit as well. Thanks! Jsayre64 (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oregon: End of the Trail

I just wrote a typically wordy post about this, then managed to crash my browser in an attempt to find the answer. In a nutshell, the search function no longer works for the "read online" version of Oregon: End of the Trail here. Does anybody who uses this resource have a workaround (different browser or ???) besides searching the Google books version or using a hardcopy? Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have used the "read online" function a couple of times; I forget what for. I've never used the search function. I tried it just now, searching for "Willamette", and it seemed to work OK. The results appeared as little yellow teardrops along the bottom of the search page. They are rollovers, it turns out. Does that help? Finetooth (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
What browser are you using? I found Firefox didn't work even before, but Explorer did. Lately in Explorer I get a popup saying no such thing was found, even on terms I know are in there, like Hardman. Thanks for the tip on the rollovers, I will check it out and report back. Valfontis (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I was using Firefox. Finetooth (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. The Internet Archive folks have been testing a new "books in browsers" technology for a while, and it looks like maybe it's launched? So I suspect one of two things: either Internet Explorer is not supported by the new software, or there's a bug they're not aware of. Valfontis, could you tell me exactly what version of IE you're using? I can pass it along to somebody over there and get a better idea what's going on. -Pete (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
p.s. The new software really is terrifically cool, I hope they're not freezing out IE users! -Pete (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually a Firefox user, but found that the old search function worked better in iE (of which I have the newest version, I think). I tried searching "Willamette" in both browsers and got the yellow teardrop things as promised. But searching on any of the terms I had previously found--like Robinette, Pinehurst, Cushman, a no go. Strangely enough, the term "Lime" worked but it was also found in several spots in the generic (mineral) usage. And it's not case-sensitive. Maybe there is a critical mass threshold for number of mentions? Since the book is most useful to me for finding things that are only going to be mentioned once, I'm still frustrated. Valfontis (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Could it be bad textifying/OCR of the scans? Seems unlikely, since you searched on so many different terms, but possible. Also, I'm a little distressed to find that there's no (obvious) way to toggle into text mode, or to select/copy text. Hmm. -Pete (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Very strange. The search engine finds "paleontological" and "compiled", each of which appears only once in Oregon, End of the Trail, but it does not find Robinette. Finetooth (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I see FARMINGTON in the book, just where you said it would be in your citation, but the search engine does not find it. I tried fooling around with the all-caps, but that did not help. The search engine doesn't find BEAVERTON either, but I see it in the book. Finetooth (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Weird. Well, the PDF version takes a long time to load (it's 84 megabytes!), but once it's finished the search feature works fine: (Hardman, p. 262; Robinette, p. 286; Pinehurst, p. 441, etc). LittleMountain5 22:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Searching the online version doesn't work on Google Chrome either. LittleMountain5 22:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Due to a bug, only the first 364 pages of this book were indexed into the full-text search engine. We'll reindex this book as soon as possible. A bug report has been filed in launchpad. Thanks! Rajbot (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Rajbot, thanks for the quick (and on-wiki, even!) response to my inquiry! I'm sure we'll all get lots of mileage out of a fully indexed version of this book, much appreciated! -Pete (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't tried the archived publication until now. It works fine on Firefox 3.5.15 on Linux Fedora 12. I found some discontinuities in the page slider (the timeline-like bar at the bottom). All seems fine from the beginning to page 448, then it has an extra segment beginning with "532 of 686" where 449 should appear. 532 through 547 are contiguous, and then 449 continues afterward. There is some more peculiarity at the right where page 649 trails 549. The first 539 is different from the second 539, and it seems like the rest is unique too. Pete, if this is useful, maybe you can pass this along too? —EncMstr (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Portland vice scandal

I'd like to notify this project that I just started an article on a Portland scandal in 1912 revolving around the contemporary gay subculture. There's a lot more to be said about the topic, so please expand to your heart's content! — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 10:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Bingham Springs, Oregon

There is this awesome 1899 ad for the resort at Bingham Springs. I have no patience for copyright stuff--would anyone like to upload it to Commons and stick it in the article? I assume it's public domain but I don't know the rules for things on the UW library website. Valfontis (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well since it says it was published in an American journal in 1899 it qualifies for {{PD-1923}}, so I uploaded it to Commons and put it in the article. --Jsayre64 (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you! Valfontis (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks good! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

New Year's treats for train and river buffs

Surprising even myself, who is given to writing loads of stubs on unimportant Podunks, I've managed to start up a couple Start-/C-Class, Mid-Importance articles that may be of interest to those of us obsessed with into trains and rivers or weather events. Red Electric and Christmas flood of 1964. Both span a lot of territory (one even covers that state every seems to be defecting to), so be sure to link them up if they bear mention in one of your subject areas. The weather WikiProject folks mentioned adding photos to the flood article--likely there's some public domain government-produced images that could be found. And since the railway folded in 1929, I'd guess just about anything would be in the PD. Anyway, words are my forté, not images, so feel free to decorate as you see fit. The flood article might not be at the right name--I'll check in with the weather folks about it. Happy New Year! Valfontis (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. The Red Electric pops up here and there all the time. I'll scrounge around to see if I can find anything to add. Happy New Year! Finetooth (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration with the Wine Project on Oregon wine articles?

Hello! For 2011 the Wine Project is doing a new Wine Improvement Drive where each month we focus on an area of articles that relate to a particular theme. In January, we are are ringing in the New Year with New World wine, with a focus on the wines of the Northern Hemisphere-Canadian wine, American wine and Mexican wine. I am going by related projects to see if there is any interest in collaboration between this project and the wine project on the subject of Oregon wine.
Some suggestion on potential article creations include bios on historical Oregon wine figures such as Henderson Luelling, Richard Sommer, Dick Erath, Peter Britt, etc. Another idea would be creating articles on notable wineries such as Ponzi Vineyards, Adelsheim Vineyard, Bethel Heights Vineyard, Youngberg Hill Vineyards, Argyle Winery, Bergström Wines, Cristom Vineyards, Domaine Serene. On a smaller scale, there are Oregon wine related articles that could use some help with clean up or expanding beyond a stub such as the articles on International Pinot Noir Celebration, David Lett, Oregon Wine Board, Valley View Winery, Applegate Valley AVA, Chehalem Mountains AVA, Dundee Hills AVA, Eola-Amity Hills AVA, McMinnville AVA, Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon AVA, Ribbon Ridge AVA, Umpqua Valley AVA, Yamhill-Carlton District AVA. In particular are a few Oregon wineries whose articles could use a bit of help in establishing notability with references that will pass WP:GNG such as Willamette Valley Vineyards, Bridgeview Vineyard and Winery and Foris Vineyards Winery.
And, of course, of HUGE help would be the upload of free use photos of Oregon wineries, wines and wine regions to Commons that could be used to better illustrate Oregon wine articles. If you're interested in helping, please drop a note at the Wine Project's talk page with the article you're interested in helping with. Thanks and have a great New Year! AgneCheese/Wine 01:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to contribute to any Oregon winery articles as they are often deleted. The notability threshold seems especially high for this subject area. I realize the winery articles often attract self-promotional efforts (see, for example, King Estate Winery), but even the good-faith efforts of those of us unaffiliated with the wine industry (except as consumers) are looked at with suspicion. And List of Oregon wineries and vineyards was gutted and probably should be addressed as well--perhaps merge it into Oregon wine. That said, holler at me if anyone wants to start an article on any Spring Valley wineries (Cristom, Bethel Heights, Witness Tree, Stangeland...) and I'll help out. Valfontis (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Well WP:WINERY notability usually comes down to WP:SIGCOV which is certainly not an unassailable standard to reach. The ones I listed above are ones that just off the top of my head, I know that I've seen dedicated coverage pieces on in places Wine Spectator, Wine Enthusiast, Northwest Wine Press, Wine Business Monthly, etc that certainly pass the WP:SIGCOV threshold. As for the Spring Valley wineries, I'd be skeptical about Strangeland with Witness Tree borderline. However, I have no doubt that articles on Cristom Vineyards or Bethel Heights Vineyard would have enough reliable sources to create worthwhile articles. I mean Bethel Heights has the connection to Master of Wine David Lake and then there was the Cellar Crawl that both Cristom and Bethel participated in that got a lot of Wine Press for its showing at IPNC as well as being a fundraiser for Parkinson research because of Terry Casteel. (That's also some fruitful material for DYK). If you're willing to help, especially with photo graphs of the Eola-Amity Hills AVA and the wineries, I'll be glad to help with producing AfD-proof articles. AgneCheese/Wine 22:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ten Celebration

Out of curiosity, has the Pacific Northwest ever held a major Wikipedia event? This had me wondering. I had the pleasure of recently visiting the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco for a project, and had a blast doing so. Hopefully an event will be held in Portland, Seattle or Vancouver BC soon! (By the way, I still haven't made it to a ... WikiWednesday?.... are they still being held? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiWednesday happens every week! Be there! And the birthplace of wiki, Portland really must hold a 10 event. There has been some discussion of this on the Google group list which you are also invited to join but we need to step up on this. --Esprqii (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! I absolutely must get more involved. I am not familiar with this Google group--I'll check it out. In the meantime, if anyone else has suggestions or ideas for a potential "Ten" event, do share! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
It does indeed sound exciting! I only wish I lived just a bit closer. :( extransit (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, we're having a one day unconference in SF and then an afterparty, and you're all welcome to come. Ward will be delivering a keynote, and it should be pretty good. I think my friend Mark (works on and helps out at WikiWednesdays) may be carpooling down, so if you're interested be sure to sign up on the Google Group (or ask me and I can give you his contact info). The SF event listing is here. Steven Walling 04:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


See tenwiki:Portland. Looks like this user is trying to organize something. Steven Walling at work 18:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I realize it's short notice, but something is telling me that a Portland celebration is necessary. Any help would be greatly appreciated. As Wikipedia has shown us, the efforts of many can bring about far greater fruits than the efforts of one. T.E. Apollonius 18:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I just came here to post the link as well. Thanks for beating me to the punch, Steven! --Another Believer (Talk) 00:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Exploding whale — Featured Article Review

I have nominated Exploding whale for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

*Sentimental moment* ...this was one of the first Oregon-related FAs. (The first??) It seems it may have been the only one when I first got involved in this project. Oddly enough, I don't think I've interacted with any of the early contributors, or those who discussed it in the initial FAC. Anyway..I see a couple project members have already started neatening it up..hope it makes the cut! -Pete (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's that time of year again--new mayors

Happy New Year! Time to update the mayors for the 242 or so cities of Oregon. The Oregon Blue Book is a good source: [1]. They have updated the Salem mayor (and I did so in the article), so I'm assuming most of the listings are accurate, though dates of swearing in may vary. Last time we had to resort to checking some county's election websites. Also last year we found it made sense to update by county vs. by alphabet and there was a fancy collapsible section to track who did what. An organized effort eliminates the hazards of random anon additions over the next few months that may include undetected joke edits. Feel free to organize this year's mayoral update drive! P.S. Be sure to deploy <nowiki></nowiki> tags if the non-notable mayor has the same name as someone else on Wikipedia (the infobox automatically links these). Valfontis (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I did Crook County, whose only city is Prineville... Valfontis (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Sherman County is done. Valfontis (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Morrow County is done except Ione and Irrigon--contradictory info and poor press coverage on those... Valfontis (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Spruce Goose article title

Just a notice that I brought up the title of Hughes H-4 Hercules on its talk page: Talk:Hughes_H-4_Hercules#Article name (again)

The article's title was discussed a while back, but I think the wrong conclusion was reached. Take a look if you're so inclined, my comment on the talk page hasn't drawn a lot of attention. -Pete (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked, but I don't think I want to argue with the airplane people. Besides, didn't Howard Hughes hate the name? We should defer to dead multi-millionaires, always. ;) Valfontis (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Stash Tea Company

This is up for proposed deletion. Surely it's notable per WP:CORP? Currently the article lacks reliable independent third-party sources. Valfontis (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Need an admin to do a move for Oregon International Airshow

Yes check.svg Done EncMstr (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Earlier someone went in and updated the article to Oregon International Air Show, which is now the correct title per the event's website. Unfortunately they went in and updated the re-direct, so I could not move the article to Oregon International Air Show. Could an admin delete Oregon International Air Show, and then move the article there? I'll take care of the other wording issues. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollin' over the ol' WP:OREdometer

Checking the list of WP:ORE articles, I see that today we're just under 9,900 articles tagged in Wikipedia Oregon project. Looking at history, thanks to Tedderbot, I'd say we're likely roll over to five figures sometime in the middle of next month. Pretty impressive pace, 0 to 10,000 in four and a half years! (And say, whatever happened to Our Creator, User:PDXblazers?)

What will be the 10,000th article? Should we have a celebration? How about we make the 10,000th article the Collaboration of the Week and see if we can beef it up as much as possible--no matter what it is. I just hope you're all to speed on flowering plants. Anyway, it could be a fun challenge.... --Esprqii (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

PDXblazers deserves special appreciation. But his talk page is inactive in more than two years and he hasn't edited in twice that much time! As for our future 10,000th article, we've got to make it about something extra special that we haven't covered yet (there's got to be something). And yes, I say of course collaborate on it. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I like that idea Jsayre64...everybody study your wish lists: requirements are an article that doesn't exist that is nonetheless "extra special." What have we missed? Maybe something from the redlink list?? --Esprqii (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Spruce Production Division? I know that was on User:Valfontis's (the artist formerly known as...) to-do list at one point. It has railroads, war, politicians, lumber, lawyers... Somebody else throw out some nominees and we'll vote decide by consensus of course. --Esprqii (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Two from my list are the fantastic Portland Bottling Company building or the Colored School. Tons of resources on the former, higher importance on the latter. Who wants to buy my vote? tedder (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Mildly important one.[2] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's a meta-one that might be fun: Charles Henry Carey, author of History of Oregon, which many of us have cited around here... --Esprqii (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
One that would have a lot of incoming links, Roseland Theater/Roseland Theatre; and one that would the first of its type for the project and is I'm sure the largest of its type in Oregon, Portland Fire Bureau - or whatever it is actually named. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't suppose WP:ORE is itself notable? Pfly (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Another one from yesteryear, J.K. Gill Co.. Or something from here - though I don't know if those are already counted in the article count. Whichever we go with, we might want to finalize our selection soon and start working on it in user/project space. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, we're up to 9,955 articles, moving in on the 10K mark...let's !vote on the nominees we have so far, plus one more I've been thinking of. Summaries are mine, please feel free to clarify if I missed the point:

  • Charles Henry Carey: early 20th century Portland lawyer and judge, author of "History of Oregon"
  • Colored School: 1860s-era segregated school for black children in Portland; closed when schools were integrated in 1870s (see Portland Public Schools (Oregon))
  • J.K. Gill Co.: book and office supply business founded by pioneer Joseph K. Gill
  • Bill Naito: Portland businessman and philanthropist, namesake of Naito Parkway, affected by Japanese American internment in World War II
  • Portland Bottling Company: iconic building in northeast Portland
  • Portland Fire Bureau: Portland fire department
  • Roseland Theater: concert venue in Portland, Oregon
  • Reuben Sanders: Native American football player and athlete in early 20th century
  • Spruce Production Division: World War I-era military unit for the production of spruce lumber for airplane construction (has lots of redlinks)

So how about everybody !vote for 3 below, and then we'll have a final round of !voting? --Esprqii (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? --Esprqii (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I almost think I remember JK Gill. But PBC, Spruce Production, and Colored School (duh, my suggestion) are my picks. Of course, working 14-hour days doesn't leave me much time to research. tedder (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not ranking these as most important first, but I pick: 1) Spruce Production ÷, 2) Roseland Theater-- archives of newspaper/magazine coverage will be loaded, and 3) Colored School-- one of the oldest Portland elementary schools and notably a racist one (that's not good, though). Jsayre64 (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
My vote is for the Roseland and Spruce Production. Don't have a third. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll !vote for Reuben Sanders, Charles H. Carey, and SpruceProdDiv. Let's keep the !voting open through Friday 10/22/10 11:59:59 PDT. --Esprqii (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────OK, final three; choose one before Friday November 5 23:59:59 PDT:

  • Spruce Production Division
  • Portland Colored School
  • Roseland Theater

--Esprqii (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  1. Spruce Production Division. --Esprqii (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep, Spruce is my vote too. Let's just do it. Do you have sources? tedder (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, this would be a main source, and there are a whole bunch of photographs here that are public domain, and something like this would be great. For the rest see what came up here. Picking Spruce would be fine with me. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Yay, WP:IAR! I created a workspace for it here. When we get to the magic rollover number or thereabouts, there's probably no way to ensure it is exactly the right number (hint hint, challenge to tedder), we can move it to the main space and continue digging away at it. I have some sources too, somewhere. --Esprqii (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, could one of the collaborator-wranglers--AM or AB--update the collaboration notice with our very special episode of WP:COTW? --Esprqii (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I can ensure the magic number- I'll just run the /admin bot every hour or so as we get close. As long as one of us is nearby, we can quickly move the article to mainspace and be sure it was the 10kth article. Either that or we have to have it be "late" but delete a few articles. Heh. tedder (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
We'll have to delete more than a few. Looks like we're already up to 10,012! Jsayre64 (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Yah, someone added a bunch of SOU football coaches, so Al Simpson is the official 10,000th article. Oh well. Let's still make SPD the commemorative article. --Esprqii (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Not trying to steal any thunder from those of you who've been collaborating on Spruce Production Division, but I just uploaded a rather substantial article on Bill Naito, a topic that was in the list of candidates earlier. I'd been planning to write such an article for about a year now, but only finally got around to doing it over the past few days. Although it's already longer than the SPD draft at present, I'm certainly not suggesting it be substituted for SPD as the commemorative article, but I thought it was worth a mention here, FYI. SJ Morg (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the COTW to mainspace as Spruce Production Division. I moved the sections "Notes," "Other bits", etc. to the talk page. Nice work, everyone! Jsayre64 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, nice work to everyone involved! This makes up for my disappointment at not being able to work on an article for Oregon's 6th congressional district. Oh well, next decade. Anyway, Jsayre64, do you want to submit the DYK entry? Anybody want to let the Signpost people know? Woohoo! --Esprqii (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I submitted a DYK entry (hopefully correctly) at Template talk:Did you know. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I just made a small correction (I think "aircraft" is the plural) and added the one discussed on the talk page as an alternate. --Esprqii (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I also made a recommendation for the Signpost to include the article in their WikiProject Report here. I invited the Signpost folks to interview us… is everyone OK with that? Jsayre64 (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The suggestion was rejected because WP:ORE members were interviewed in July 2009. Oh well. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Arlington, Oregon

So is it time to remove the naughty mayor scandal from the article? I think it is, per WP:NOTNEWS but I wanted to get some input, per WP:NOTCENSORED. You may continue the discussion at Talk:Arlington, Oregon. Valfontis (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Similar but not-as-dramatic problem here and discussion about it. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)