Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

Portland Architectural Heritage Timeline

For you architecture fans--an interesting resource using Dipity, created by the Bosco-Milligan Foundation. Valfontis (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Looked through it, and my hipster Brooklyn coworker loved it too. tedder (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Dufur School

Can some folks help me out on this? I'm confused by this edit summary; unless I'm missing something, these are the same school, and a redirect should suffice. I'm happy to be wrong, though. tedder (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

They sure do look like the same school building. Dufur School is a K-12. I think that editor wanted an article for the high school part of the school, which I don't think is a good idea. Information about the high school belongs in the Dufur School article and Dufur High School should be a redirect. I'll go ahead and make these changes. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Main Page appearance

List of Oregon state symbols will be appearing on the Main Page as the main page featured list on October 24, 2011. If you see improvements that could be made to the list before then, feel free to update or discuss on the talk page. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 00:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! I'll take a look at the list and see if I can improve it. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Yay! Jsayre64 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest

WP:NRHP is having a Fall Photo Contest running from Oct. 21-Dec. 4, 2011. I'd like to encourage anybody who enjoys photography, as well as anybody who is interested in historic places to participate as a photographer, a sponsor, or both.

One way that an individual editor or a project can participate is to sponsor their own challenge. For example, somebody here might want to include a challenge such as "A barnstar will be awarded to the photographer who adds the most photos of previously non-illustrated Oregon NRHP sites to the Oregon county lists." To sponsor a challenge all you need to do is come up with an idea, post it on the contest page, and do the small bit of work needed to judge the winner(s).

Any and all contributions appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallbones (talkcontribs) 21:17 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we offer a WPOR barnstar to the contributor that uploads the most images of previously unillustrated NRHP sites in Oregon. One point per newly photographed site (10 pics of one site does not earn 10 points, etc.) Other ideas? No harm in encouraging Oregonians to carry around their cameras! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Another R-G mention

The Register-Guard columnist Bob Welch once again commented on our work. He finds our Oregon-related lists full of interesting factoids. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That article brought me many tears and laughs. Accordingly, I have updated the Oregon whitewater list. I think I'll send him a note too! —EncMstr (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Good find. It's great to read an article that describes Wikipedia as a useful, rather than the usual complaints about inaccurate info. His complaints about gaps in coverage are definitely legit...we'll get there eventually! Let us know if he replies to your email, Enc! --Esprqii (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing. I have seen article talk pages that display when that article was discussed in the press--can this be done with some of the articles or categories mentioned? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if Template:Online source is appropriate or not. Perhaps it is reserved for more official referencing or extended coverage. This article is mainly a list of observations and brief commentary. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The last time this happened, the Eugene article was the main subject of the column; this time it's comments about a wide variety of the project's work. Maybe we could ask him (since he seems to be interested in Wikipedia) to give us some in-depth comments about the Oregon-related Wikipedia articles that interest him? Jsayre64 (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
@Esprqii: Bob replied by email, but just to request an in-person interview. I explained I would not let him publish my IRL identity, or anything which could be traced, but I don't think he gets it. Perhaps it lends credence to Finn-jd-john's theory about old media not accepting handles. —EncMstr (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Any interest in taking this on, JSayre? It was your find. Otherwise, Enc, you can give him my email address (let me know if you don't have it) and I'd be happy to talk to him on behalf of WP:ORE. And be assured that I wouldn't use the opportunity like some people to use my spokesman role as a springboard to moving to Cali (been there, done that). I'll even reveal my true identity as a 14-year-old girl in Scotch Plains, New Jersey. Or is it an 88-year-old retiree in Boca Raton? We'll have to see how Bob and I get along. --Esprqii (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 :) --Another Believer (Talk) 16:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I sent Welch a note last time and here's what it said:

Dear Mr. Welch,
I saw your recent column about Wikipedia ("Wikipedia for Eugene in question") and I thought I could answer some questions as a Wikipedia editor myself. I'm involved in a Wikipedia project dedicated to improving articles related to Oregon. We appreciate your feedback on the Eugene article. You mentioned, for example, how the coverage of anarchy may be too thorough, and how there are environmental issues missing coverage. Our Oregon group has been discussing this and you're completely welcome to as well. You're also encouraged to address the problems you have found, if you can. Wikipedia tells editors to be bold in making changes.

He replied that he'd do these things once he had the time. I think it would be fun for the project to be interviewed on this page. Even better, imagine the R-G publishing a newspaper column interviewing WikiProject Oregon! Jsayre64 (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Willamette River FA

Congratulations to Jsayre64, who succeeded today in getting Willamette River across the finish line to FA. I'm especially impressed because I had given up on this one and drifted into an eddy to take a nap. The article's development was a team effort spread over years. Shannon1, who made a lot of earlier contributions, may have drifted into another eddy. It took someone bold and energetic to finish the job. Finetooth (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! I have not read the article in its entirety but it makes another beautiful addition to WP Oregon and the encyclopedia. Well done! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Awesome work Jsayre64! The elephant in the living room is now respectable and worthy of visitors! —EncMstr (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
That's an amazing and impressive feat, congrats! It will be a great addition to the wikiproject's growing collection. Cheers, LittleMountain5 22:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you all for the kind words! Jsayre64 (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Way to go, JS! Nice work on an important topic. Now go get that Triple Crown... --Esprqii (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Help a researcher?

Hi all, Last week I did a brief interview with researcher Haiyi Zhu. She has been doing focused research on online collaboration, in her graduate work at Carnegie Mellon University; and she has published several interesting pieces about WikiProject Oregon. (I can send links or PDFs if you haven't seen them, they're very interesting!) Currently she is seeking interviews with WP:ORE members -- both veterans and newer members who have participated in Collaborations of the Week.

Would you be willing to do an interview, over text chat or phone? I think there is a great deal to be learned from the work we've done together, and hope that Haiyi's research is a useful way to share it more broadly! Please email me or leave a note on my talk page if you're interested, and I'll put you in touch with her. -Pete (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Pete: Can you post links here so we can take look at her work?--Orygun (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Orygun, Haiyi's user page (linked below) lists all the studies I'm aware of, that's probably the best way to familiarize yourself with her work. Specifically "Identifying Shared Leadership in Wikipedia" is a good read! -Pete (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Pete for posting this message! This is my personal website and my Wikipedia user page. Please drop a line on my talk page or send an email to if you are interested in doing an interview. Thanks! Haiyizhu (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am always happy to help, but I'm afraid I would not have much more to contribute re: COTW than what was stated in the recent Signpost issue. I have participated in a few COTWs, and I suppose I triggered the creation and expansion of the Cannabis in Oregon article (and therefore the Alcoholic beverages in Oregon article), but I think more of my contributions to the project have been solo efforts (with support, of course). I really would love to see a very active COTW / WP Oregon community, but I would be spreading myself too thin if I took on the COTW organizer role. (Sorry, went off on a tangent there...) --Another Believer (Talk) 16:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I talked to her last night, it was much about "what do you get out of COTW" and describe it from your point of view. You don't need to have authority in things to talk to her. I think your contributions have often been about instant collaborations, and that is probably interesting to her. It only takes half an hour over IM and she's (over)respectful of privacy. tedder (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Error on river drainage basin map

USGS Oregon river basins.png

Does anyone have software that can fix this file? I noticed that a couple of years ago someone added annotations to point out that Grants Pass isn't in the right place on the map. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I should be able to fix that. I'm working on it now. Finetooth (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. Finetooth (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, much better. According to a different Oregon map I have, Grants Pass looks like it's a bit more to the south, but the original map probably isn't perfectly to scale anyway. Lesson learned nevertheless: take a close look before uploading a USGS map. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, arg! Good catch. I worked too fast and put it on Graves Creek instead of the Rogue. I'll fix it again tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Done again. I nearly fell off my chair when I read your note last night and looked at what I'd done. Easy to fix, fortunately. I just hope I haven't misspelled Grants Pass. :-) Finetooth (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks good now. Thanks very much! Jsayre64 (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, can't you add an apostrophe in there somewhere? Bah. --Esprqii (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Portland

Requesting all hands on deck! It would be nice to capture as much information as possible about this event while it remains in the news. I took some pictures of the protest this afternoon, added them to Commons (and did some category creation), and provided the "Commons cat" box to the Wikipedia article. I'd love to expand this article over the next few weeks, so feel free to assist and to post news articles to the talk page. Any help would be appreciated--this could make another great addition to WP Oregon. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles now exist for Occupy Ashland, Eugene, Portland and Salem. I have posted links on the talk pages of Eugene and Salem and intend to expand these articles in the future. I'd love to get all four of these to GA status (though I have not been following the Ashland protest enough to know if it's receiving significant media coverage). Feel free to post any additional links on the talk pages for these articles or to upload images if you come across any at Flickr, etc. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a discussion occurring regarding a proposal to redirect Occupy Eugene and Occupy Salem to the Occupy Wall Street article, occurring here: at the administrator's noticeboard. Please feel free to comment regarding this matter there. I have not yet had time to expand the Ashland, Eugene or Salem articles, but my goal is to get at least the latter two articles to GA status. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI: An additional rally is scheduled for tomorrow (Wednesday) afternoon. I will try take some pictures if I am in the area then. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Up to 114 images at Commons. We'll see how tonight goes... --Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting out there. :) Steven Walling • talk 00:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. I love all of your images, AB. JORGENEV 00:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I will be sure to keep an eye for additional uploads to Flickr that can be copied to Commons, and I also hope to take more pictures myself. I want to get some shots of the park post-encampment. Less than an hour until eviction time... --Another Believer (Talk) 07:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

November 14, following eviction:

I am surprised more people are not uploading images to WP/Commons given hundreds (even thousands?) of people participating in protests over the weekend, many with cameras in hand. I will keep taking as many as I can and searching for others on Flickr to copy to Commons. I am glad I was able to get some internal shots of the camp prior to eviction. Some day this article will make a great GA or FA for WPORE. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Lownsdale + Chapman vs. Plaza Blocks

Do any project members have an opinion on whether I should create two distinct articles for Chapman Square and Lownsdale Square or simply one article called Plaza Blocks? I believe they are technically separate parks, but likely have a very similar history due to their close proximity.

--Another Believer (Talk) 16:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledging that I did not allow any time for discussion, I went ahead and created an article for Plaza Blocks. I think a single article might be more suitable. Should expansion require two distinct articles, this article can be moved and another can be created. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec) In my opinion, for all practical purposes they are the same park, including the statue donated by David Thompson. The federal park (Terry Schrunk Plaza) is logically part of it too, though it has distinct separateness. —EncMstr (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I went ahead and created a separate article for Terry Schrunk Plaza. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a Commons category for Plaza Blocks with subcategories for Chapman Square and Lownsdale Square. I went through the Occupy Portland category to tag locations that I could identify. I figured it best to tag individual images rather than add park names as subcategories of Occupy Portland (considering protests took place in Pioneer Courthouse Square, Chapman, Lownsdale, Schrunk, etc.)--feel free to tag any images I may have missed! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added these -- and South Park Blocks -- to List of parks in Portland, Oregon, but more info is needed. YBG (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Albums recorded in Portland, Oregon

Know of any others to include? If so, feel free to add to this newly-created category. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Louie Louie. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. I visited a friend-of-a-friend's recording studio near Gresham in the 1980s who said studios were springing up all over the city around that time as a high growth investment opportunity. He name dropped a few clients, all of which were mildly well known, like Sheena Easton (the only one I still remember). There were some mentions of new studios in the Oregonian and other press which agreed with the claim, but I don't know how anyone would easily verify that Album X was recorded at Studio Y. It is not like the liner notes have that information. —EncMstr (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, liner notes often include recording locations. Whether or not those details get displayed on WP is another matter. Obviously, live albums are more easily identifiable. There are categories "Live albums recorded in [x city]", but I don't think a live subcategory is necessary until enough articles appear within the aforementioned category. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, I started a similar category for Seattle. You'll notice more inclusions. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oregon Canals

I recently modified the tables in List of canals in Oregon and List of canals in Oregon (M-Z) to include the county name in a separate column. In doing so, I noticed that the original source indicates that many of these canals span multiple counties. That being the case, I'm not sure whether it makes sense for the column to include only one county name. And further, it may not make much sense to have the linked articles on individual canals (which are mostly redlinks) include the county name. Just saying [[Xyz Canal (Oregon)]] seems insufficient, but [[Xyz canal (C1, C2 and C3 counties, Oregon)]] seems to be overkill. Any suggestions? YBG (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Another concern with these articles. Hundreds of canals may necessitate multiple articles, but having a two sortable tables split in what amounts to arbitrary alphabetical groups seems clumsy. I suggest that the lists be reorganized geographically into List of canals in Eastern Oregon and List of canals in Western Oregon, divided by the Cascades. Any comments? YBG (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Think list of Oregon canals is useful since it's state-wide inventory of specific type of man-made geographic feature. However, don't know why all the individual canals are red-ink entries. Many of these "canals" are nothing more than irrigation ditches--and some are dry most of the year. A few are interesting enough to justify individual articles, but most couldn't pass "notability" test. May want to consider removing [[ ]] from individual canals, and then let editors create individual hot-button links when they upload article on specific canal. Just a thought.--Orygun (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Orygun. The list is useful and interesting, but most of these canals will never have articles. Finetooth (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't considered de-linking; that sounds like a good idea. But there is currently no complete state-wide list.
Seems to me the current division is untenable, and should either be replaced by two or more geographically oriented articles or merge the entire list into a single sortable table with 400+ rows. YBG (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The list is split due to limitations of the current implementation of {{coord}} which prevents all the coordinates from appearing on one page. There was talk long enough ago at the relevant WikiProject that a solution for that template's limitation might soon appear. Then the easy solution would be to merge A-L and M-Z into one page. If that fix doesn't appear, then any sensible reorganization is fine by me.
I, too, had not considered delinking the entries. I have near-term plans to write Central Oregon Canal, North Unit Main Canal, and Swalley Canal—inspired after camping beside the first one in August. I've gathered together sources for Central Oregon Irrigation District since I was curious about how these amazing waterways came to be. —EncMstr (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No offense, but I'm not sure I see the point of this list. For one, the GNIS feature type "canal" is, like all GNIS feature types, a fairly arbitrary catch-all for a variety of things. As the GNIS FAQ puts it, "The GNIS database utilizes 63 broad categories of feature types originally defined solely to facilitate retrieval of entries with similar characteristics from the database" ([1]).

Wouldn't it make more sense to "grow" a list of more notable canals, perhaps separated out into types (navigation waterway, aqueduct, irrigation, etc.)? I mean, generating a list of GNIS "canals" in Oregon is trivial: [2]. You could just as easily generate a GNIS list of Oregon cemeteries [3], or mines, [4], or towers [5], etc.

Also, at about 660 canals in Oregon, this list is quite unwieldy. Imagine trying something similar for California (GNIS simply says "more than 2000": [6]) or Michigan (1758 results, [7]).

Finally, a quick browse of the list turns up some rather odd bedfellows, at least to my mind. For example: Baker Municipal Aqueduct (a several mile long aqueduct supplying drinking water to Baker City), Klamath Strait (an equalization channel linking Upper and Lower Klamath Lakes, originally "natural" now operated with pumps), Yamsay Land and Cattle Company Ditch (a tiny little ditch that appears to supply little more than a single ranch), Placer Ditch (associated with a few small mining operations), Skipanon Waterway (the canalized, navigatale lower Skipanon River, which gives Warrenton a port facility, or at least a marina), O Pipe (a pipe, of course, about a mile long, connecting two small ditches neat Umatilla), Ladd Creek Pickup Ditch (can't quite tell what this is--a short section of Ladd Creek canalized and fed into...a marsh?), Drewsey Reclamation Company Ditch (a slightly more notable irrigation canal--appears to supply the whole (small) Drewsey Valley), Oswego Canal (carries water from Tualatin River to Oswego Lake for some reason), and many others.

I don't mean to sound overly negative, but wouldn't an approach like List of canals in Massachusetts, which is mostly blue links and claims to list "significant" canals and aqueducts, be a more useful approach (nevermind the lack of references on that page!)? Then again, maybe I am missing an obvious point... Just some late night thoughts. Pfly (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Orygun! I really appreciate those.
I unlinked all the canal names in the two articles. I will relink each when I add the corresponding article. —EncMstr (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The article Central Oregon Irrigation District is begun. I burned out somewhat tracking down information on Alexander M. Drake and reconciling aspects of the Carey Act with the state of Oregon creating/managing irrigation districts. So, while it is tagged as a stub, parts of it are somewhat well developed; other parts are commented out. I welcome fresh eyes and minds to reshape and develop it. —EncMstr (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Would someone with OGN please see if there is any information on Alexander M. Drake? I can't find even birth and death information. I put crude years in to indicate it as a non-BLP, but surely there is more. There is a photograph in one of the sources c. 1910 where he looks to be in his 30s, and that is the basis of the crude date. How's that for scraping bottom? —EncMstr (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
OGN (7th ed, p. 95 under Boardman) says that in 1903 Samuel Boardman "got a job with A.M. Drake at Bend, but on the way to central Oregon, he ran into smallpox at Shaniko and lost interest in the Deschutes country." No birth or death dates. The only other Drake entries in bio index are for Anita, Frank P., and John M. YBG (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

COI, page ownership, Oregon Historical Society

See this revert. The "turmoil" at OHS was a big deal. Is Orloff running for office or something? These sort of changes generally seem to precede an election. tedder (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just re-read the cited article. Pity it's not available online. For research purposes only, some text:
Oregonian, The (Portland, OR) - Monday, November 11, 1991
Author: SURA RUBENSTEIN - of the Oregonian Staff
"Chet Orloff , who is expected to assume his new post by the first of the year, was greeted with warmth and enthusiasm....
"The 42-year-old Orloff , who had served as the society's assistant director from 1982 to 1986, said he was just as delighted to be back.
"He replaces former director William J. Tramposch , who resigned in March after two years of turmoil that prompted staff members to complain that his style was dictatorial and was ruining the society. Approximately 30 staff members resigned during Tramposch 's tenure.
"The turmoil provided the backdrop for the annual meeting, but no one spoke of it directly."

--Esprqii (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's degenerating into sockpuppetry now. Is there an admin in the house? --Esprqii (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I took it to WP:RFPP, and have contributed on the talk page. I see Esprqii is there; any others who have opinions are welcome to join, as there is an interesting issue about including the the name of someone else and how WP:BLP may apply. See Talk:Chet_Orloff. tedder (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest reaching out to the editorial board of the Oregon Encyclopedia, specifically Bill Lang. That would probably shortcut having to rehash all the explanation about how Wikipedia works. Please let me know if you need contact info or want me to reach out myself. -Pete (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:2011 in Portland, Oregon at Commons

FYI: I went ahead and created the category "2011 in Portland, Oregon", which has over 175 images, so feel free to use this category for the remainder of the year if you upload any Portland images to Commons. I went through the "2011 in Oregon" category and made changes to appropriate images. It might be helpful to also have a category "2011 in Eugene, Oregon" as well as subcategories for others years in Portland. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Now also created the category "2010 in Portland, Oregon" and subsequently created categories such as "Portland, Oregon by decade", etc. I am not sure if there are enough images of Portland specifically to create other decade categories going back in time (when there are Oregon categories by decade), but at least the category is there for the future. There was a big jump in the number of Portland images uploaded between 2010 and 2011--will there be another jump between 2011 and 2012? Yes, if I have anything to do with it! :) I noticed numerous images uploaded by Aboutmovies--keep up the great work! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Although Commons categories such as "2011 in Portland, Oregon" make sense for illustrations of a subject with specific ties to that year (such as Hands Across Hawthorne, a one-time event that took place in 2011), you've placed into the new category numerous images that have no connection to 2011 other than the fact that they were taken in 2011, such as File:Dekum Building, PDX.jpg (just chosen at random for this point), and I don't see the value of that. If categorizing images that way were applied consistently, the category "2011 in Portland, Oregon" would very likely end up containing at least two or three thousand images (in part because WikiProject Oregon is so active and in part because of all the previously unillustrated NRHP buildings in Portland that were added to Commons' image inventory this year, among other reasons). That makes the category much too large to be useful. Similar categories based on years from much longer ago (pre-digital age) remain useful because they contain very few images, and even those categories shouldn't be applied to pictures of (e.g.) buildings that happened to be taken in that year but for which the given year had no other relevance to the subject. For recent years, I don't see how it's helpful to place all photos taken in Portland in 2011 into that category. SJ Morg (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I always saw year categories as opportunities to see how a particular location appeared at a given time. Compare Laurelhurst Park in 1940 to 1980 and to now -- I imagine you would see many differences. The same goes for buildings, skylines, landmarks, etc. I would not include year categories for plaques or other subjects that do not provide time or visual context (if that makes sense). For the record, I did not add images to the aforementioned Portland category... I simply moved Portland-related images from the "2011 in Oregon" category. I'd LOVE to see thousands of images in these categories and do not see that harm in categorizing images by the year they were taken. I'd love for other contributors to chime in here out of curiosity. Is there a resource at Commons that offers guidelines or suggestions for appropriate use of these "year categories"? I certainly don't want to be using them incorrectly. Again, I always assumed they were to house images taken at that time (to me, "2011 in Oregon" means images of Oregon taken in 2011). --Another Believer (Talk) 21:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Glad to see I'm not alone in cleaning up Commons categories! I have recently been sorting through commons:Category:People from Oregon and putting people into sub-cats. It was a big, overpopulated category, and I think it's in better shape now.
Working on Commons can be rather thankless and isolated work, especially if you're used to an active group like this one -- but I think it's important work. It would probably be a good idea to bring this up for discussion over there as well (see commons:Commons:Categories for discussion) -- I'm sure the question of how to apply years to photos has come up before, and there may be some useful consensus over there to inform decisions about this.
Anyway, thanks for working on this, AB -- and thanks for bringing it up for discussion. Let me know if you start a new one over there, and I'll try to follow that as well. -Pete (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not following, AB. It's very hard to find anything in a category containing thousands of images, and if people are not looking in a category to find something, then there's no reason for the category to exist. If someone were looking for images of, say, Laurelhurst Park (your example), in two different periods, they'd look in the Laurelhurst Park category, not in the categories for the two different periods. And how would they even know which "by year" categories might have a photo of the subject in which they are interested? You say you would "love" to see thousands of images in this category. Why? Beyond perhaps making it easier to count the number of uploads and give proud Oregonians (of which I am one) something to brag about ("Look how many photos we uploaded in 2011!"), what's the benefit? (in cases where the category would have hundreds, or thousands, of files, not just a few) To my mind, it's not a question of "what's the harm?" but rather "what's the merit?" Am I missing something? If you find there's a discussion on Commons of the use of "by year" categories, please let me know. I am interested, but I don't think I want to spend time looking for one there (or starting one there); there's too much else on my Wikipedia and Commons "to do" lists. SJ Morg (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with what you are saying about Laurelhurst Park. Perhaps I just use categories differently. I would never use a year category to find a particular subject; I would use these categories to get an understanding of what a particular place looked like at that time. 40 years from now I would love to be able to visit the "2011 in Oregon" category and browse images taken then. I guess I see these categories as portals to particular periods. Let me re-articulate my comment re: thousands of images. I agree that a single category with thousands of images is not helpful, but I think subcategories can be utilized for organization (for example, "Built in Oregon in 2010", "2010 in Eugene, Oregon", etc). Other categories can take care of defining the subject (Yeon Building, Laurelhurst Park, etc), but the year category offers historical context... what that subject looked like at that time. Wouldn't it be great to be able to "go back in time" by having categories such as "1943 in Oregon", "1968 in Oregon", etc? Again, I guess I just look at the function of these year categories differently. I will continue to add year categories to the images I take and upload to Commons, but I won't make a big deal if other Commons contributors remove those categories. If I come across a discussion relating to year categories I will be sure to share. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, no big deal. I'm not really convinced of the cat's usefulness (when used in such a broad way, and for recent years – where Commons has a huge amount of Portland content; subcats like the "Built in (year)" ones seem much more useful), but I don't have a strong opinion about it. It would have been nice to have heard at least one other opinion besides yours and mine – Pete chimed in but didn't really give an opinion on our discussion – but I guess most people here just don't have much interest in the subject of Commons categories. Anyway, I'm content to drop the subject. SJ Morg (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I actually find the year cats useful in the way AB mentions. For 2011, not so much, but in 100 years people will be able to see what different buildings/blocks looked like in 2011. A couple months ago I was trying to find old pictures of Japan, and this sort of categorization would have been useful, since I was not necessarily looking for something specific, just an era. That is why when I upload I added the year cat as a sort of secondary item. In a way it is like the year of birth/death cats here, not useful really for finding something, just an interesting category to stroll through. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Well stated, Aboutmovies. The goal wouldn't be to have any images marked solely with the year category. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree with Aboutmovies that the year categories should only include images with historical significance, such as photos of some buildings or bridges that are likely to change and look completely different in the future. Events definitely belong as sub-categories within the year categories; Hands Across Hawthorne and Occupy Portland definitely belong in the "2011 in Portland" category, but images like this or this shouldn't belong in the category, in my opinion. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I think we should cut Another Believer some slack when we're discussing this, because of the time and effort it took to set up and fill the new category with images. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Portland

Has Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Your City ever been organized for Portland? I don't see PDX listed, but thought I'd ask nonetheless. I would have thought Pete or Steven would have been all over WP TAKES PDX! :p --Another Believer (Talk) 17:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the concept existed when I lived there! We tried to take on the OHS, but that's about it for the "taking." Are you acquainted with the good folks of -Pete (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Brandon Roy

Reports are indicating that Brandon Roy is set to retire from basketball due to knee injuries. But it's not official yet, so naturally, the IPs are going wild making the edit. Can we get a semiprotect on the article from one of our trusty admins? --Esprqii (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm a few days late..but not seeing any major IP action, I'm wondering if the semi- is needed? Also wondering why Esprqii is not an admin. Also thinking about how sad a B-Roy retirement will be. Still want this done? -Pete (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Duh, I was looking at the article history all wrong. I see it's been busier than I'd thought. I'm watching it today; happy to semi-protect toward the end of the day if it stays busy. -Pete (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Think B-Roy is OK now. He was protected for a while, and I guess it wore off. Yeah, times like this, I think maybe it is time for me to go through the admin gauntlet. --Esprqii (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Cogan House Covered Bridge

It's likely more appropriate that I place this link in my own sandbox, but allow me to note Cogan House Covered Bridge (today's featured article on the Main page) for future reference. This provides a fine example of how to improve articles for Oregon's beautiful covered bridges. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

GA update

Among WP:ORE good article candidates, the High Desert article (nominated by me) recently reached GA status, and Mei-Ann Chen (nominated by Another Believer) is almost there. Meanwhile, Olds, Wortman & King (nominated by SJ Morg) awaits review. Stay tuned for updates! Face-smile.svg Jsayre64 (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Good article Mei-Ann Chen. Great work, AB! Jsayre64 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 05:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Good article High Desert. Congrats, J! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Olds, Wortman & King didn't make it, but the reviewer provided comments and suggestions, so I won't give up on the article. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have any near-GA articles, now is a great time to complete the article(s) and submit to GAN. Jsayre, I am thrilled with the progress being made on the list of Portland parks, but any interest in collaborating on the Roses in Portland article? No worries if you'd prefer to put it off until next year (don't want to spread you or myself too thin). Reminder for this section: Yale Union Laundry Building is another near-GA article. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather put off nominating Roses in Portland for a few more weeks while I work on the parks list and other things in my sandbox, but I won't forget about it! Jsayre64 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Noooooo problem! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated Yale Union Laundry Building. I am not sure how much to include about YU, especially since many details about the upgrades are "planned". Other project members are welcome to re-visit the article to see if any other detail should be added, otherwise we will see what comes up in the GAN process. Great work on expanding the article, Finetooth. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Good article Yale Union Laundry Building... thanks again for the expansion, Finetooth! --Another Believer (Talk) 02:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed another article you nominated: Huw Edwards (conductor). As far as I can tell, the review should be pretty smooth. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is the second article being submitted as part of my attempt to get the Portland Youth Philharmonic article to Good (then eventually Featured) status. My long-term goal is then to create a Good Topic for the subject. Also, not specifically Oregon-related, but I nominated the Pink Martini compilation album A Retrospective for GA status as well. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Good article Huw Edwards (conductor). Congratulations, AB! My prediction came out right. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There's also:

Good article Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Oregon was the first state to pass legislation requiring the direct election of U.S. senators, which paved the way for this amendment. -Pete (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Great! WPOR is on a roll, it seems. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Déjà vu as well. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have seen a chart displaying the total number of pages associated with WPOR (the Collaboration page, I believe), though it has not been updated in a while. Does anyone know how this data was generated, and/or if it would be possible to create a graphs showing the total number of GAs associated with the project over time? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to WP:ORE/ASSESS#Statistics? This grid that has links to all WP:ORE articles by quality and importance rating. It's updated regularly by a bot. -Pete (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps my wording was ambiguous. I was referring to this chart. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Yay, charts! I'd be delighted to make a line graph of the number of Oregon-related pages over time, as long as I have the data (not sure how to retrieve the statistics at certain points in time). Jsayre64 (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello everyone I noticed this thread and I just thought since you are all looking at GA stuff I would ask if you had a bit of time to just read over the Albany, Oregon article and see what it would need to get a bit closer to making GA. I have vested a lot of time in the article over the years and I am wanting to make it as good as I can. I would like to push for it to be a FA eventually but for now I am working toward GA. I know there are a few things in list form to ajust and put in to written statements so that is on the to-do list. What I am hoping for is a few people to look it over and let me know what they see can be done and maybe if it is a simple edit fix it up for me, I am in need of some help at this point. THanks in advance for any help. MathewDill (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


Nothing urgent, but I am hoping to recruit a few editors to help maintain the portal at its featured status and continue to add content. Not much is needed, as people are already adding their DYK hooks to that page, and we only add GA or FA articles now to the selected biography and selected article sections. The lagging areas are the pictures, the selected picture and the selected panorama. Back in the day we decicded not to limit our selection to featured items, as those are too rare, so we decided we would allow other high quality images. Sort of like our own Good Pictures. But, now that it appears I am the only one doing much with these areas of the portal, there is no one to approve/decline ones I nominate, and there does not seem to be other people nominating. I know we have taken thousands of pictures in the last few years, and some of them have to be decent. So I am hoping a few editors might stp up and take a couple minutes to 1) nominate some good quality images they come accross, and 2) help go through the nominations every month or so to approve or decline what has been nominated. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems easy enough to just update everything. I just nominated a picture and approved another, and added a GA as a new selected article. I'll be sure to help out when I come across something to add or update. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Albany Parks & Recreation photos

I thought I should post a heads-up here about all the photos used in the Albany Parks & Recreation article. I asked at media copyright questions about whether or not to delete all of them and I got a yes. Most of them are gone now. Let's all be aware that photos taken by cities are generally under copyright and therefore cannot be used under {{PD-USGov}}. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Article regarding Leach Botanical Garden

I am the Executive Director at Leach Botanical Garden. I am very pleased that there is a wiki on the subject of the Garden. However, I am concerned that information therein is incorrect. I am not a Wiki editor, but wonder if someone can tell me the best way to provide correct and perhaps more complete information to the entry. regards-and thank you for your work. I know it's an all volunteer effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for approaching us this way. The article's talk page is the perfect place to describe errors, omissions, and additional reliable sources. This entry here is likely to draw local interested editors, and the talk page would attract any other editors who are watching the article, the most likely editors to deal with this kind of material. (Edits which manage the article's templates, layout, categories, linking, etc., are often handled by bots or semi-automated.)
If you are careful not to run afoul of our conflict of interest editing guideline, you may make neutral edits cited to reliable sources. However, the talk page is the greatly preferred method, especially until you get a feel for what material is appropriate and what would not be permitted.
You might find it more convenient to collaborate with the editing community by creating an account, though it is not a requirement. Doing so makes it easier for you to track changes and easier for us to identify your edits. The characteristics of your IP address suggest it will be stable enough to easily identify you and receive notices. Thanks for asking. —EncMstr (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What Enc said. First of all, thanks for posting. Feel free to share reliable sources here or on the article's talk page and state which information on the article needs to be addressed. I am sure I speak for many members of WikiProject Oregon and Wikipedia at large when I say that we want this article to be accurate, informative and of "good" quality. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

David Porter Thank you for your responses. The primary statement in the article which is incorrect is the assertion that "The garden will expand by 5 acres (2.0 ha) in late 2010 or early 2011.[1]" The Garden is not slated to expand in size, but is in the first phases of preparation for substantial development of the approximately five acres in the upper garden. The design process, survey work, and some site preparation have been in the works since 2010 and continue now. The City of Portland approved a Master Plan for the Garden in September 2010. That document is available here Other documents are available at the Leach Garden website - on the "About" section. I am happy to also provide references to our recently adopted business plan and similar documents. Thanks again for your interest and your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Got Flood Pics?

I do. Have they named this storm yet? My workplace is almost surrounded by water. I'm about to go take a look around. In no danger of flooding at Valfontis-central, but part of my ceiling finally liquified--no reference materials were harmed. Stay dry, y'all. Cheers from the disaster area, Valfontis (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless a better name is suggested, 2012 Pacific Northwest snowstorm is it. —EncMstr (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I took some pictures of the swollen Clackamas River today but they just aren't that compelling. We didn't get the storm as big as y'all down south, Val, but my similarly liquifying garage ceiling sends its regards.
No names for the storm yet; took them a month and a half to name the Great Coastal Gale of 2007 so we'll give them a couple weeks. Stay dry everyone! --Esprqii (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Too bad about the name and the ceiling. How about the Day That Muchas (Gracias) Died? (not my pic--this is where the Millrace diverges from Mill Creek at State and 20th). Valfontis (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed quite a lot of wind and rain. I got a few pictures of the snow last weekend; maybe I'll upload one or two of them. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
PDF of Anticipated flooding in Salem today. I'm asking for photos, it's really hard to take any that turn out from here. tedder (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Decent explanation of what happened (so far). Here in Salem the creeks are going down, but the Willamette is set to crest this afternoon. Good times. Valfontis (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's my first set of pics via a very sloppy bulk upload, which is the only way they will ever see the light of day. Feel free to lighten and otherwise improve upon them, clearly I've got a crappy camera. Don't shoot me, I'm only the documentarian. Pics of flooded Willamette and aftermath coming soon. Valfontis (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you do bulk upload? I get annoyed having to upload twenty separate images from the same location, adding appropriate categories to each. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I guess that's what I did, except there formerly wasn't an "upload another image?" button so one had to do a separate upload for each image. So to me that's a "bulk upload". I wish there was a way to upload and tag a bunch of images with the same cat, but I think the current method keeps folks from using Commons like Photobucket or something. (I'm probably perilously close as it is.) I would upload a lot more of my hundreds of images if it wasn't so annoying. Anyway, I'm not so great at the photo thing, I'm sure someone else could explain how to do it faster... Meanwhile, we've got another flood watch... Cross your fingers I do *not* have to take more flood pics. Valfontis (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
*Fingers crossed* Thanks for the feedback. I, too, wish I could upload multiple images at once for the same category(ies). I always upload multiple images, but spend time adding categories to each. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The Commonist tool on Commons supports bulk uploading while adding the same category or categories to each image. It might be worth a shot. LittleMountain5 23:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I'll try it out tonight. Valfontis (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Page move for Joseph Robertson (dean)

Leaving aside the state of the article's editing (it needs some), there is a request to move this to Joseph Robertson (president) but that disambiguation seems pretty ambiguous. Would Joseph Robertson (ophthalmologist) make the most sense? Valfontis (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears OHSU refers to him with a mixture of his middle initial included or not[8], so presumably we would omit that.
He is not well known as an ophthalmologist (practiced for only a year), and has been in several high ranking positions at OHSU, albeit president only since 2006. How about Joseph Robertson (OHSU), Joseph Robertson (OHSU executive), and Joseph Robertson (health care education)? —EncMstr (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I like Joseph Robertson (OHSU). Short and shows what he is most known for. It seems uncontroversial, so I'll go ahead and move it. If there is outcry (doesn't fit rules for qualifiers or something), we can fix it. Valfontis (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm late and the die is cast, but it seems like Joseph E. Robertson might have been better since he probably won't be at OHSU forever; either that or (physician). Definitely should have those redirects. --Esprqii (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to uncast the die--I like both your ideas too. Valfontis (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Portland State University, ownership, etc.

There have been some, uh, interesting edits on Portland State University recently. I got a new user to explain them on the talk page. Here's the dsicussion: Talk:Portland State University#January_2012_cleanup. I'm worried the article is going in the wrong direction, and I'm hoping others can help out. PSU is ranked High-importance by the project, so I presume there are others besides myself who would like to see it improve. Further, I think we have the opportunity to gain a productive new user, even though I'm terrible at communicating in an approachable fashion. tedder (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons categorization

BTW, a collection of Oregon-related images has been donated to Commons by the National Archives and Records Administration. If you wish to assist with image categorization, check out this page. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for bringing it to our attention! Valfontis (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

We're on the Main Page!

Take a look! Big Butte Creek was unexpectedly nominated, then featured unexpectedly fast. I thought I'd have a little time to give it a once-over prior to its appearance (actually, I didn't think it would make it at all...), but I guess I'll just have to do that now. Cheers, LittleMountain5 00:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! Well done. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Fantastic work! We got our big butte up there, now we're got to get cracking on our big bottoms! --Esprqii (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Way to go! Jsayre64 (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Impressive work! 28,882 views so far this month with 20,449 on February 10 alone. —EncMstr (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

How to update url for my website referenced in several articles

Hello, a website of mine is referenced in several Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, I have lost rights to use the domain name associated with the site, so have registered a new name and am in the process of making all the content accessible again. The inaccessible content is all part of the "Choices that Created the Oregon Mystique: Governor Tom McCall's Foresight and Accomplishments" site, with the main url Presently, the links lead to a 404-not found message, so I don't know whether I should remove all the references until everything is in order, or edit all the references to reflect the new url since I will have to do that eventually anyway.

Whichever you advise, removal or updating, I seem to be able to edit links embedded in the main text of the article without any problem, but don't know how to get access to the references list, so will need guidance there, too. Thanks very much, Janet Bassett JBassett2 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to answer right now except to tell you to read this about Spam just to be safe, and here is a tool to help find the links (click on "en"): Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchVeinor pagesmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:
Valfontis (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
@Valfontis: seems to be a snapshot of various state goverment documents, and the site is only used as citation sources, not external links.
@Janet: I glanced at a few links to your site and they look fine to me. Just go through this list (which is Valfontis' first link), edit each article to replace with the new domain name, and, if applicable, fix the URL. For simplicity (until you understand wikiediting more thoroughly) edit the article as a whole by clicking "edit" (or "edit this page", depending on which skin you have selected) at the top of the article page. If you click on an "edit this section" or "edit" tag throughout the article, they URL probably will not be visible due to how references are handled. —EncMstr (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to you both, I was delighted to see that shortcut to all the links because I really didn't know how many might be out there. And pleased that there aren't that many to change. The new url should be active within 24 hours so I hope to have this squared away soon. I appreciate your help. Janet JBassett2 (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out EncMstr! (Though you seem confused about my use of the {{LinkSummary}} template--I inserted the url for Janet's old site, and it indeed shows where the links are used in references, though if they were used as els it would certainly show that too. I use the template because that's the one I have memorized. Is there some other way to do it? I know all the other links in the template are mostly for fighting spammers...Oh, it it because the page of hits says "External links search" at the top? I guess it might seem unclear but it means all external links on a page, not just those in the el section.) Valfontis (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
@Janet: If you edit the urls in the text, it will automatically change the urls in the references section, if they are using the <ref></ref> tags. It's a bit of wiki magic. If for some reason it doesn't work, someone will come along soon and fix them, there are several of us watching those articles. And also, thank you for your useful resource! Valfontis (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oregon State Archives website

I've been meaning to mention...I went to an open house at the Oregon State Archives a while back. After the tour (nerd heaven + great snacks!) I asked the director about the issues with the website. She said to please e-mail them about any broken links you might find. Their programmers are just as frustrated as we are with the mess. You might recall from previous discussions that it has been a little tricky to find things like bios of governors since they rearranged their website. I was impressed by how much Mary Beth cared about this so let's bombard her with update requests! Valfontis (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Will keep in mind. Do share re: future opportunities (tours, collaborations, etc.) --Another Believer (Talk) 17:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I did actually email them about one, heard nothing, and the link is still broken. If the programmers are so frustrated, why didn't they do it properly with redirects? I have to say every time I see the 404 page with Kate Brown's picture on it, it makes me never want to vote for her. If they were smart, they'd put whoever is running against her next year up there. --Esprqii (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Huh. Well she sounded sincere. How long has it been since you complained? I was there in October, I believe. Maybe something has changed with the staffing. Valfontis (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it would be nice if us civilians could communicate more easily with government. Esprqii, how about you make a list of these broken links? I might be able to fix some of them. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I made a special page for the SOS linkrot here: User:Valfontis/Link Rot. If you click on "en" you'll see everything linked to their domain. Not all of those 800 links will be broken. Feel free to edit the page to keep track of what has been checked/fixed/reported. Valfontis (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. 800. That's a pain. Based on a dozen or so clicks, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them are broken. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out! Valfontis (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


I took matters into our own hands, but, Help! Jsayre and I have got most of the archives web pages updated, but it looks like everything linked to elections is also broken. In other words, links to may all be at and there don't seem to be any redirects. I haven't looked to see if there is a pattern for the elections links yet, but if anyone is using AWB (great tool!) it makes it easier to do the updates. Ask me if you need help programming AWB and see User:Valfontis/Link Rot for more info--click on "en" in the second link summary template to see the approximately 600 elections links that need fixing. Vote WikiProject Oregon for Secretary of State! Valfontis (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oregon Historical Society

Next week, I'm going to be at an event with Kerry Tymchuk, the new executive director of the Oregon Historical Society. I'm pretty sure I'll have a chance to talk to him informally afterwards. Here at WP:ORE, we've talked on and off about the OHS and how our project could work better with them, such as getting them making some of their historical photographs available under a Creative Commons license (and not picking on our Aunt Betty). I doubt I'm going to be able to get him to commit to anything in this setting, but I'd just like to solicit some thoughts on other items people in the project would like me to chat him up about, maybe to set up something in the future. Pete and EncMstr in particular had started some points on that, which is here. Sort of outdated though. Just wondering if people have some things they'd like me to hit. --Esprqii (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, let me think of this and come back. I was just at the OHS Museum yesterday (might go back on Saturday, free admission day!), and after discussing with a staff member my interest in Wikipedia/Commons and possible collaborations received contact details for the following people:
  • Eliza Canty-Jones, Editor Oregon Historical Quarterly and Public Outreach Manager
  • Geoffrey Wexler, Library Manager
  • Rachel Randles, Marketing Communication Specialist
  • Marsha Matthews, Director of Museum Services
I am not sure who may have been contacted before or who might be the best lead, but I would love to talk to someone at OHS about possible collaborations with Wikipedia/Commons. Please let me know if any meetings are set re: future possibilities. I just applied for a scholarship to Wikimania 2012 hoping I might be able to meet with some members of GLAM to learn about the program, how successful collaborations came to fruition, etc. Let us know how the conversation goes! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll check in with my shadowy cabal of historian friends (who link to Wikipedia in their work) to see if they have any general suggestions. Valfontis (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Shadowy Cabal (tm) says they "wished they would digitize more of their collection and make it easily available. I wish they'd unlock back issues of OHQ and make them freely available on jstor or another digital archiving service. I mean, I can understand trying to monetize current issues in a subscription, but why are issues from decades ago also under digital lock and key? They aren't going to generate meaningful revenues." Not specific to Wikipedia, but it would certainly help our work if OHS did these things. And wouldn't more links from here to their webpages be good for them too? Valfontis (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Shadowy cabal, yes! Wikicop, no! Those are some good ideas. Keep 'em coming! --Esprqii (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I did get to talk very briefly with Kerry. He is a pretty gregarious guy and I told him about how we looooove the OHS and would love to have more access to some of their digital treasures for research and reuse. He said, basically, oh yeah, we're looking into that, that's the future, we're all over that, blah blah blah, we gotta get the info out there. It did sound like they were moving in that direction but it was not his particular passion. I wasn't able to pin him down to anything as he moved on to some other admirers. I hope the shadowy cabal will forgive me for not kidnapping him and requesting digitization of the entire collection as ransom.
On the plus side, he had some Oregon historical stories and does a good Bob Dole impression (he used to work for him; I forgot to ask him who ate Bob Dole's peanut butter.) And I got to hold a sliver of the Willamette Meteorite and Meriwether Lewis's branding iron. So that was fun. --Esprqii (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Canterbury Castle (Portland, Oregon)

If anyone has any, or comes across any, images of Canterbury Castle, feel free to upload as I am working on getting this article to GA status ASAP. I posted a link on the talk page to images from the UO archives, but I am not sure these are available to use. The article is still under construction, but feel free to contribute if you wish! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for GA status. Thank you Jsayre for requesting images from a Flickr contributor. Hopefully images will become available very soon. Feel free to improve the article (paraphrasing is always a concern of mine, especially when using succinct descriptions with architectural times from NRHP nomination forms). --Another Believer (Talk) 16:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Jack Herer and a pile of quotes

Anyone interested in Herer or WP:NOTDIR or WP:CIVIL? tedder (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry no one has replied yet. It's possible no one wants to associate themselves with the topic? Very interesting book he wrote, BTW. I read for purely scholarly reasons. Valfontis (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the quotes and warned the user about civility. Judging by the notices on the talk page s/he isn't making the community overjoyed with his/her contributions. Valfontis (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, valf. (val? valf? valfontis? font? valley? I'm going with valf.) tedder (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Oregon East Symphony anyone?

The article needs some help and I don't have time or patience today. Take a look at the history to see a mass rollback of legit edits, rendering it to its previous state--an uncited wall-o'-text. Be nice to the redlinked editor, s/he appears to have not been communicated with before. Valfontis (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would love to work on this article at some point, but I am unable to at the moment. Right now I am focused on (in a general sense, no edits very recently) the Portland Youth Philharmonic article, among other Oregon-related subjects. Eventually I hope to tackle other music-related articles. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Portland Parks & Recreation

I believe the 3-revert rule prevents me from removing the content currently posted on the PP&R article. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but it's harder to enforce when you don't give the user welcome templates, warnings, and/or personal notes about what the problem is. tedder (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Note I blocked the first, obvious COI, account here. It's always possible that rather than this being edit warring, it's a case of "huh, why aren't my edits 'sticking'?". It's always nice to try to assume that at first anyway. Valfontis (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Oregon History Comics

Can comics be used as reliable sources? Who knows, but this looks like a fun set to own: Oregon History Comics release party. The Shadowy History Cabal advised the writer a bit on a certain transportation topic. If you're in Portland, check it out! Anybody who is making history more accessible (like us!) ought to be supported. If someone grabs a set maybe we can finally fill out the history of the X-Ray Cafe. Valfontis (talk) 04:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This was on OPB's Think Out Loud this morning. I haven't had a chance to listen myself, but I note they also had the editor of the OHQ on. --Esprqii (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have to check out the rebroadcast tonight. Valfontis (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


Привет. Можно я тут раскидаю много бесполезных ссылок? очень нужно. Если нет - удалите это сообщение — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't spam links. I've invited a multilingual Wikipedian to drop by. tedder (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Ни в коем случае. Википедия – это энциклопедия. Шутка, что-ли? Но если хотите, можете нам помочь, добавляя полезную информацию :) Accedietalk to me 00:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Пожалуйста, не добавляйте внешние ссылки, особенно бесполезные ссылки спама. Спасибо! —EncMstr (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Enc- is that through a translator or is it a skill? I knew Accedie had excellent language skills, didn't know you did. tedder (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
It's the skill of using a translator. —EncMstr (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Важный вопрос

подскажите, где найти бесплатные программы для пк?

Удалите если это претит правилам форума — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Я не думаю, что вы сможете найти это. В следующий раз, если у вас есть вопросы, пожалуйста, обращайтесь в русской версии этой энциклопедии. Пожалуйста, не добавляйте в статьи текст, написанный на русском языке — это англоязычный раздел Википедии. Ваш вклад на русском будет более чем желателен в Русской Википедии.

Please do not contribute text in Russian to the English Wikipedia. Your contributions are more than welcome at the Russian Wikipedia. Jsayre64 (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Portal links in articles

Oregon portal

A few years ago, if I recally correctly, we had a problem with an unregistered user adding excessive portal links (especially rather tangentially related ones) to articles. At the time, the consensus of this project was to not use Oregon Portal template, or any other portals for that matter, on article pages. Even Aboutmovies, who does 95% of the the thankless task (thank you!) of maintaining the Oregon portal, didn't think we should put the portal in article space (it's on every single WP:ORE-tagged talk page). I thought we should revisit the topic since the portal links are starting to show up here and there. (Note: I'll add the links and diffs when I get a chance--feel free to add a link to the previous discussion in this post if you beat me to it.) I don't have strong opinion right now one way or the other, though I think one- or two-sentence stubs look cluttered with portal links added to them. People get a little cranky with our project from time to time because (rough paraphrase) "WikiProjects don't trump sitewide consensus". I still think it's OK to do things a little differently but we should clarify what that difference is once in a while. Valfontis (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. I add Portal links all the time, thinking it was beneficial to the project and to the encyclopedia in general. If this is not preferred I can stop. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Well I wasn't gonna name names... :) I don't think you should stop, but we should find out what the consensus is. Should we continue to be different? Is there a guideline somewhere? I think the problem before is that the addition of the links was kinda spammy. And from an "outsider" besides. Oregon: Things Look Different Here. Should they? Valfontis (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I guess I assumed portals existed for display purposes. I see no rhyme or reason to when they are used and when they are not. I often add Portal links to newly-promoted Featured content and Main Page articles and my edits are rarely reverted. (I use portal boxes in the "See also" section for 1-2 portals and use the portal bar template at the bottom of articles when 3 or more portals are related.) --Another Believer (Talk) 23:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I think putting them on featured and mainpage articles is a great idea as those articles reach a broad audience. I do think more than 1 or 2 portal links looks cluttery. And like the use of {{Oregon}}, which we agreed at some point should mainly be used on broader topic areas and mostly on the articles linked in the template (and not, say, on Western Meadowlark) I think the portal boxes go best on more general topics and on more developed articles. BTW, I forgot to mention that our featured portal is completely awesome (except for the color scheme, IMHO) and my concerns don't have anything to do with its quality. Valfontis (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I tend to work on Portland/Oregon-centric subjects such as parks, buildings, etc., which in my opinion make the Oregon portal link appropriate. Perhaps this should be for articles that are expanded to a certain degree, as portals appearing on stubs can be distracting. I would agree with your example of the meadowlark, which is not an Oregon-centric subject. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here's the previous discussion from 2 years ago. And one from '09. Valfontis (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Oregon will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Oregon's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Any other female WP:ORE editors (who wish to reveal such) around lately besides me? Males can participate of course, but I was just curious. I'm not good at being an army of one. Valfontis (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you care if it is males who help improve a female article? Assuming the club isn't exclusive, you can be The One and choose an article. I'll pitch in, it would be a great COTM. (next month: Cracks and Bottoms of Oregon!). tedder (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec with AB below) No, of course there is absolutely no problem with persons of other genders, like I said, I was just curious if the Wikimedia gender gap was still alive and well here at WP:ORE. I wonder if the recent silliness will attract more women?...Probably not. Oh well. Here are some suggestions, culled from my reading of The Oregon Companion (# in parens is number of incoming links--may be out of date):
A look through our arch nemesis might reveal some other articles that Aunt Betty would approve of us writing. Valfontis (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

--Another Believer (Talk) 01:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you already looked at The Oregon Encyclopedia! (not really our arch nemesis) I like the idea of writing Penny Harrington or Woman suffrage in Oregon (small mention in subsection here). Valfontis (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey everyone! So happy to see conversation taking place! Of course, anyone of any gender can participate! I'm going to take the liberty of adding WikiProject Oregon to Wikipedia:WikiWomen's_History_Month#Upcoming_online_events. When the project is ready to rock on your decisions of article focus or theme, feel free to add a link or add articles (or whatever pertinent information) there. I'll be promoting the event in a lot of places, so let's hope some really awesome things happen :) Excited to have you all on board! SarahStierch (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm starting on an Eliza Barchus article today. I'll have something ready by March, perhaps sooner. Finetooth (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Done. Finetooth (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Well done! --Another Believer (Talk) 04:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We're a week into this- does anyone want to choose a collaboration? tedder (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this subject is collaboration-worthy, and frankly I hope it even meets notability requirements, but I think I am going to take a stab at constructing an article for Sybil Plumlee:

For some reason, this story caught my attention and I think this spunky woman deserves an article! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, at first glance I don't think she is particularly notable, but I'll be glad to be proven wrong. Valfontis (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
She is considered to be one of the first female police officers for the city and lived to be the longest former member of the force. She is also an author. I'll see if these accomplishments equate to notability. I may be wasting my time but I don't think the article will take too long to construct. I posted a few additional sources on the article's talk page. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I've completed the article based on sources that were "low-hanging fruit". Hopefully I can find a few additional references. The Portland Police Bureau article needs a lot of work, and it's possible (assuming the PPB article were fully expanded) the Women's Protective Division could use its own section or article. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I started stubs for Lola Baldwin and Penny Harrington. I hope to get around to expanding these articles soon, though either would make great COTW/WWHM subjects. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am going to be BOLD here and suggest Penny Harrington as the subject of the collaboration inspired by WikiWomen's History Month. This is based on my own suggestion and Val's aforementioned interest. I welcome any and all project members to contribute to the article! :) --Another Believer (Talk) 17:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Eliza Barchus

Eliza Barchus is on the main page as a DYK right now. Go Finetooth! Are there any other Oregon articles in the pipeline for Women's History Month? Valfontis (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well done, FT! Ugh, I abandoned my attempt at expanding the Penny Harrington and Lola Baldwin articles. All in good time. --03:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, your friendly neighborhood Californicator here… I'm here at the San Francisco women's history edit-a-thon, and hoping to recruit some folks to attack the redlinks above. Nice list! Starting with Mrs. Cannady… -Pete (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Nice challenge! I've got Ms. Owens-Adair. Valfontis (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Oregon coast?

Note: The individual page move discussion is a separate discussion is here
Yes check.svg Done Result=page was not moved

Most of us are accustomed to seeing both words in Oregon Coast capitalized. There was a brief discussion about it here. Recently a user Dicklyon (talk · contribs) has been "lowercasing" Oregon Coast--in article titles (moving the pages), as well as in various articles. I'm not sure this should be done without discussion. He has requested a page move for Oregon Coast-->Oregon coast as well. (High desert (Oregon) was also moved.) I don't want to be, ahem, territorial, but I think we should discuss this. If I were to write an in-house style manual, I would say the region is important enough to be uppercase. What do you think? Valfontis (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Per MOS:CAPS, I can't see that's there's any reason to capitalize it. See book n-gram evidence of majority lower-case usage, which puts it very far indeed from "consistently capitalized in sources". Or look at specific books (in this search, I exclude books with Oregon in the title, because there you mostly just see titles in the snippets). Dicklyon (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Per MOS:CAPS#Compass points, though not exactly addressing this situation, I am now sure that the region "has attained proper-name status". Can you articulate a better reason than "the statistics say so"? I think our regional tendency to capitalize the area is because of its notability as a distinct region (and not because of boosterism), and regional usage should carry some weight in this case. Valfontis (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Our previous discussions—as I read them—resulted in no consensus in either direction. Should they be consistent? I think so. Should they be changed to be consistent? Yes.
As for consistency with other articles of similar scope, I found these in Florida which support Oregon Coast: Gold Coast (Florida), Space Coast, Nature Coast, and Emerald Coast. —EncMstr (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
That was one of my concerns as well--consistency. If we go with lc (lowercase) there are an awful lot of edits that need to be made and we should probably hire a bot to do it. I think right now we have managed to keep the uppercase form consistent so if we change a few articles we will need to change them all. That's not a reason to not go lc, but I think the fact that we've tried to keep the case consistent throughout the WP:ORE articles is important to note.
You are right that there was no consensus before. I'd like to search for a few in-house form and style manuals to reinforce my opinion--since the previous discussion, I'm solidly uppercase, but I've based that more on intuition than hard-and-fast rules, so I'm curious to see what other people think. Valfontis (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I noted on the page move discussion that The Oregonian uses uppercase. To recap (pun unintended) part of the previous discussion: PSU says uppercase, while George Fox says lc. Portland State is the larger, more important University--does that carry any weight? Valfontis (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
There is also Category:Oregon Coast and possibly subcats to be moved if we go lc. Though this one is already lc. Valfontis (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I ain't a fan of consistency in these cases…only because on the 'pedias, it's a surefire recipe for madness. Not that I'm against it, mind you..just not consistently for..consistency.

OK, let me try that again. Irrespective of any opinions I may have laid down in those previous discussions, my thinking at the moment goes like this:

"Oregon Coast" would have to be a proper name, and to be proper, it has to hinge on the legitimacy/authority of the entity or process that named it. At first blush, it seems right for a usage like "I'm taking my family to the Oregon Coast this, I dunno where, Gold Beach, Manzanita, some strip club in Tillamook, any ol' place on the Oregon Coast will do" but it really wouldn't make sense for "This particular species of Sasquatch is native only to the Oregon coast and southwest Washington," where it's essentially just shorthand for "the coastal region of the state of Oregon".

So, score one for inconsistency -- we can go BOTH ways! Or..maybe not.

If we really drill down on the first example, does the "proper" noun reflect anything more significant than what a chamber of commerce or a governor would want us to dream about? Is the Oregon Coast as much of a place unto itself as the Sahara or the Sierra or Saratoga? I'm not sure.

I think I'm spiraling in on lower case. Consistently. But maybe it's just me. -Pete (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your logic. And the evidence is not analogous on things like the Gold Coast, which is "always" capitalized in sources. Your comments would do more good at the RM discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Dicklyon. Feel free to quote me there if you like, but this is more like a "thinking out loud" moment for me than a grand conclusion…I'd be interested to hear how it strikes Valfontis, Encmstr, and some of the others here before going any further with it. To be honest, I've seen it capitalized in enough thousands of Oregonian articles that there's part of me leaning thatta way too. (The university style guides are fantastic finds, by the way…infuriating that they're inconsistent, though!) -Pete (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
So why not go with our own style guide? Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Of course our own style guide is the best one to use, but unless you know of a place where it clearly states whether or not "Oregon Coast" is a proper noun, it doesn't contain a clear answer. So we need to rely on external reliable sources. It seems to me the best way to use reliable sources is what everyone, including you with the the n-grams, is discussing. Isn't it? -Pete (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We're nothing if not consistently inconsistent. I think the Oregon Coast, The Region should stay where it is. I agree that individual mentions of the "coast of Oregon" in articles should be taken on a case-by-case basis as Pete outlined above and per a couple people in the page move discussion. I'll add my thoughts on that over there. But aside from mentions in the text, I'm mostly concerned about article titles. So far there has been Steamboats of the Oregon Coast-->Steamboats of the Oregon coast and List of lighthouses on the Oregon Coast-->List of lighthouses on the Oregon coast. Of course if Oregon Coast is moved we need to change some article titles. But if we don't move it, should articles that include "Oregon Coast" be uc or lc? Or is this all just lame?

Also related High Desert (Oregon)-->Oregon's high desert. I'm not sure either one of those is a good title. After the coast discussion, I'll start on discussion on the high desert talk page if someone doesn't beat me to it.

P.S. I think people get concerned when WikiProjects are made aware of controversial changes in "their" subject areas. As Pete has shown, I'm glad to see once again that we are not just some WP:ORE "hivemind" (even if I do wish Pete would agree with me, but then he's not from Oregon anymore so what do you expect, the traitor)<--humor. Valfontis (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I get the sense that this is a case of "nobody else has one of these so it doesn't fit the suit." There are no other states that have a "<name of state> Coast." Closest I can find are Jersey Shore, Mississippi Gulf Coast and Delaware beaches. I do tend to think that the Oregon Coast is a little unique in that Oregon is a large state with a homogeneous, yet characteristic coastline. Other states are either small are primarily coastal anyway (Rhode Island, Connecticut), large with diverse coastline (California, Washington, Florida). Some states, like the gulf states in particular, have a more unified character, like the Alabama/Mississippi coast is quite similar and is considered part of the Gulf Coast anyway. I think Oregon Coast is a legitimate geographical entity unto itself and should be capitalized. The key to me is that it is clearly a distinct part of the state, much like Central Oregon and should be treated to a capital letter.
It does raise a point about the other regions of the coast: as compass points, we need to start referring to the north Oregon Coast and south Oregon Coast, right? There are some good points made for the other side as well.--Esprqii (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Compass points in reference to The Part of Oregon on the Other Side of the Coast Range should definitely be lc. Uppercasing North Oregon Coast, for example, seems to me like a clear case of boosterism, vs. uc on the whole coastal area. I see the compass points are uc in the body of the Oregon Coast article--didn't we have a big fight about this once? I feel the vapors coming on...
Is Oregon the only state where the entire coastline is separated from the rest of state by a mountain range? This isn't necessarily part of the lc/uc discussion, but separation by mountain ranges is often why regions have distinct names, right? Is there a geographer in the house? Valfontis (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
If you look at book n-gram for combinations of capitalization, the only one with enough hit to make the threshold and be included is with both "north" and "coast" in lower case. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
That is probably accurate (WP:OR alert!) although you could make the argument for Washington as well, but as I noted above, it has such distinct coast regions with the Sound and the Olympic Peninsula that there is not a unified "Washington Coast." The coastal regions of the SE United States (NC, SC GA, VA) are separated by the Piedmont plateau but that isn't the same thing really. --Esprqii (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I find Jersey Shore, Mississippi Gulf Coast and Delaware beaches mentioned above very instructive. The first two are singular and capitalized, the last one is plural and lower case. Sounds to me like all three argue in favor of Oregon Coast. YBG (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Arguing from the inconsistent mess of WP capitalization is not very convincing. Why not look at sources instead? If you look at books n-grams, you find that Mississippi Gulf Coast is overwhelmingly capitalized as such, while the Jersey shore is usually not. We could work on that... Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Since when are n-grams the authority? I seriously doubt you'll find any support for changing the capitalization of Jersey Shore. —SW— communicate 13:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Dicklyon, clearly you think n-grams are the authority. Great. You've made that clear over at the page move discussion. The rest of us are kind of thinking out loud here (not really arguing), so is it necessary to refute each of our musings with n-gram evidence? Usually we're pretty friendly and casual on this page, though we take our edits to article space seriously. These informal community discussions help us explore all aspects of issues that aren't necessarily black and white and can go in surprising, creative and productive directions that help improve (and help us improve) the encyclopedia as a whole. I'm not trying to shut you down, just suggesting that we understand that you think n-grams are the authority, so you probably don't need to repeat yourself, we heard you. Does that make sense? Valfontis (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Oregon Blue Book is the state's official fact books so it should be pretty authoritative source for thing in/about Oregon. It uses Oregon Coast (both words capitalized) in it's text—e.g. “With miles of beach and coastline, Lincoln County is one of the most popular visitor destinations on the Oregon Coast.” That sentance comes from the “History and general information” section on this page.--Orygun (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, Dicklyon has already established that any source that is an Oregon organization is capitalization-biased and suffers from an Insatiable Urge To Irrationally Capitalize Every Noun Relating To Oregon, and therefore cannot be used as an example of the typical capitalization of any Oregon-related term. —SW— verbalize 05:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Just thought Oregon Blue Book might be good source since it’s published by the Oregon Secretary of State and Oregon State Archives...worth considering anyway. Guess I should have read the discussion more carefully, didn’t realize issue was closed.--Orygun (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Orygun, SW is joking/being sarcastic. But yes, I would definitely take the Oregon Blue Book's style guidelines under consideration for any future discussions. Did everyone see they've updated their website? The layout and graphics anyway. Valfontis (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)