Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

2nd Phil Knight daughter?

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

@Grand'mere Eugene: It seems that Phil actually has a daughter named Alexis, see here. MB298 (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I added her back to the article, though I have misgivings about using a blog post as a source. The disclaimer on the right of the page also has unusual syntax: "We are an independent organization dedicated to finance news & events about this amazing represent." Maybe non-native English speaker? Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, now I've noticed the date of the blog, and the link on the right side of the page to Phil Knight Wikipedia. I've posted to the citogenesis talk page. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

PDX streets

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

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

Considerations

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

Image request: Duckbill, the (now toppled) rock formation

Resolved

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

@Another Believer: here's a free use image from Flickr (it does have a person in it, but still the best I could find!) MB298 (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. If no project members have any images to offer, I'll consider this one, or perhaps a crop if that's allowed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's a rather lush photo of it, and then another lush photo of it, both cc-by-2.0, which works for us [1]. The photographer's shadow and watermark could, I think, be removed from the first image by the image workshop people on the Commons. The second image seems problem free. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

And is now on the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Tagishsimon! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Portland skyline photo in the infobox

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

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

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

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

Photo quality aside, the replacement image focuses on architecture only (as evidenced by the file's title). The infobox collage should show more than just architecture and be more representative of the city and its culture. I have no problem with the second image being used in a section dedicated to architecture, but I think the previous infobox image is more appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I agree with both comments above. Original collage had a nice mix of old and new features, architecture and infrastructure, and lighter and darker images plus a lot more green landscape. Together the selected images represented the city very well. On the other hand, it was nice that Drown Soda took the time to build a new Portland collage. Still I like the original… at least that my opinion.--Orygun (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps the image could be added to Architecture of Portland, Oregon? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Orygun and Another Believer. MB298 (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Add me to the list. I agree with all of the above comments, including all of the detailed points mentioned by Aboutmovies. Although I, too, appreciate Drown Soda's efforts, I detect a pretty clear consensus here to restore the previous collage to the article. By the way, it's worth noting that Drown Soda also created that previous collage, last November, and in my opinion it was an improvement over its predecessors (various collages tried out during fall 2015, starting on Sep. 15). SJ Morg (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Resolved

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

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

I have moved the article back to its previous name, after I belatedly remembered that, under certain conditions, adminship is not needed for such a move. SJ Morg (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and I agree with your move back to Calvary Presbyterian Church. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Status of new article bot

Resolved

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

User:AlexNewArtBot says "The bot is superseded by InceptionBot by User:Bamyers99". Perhaps User:Bamyers99 can help? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Orygun: Maybe you need to clear your browser cache. Here is the new article page history. --Bamyers99 (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is running fine, I just think your recent article was not included due to the rules. As in your last article had lots of mentions of other places, so the rules deduct points to try and keep articles about say Portland, ME or Oregon, IL out of the list. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I watched bot for couple of days and didn't see anything new pop-up. However, you're probably right since several new article have now been picked up. Thanks for taking time to look up my article and rating it.--Orygun (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Question re: article title

Resolved

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

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

Race in Oregon - "draft" started

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

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

Kimpton Hotel Vintage Portland and Imperial Hotel (Portland, Oregon)

Resolved

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

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

I have tagged them both for a proposed merging, under the name Imperial Hotel (Portland, Oregon), the title that has been used here for 9 years. The discussion is here. I had been intending to tag both for merging all week but was simply too busy in "real life" for practically any WP editing this week, until today, and I didn't see this discussion at WP:Oregon until after opening that merge discussion. The building was in use as the Imperial Hotel for 40 years, whereas it has been the Kimpton Hotel Vintage Portland for less than two years, and is listed on the NRHP under the historic name. – SJ Morg (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

DeNorval Unthank

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

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

I expanded the lead a bit with some of the remarkable bits about this man that were buried in the article's body. Nice work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Portland State University

I took a first stab at Template:Portland State University, but I very much welcome improvements by others who are interested. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I poked around a bit and did not see a way to improve it (and you know how detail-oriented I can be). Looks nice! – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with "Academics" as the row title for the institutions. Academics tends IMO to connote people. If you want an aca... word, Academies would fit better. Institutions would also work well. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I was originally thinking "Departments" but I thought that was speaking of one level of the academic hierarchy and I wasn't sure all the items listed were at the same level. "Institutions" sounds a bit too general, as IMO it could apply to the Oregon Encyclopedia and to the Viking. "Academic Institutions" is precise without being overly precise, but it has the disadvantage of being two words long. I know being the contributor of the header "Academics" doesn't give me any special status, but anyway, I'm fine with any change that others think is an improvement. YBG (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

At the University of Oregon, those things are called Schools and Colleges. Template:University of Oregon splits the baby and uses the word "Schools". – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh my king, give that other editor the second level heading, let it go live on the internet. YBG (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Paris Theatre

Two editors (possibly the same person?) are trying to update the article about Paris Theatre, which was recently renovated and repurposed. However, the edits were unsourced and needed better formatting, so I revert them, tagged the article with an "update" banner, and posted notes at Talk:Paris Theatre (Portland, Oregon). I am currently WikiConference North America, so giving this article attention right now is difficult. I will try to tackle this later, but if there is someone who is interested in updating the article and helping out this editor who means well, that'd be very helpful. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

More O-live journalism at its best

I'm guessing they do not have a convenient, online photobank for all their old images, as they keep using Wikipedia/Wikimedia ones. 15 out of 20 cities are ones from Wikipedia/Wikimedia. They actually did attribution where required. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

They do & its called wikipedia commons. tbh, anything which helps bring pariahs like Getty Images to their knees is good with me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of images...

I have a pair of screenshots I took from a late 1980 episode of Portland Wrestling. The first is of a KPTV top-of-the-hour station ID showing what I presume to be the station's then-logo. I noticed that the station's article contains multiple non-free files. As is typically the case with television station articles, they are rather WP:RECENT in nature, contrasting with the better-than-average presentation of the station's history found in the text. The second is a headshot of Tom Peterson taken from one of his commercials. One of my many recent complaints is how the rules have been stretched regarding non-free content across various parts of the encyclopedia. The most blatant example I've seen recently was when I perused Rose Mofford following her death. I couldn't help but notice that for over 3 1/2 years, this was a biography of a living person with a non-free image which most certainly merely showed what she looks like rather than one which provided historical context. I was always under the impression that this was strictly disallowed. As I've observed that people here are actively collaborating, I might assume that one or more of you are putting an effort into locating a free image of Peterson. Any input on any of this is welcome before I go and upload these. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Latest Collaboration of the Quarter/Month, etc.

OK, to make this topical and timely, we have Harry Merlo and Oregon Ballot Measure 97 (2016). Merlo just died, so there should be lots of sources, and there are already a handful of incoming links. For 97, apparently the most expensive BM in Oregon history, and tons of sources. Currently it is a redirect. A reminder, keep to the facts so we don't have fighting, maybe even hold off a bit for a week until everyone has voted. For synergy, maybe we could even find out how Harry was going to vote on 97 (and maybe he even already voted, now wondering if you die after sending in your ballot what happens; maybe we can add a section to Vote-by-mail in Oregon)? Aboutmovies (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for selecting. I went ahead and created a super-stub for Measure 97 to get the ball rolling... --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The 50,000 Challenge

Anyone interested? Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more states than they might otherwise work on. If there's the interest I will start 1000 State Challenges like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of states regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for the US and your specialist/home state like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every state, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any state sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thankyou.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

PacNW-specific: Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge/Pacific Northwest. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota

Hello all,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

If you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us, please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Thank you, Bowen Bobo.03 (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Portland, Oregon riot

Is 2016 Portland, Oregon riot appropriate? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that's why people were arrested. ;) Aboutmovies (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hah! Allow me to clarify. Is the article appropriate? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Answer: no. It's recent, minor, one of lots of little skirmishes after The Donald thing. I suggest Michaelh2001 should swiftly argue for keeping it, otherwise I'll prod/ced/afd it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

In what way? As in does it meet notability standards; too soon to really know, but likely. Might consider a merge into I would assume broader articles on the nationwide protests due to the election. Is the title appropriate; too soon to really know, but since it says it is covering the 3 days of protests it might make more sense to have at as something like 2016 Portland election demonstrations. Is the content of the article appropriate, as in neutral, etc.; could use some work, as some of it looks like editorializing since large chunks are unsourced. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to notability. Glad a few people have already chimed in here, which means we have eyes on the article. We'll see if it survives longterm. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It is the most violent of the anti-Trump protests to date. "Minor"? 29 arrests, many businesses damaged, police had to repel the rioters with rubber bullets and other devices, etc. I have no intention of creating an article for every protest, but this was much more than that, and very notable. Juneau Mike (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft-class error

Resolved

See Draft talk:Kerry Skarbakka, for example. Does anyone know why this template is discouraged on draft-class articles? WikiProject banners are added to drafts all the time, and the "Draft-class Oregon articles" category works just fine. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixed with an edit to {{WikiProject Oregon/errors}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Jonesey95! I am glad we can tag drafts now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI. About a year ago, there was extended dialog here on Wiki-Oregon talk page about utility of tagging DRAFT articles. While there were only few editors who joined in that conversation, consensus was that tagging DRAFT article wasn’t necessary or desirable … at least for Wiki-Oregon related articles. As a result of that discussion tag format was changed to discourage editors from adding Wiki-Oregon tag until the article was complete and ready for assessment. While DRAFT can be nearly complete article, it can also be a few misc notes or just some source links that could remain tagged to Wiki-Oregon long after work on the draft was abandon. Also, since notability is hard to judge from incomplete text, Wiki-Oregon could end up tracking unfinished work that may or may not be notable. On the other hand, nothing is lost if editor waits until article is finished before adding Wiki-Oregon tag. In any case, that’s history behind Wiki-Oregon's non-use of DRAFT tag.--Orygun (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this context. I don't recall this discussion, so I'll have to track it down. However, I think we should definitely have the ability to tag Oregon-related draft articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I did a quick "Oregon" search in the draft space and found a few drafts to tag. You can view them at Category:Draft-Class Oregon articles. I don't see how using this category is problematic. I think it's quite helpful to see works in progress and give passersby the opportunity to improve and implement drafts as appropriate. I recognize the problem of keeping worthless drafts around forever, but my understanding is that draft-space articles are deleted after being abandoned for a certain length of time. Alternatively, using this category allows project members to identify and request the deletion of specific drafts that are no longer needed, such as Draft:Oregon Wildlife Center Standoff. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I went through DRAFT files. Appears many were taken off-line for notability issues; one was identified as advertising. Another, Draft:Trail's End Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey Finished with Oregon Oak, has been taken off-line three times. Many drafts haven’t had any work done on them for 9 months or more, but only one draft is tagged as potentially abandon. That abandon draft tag was added by individual editor rather than being automatically tagged which means it will be up to Wiki-Oregon team to identify and tag abandon drafts. The abandon draft tag says “Drafts not being improved may be deleted after six months.” However, while abandon articles are “eligible” for deletion, it appears someone must take proactive action to actually delete abandon drafts. If that’s true, abandon Wiki-Oregon drafts are likely to remain on our books indefinitely. Found couple other problems as well…e.g. DRAFT tag for Anna Prosser is attached to REDIRECT page … not sure why REDIRECT page is a DRAFT. Also, appears Bud Pierce is now active article, but there’s still Draft:Bud Pierce listed as Wiki-Oregon DRAFT. Basically, I worry that DRAFT files will accumulate over time without anyone ever deleting abandon ones. Also, if abandon drafts aren’t purged DRAFT status could become a way of getting around notability or non-advertising rules. Oh well, I guess we’ll see what happen.--Orygun (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick update: I am going through the drafts category and moving some of them to the main space, or nominating them for deletion. We should either give the community the opportunity to expand these drafts, or nominate them for deletion. I haven't made decisions on all of them yet, but I'll be keeping an eye on this category. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

alternatives to 'pages needing attention'?

Category:Oregon articles needing attention is empty. Surely there are pages needing maintenance (e.g., having banners at the top of the page). Does anyone know how to find such a beast? tedder (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's Category:Oregon articles missing geocoordinate data, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Oregon, Category:Wikipedia requested maps in Oregon, and Category:Unknown-importance Oregon articles. I found these in Category:WikiProject Oregon. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: Expanded Auditorium and Music Hall article

Should we keep this recent expansion? There is some bad grammar, improper formatting, and none of the content is easily verifiable because all sources are offline (which does not mean it's wrong and noncompliant with Wikipedia's rules, but...) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I've tagged it for copy edit, sources seem authentic. MB298 (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Oregon/Archive 27 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Jim Francesconi

Jim Francesconi is begin considered for deletion. Discussion taking place over at WP:Articles for deletion/Jim Francesconi. YBG (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Photo request: Jimmy Mak's

Photo request: I'm looking to illustrated the newly-created Jimmy Mak's article, if you have one or want to take one before the venue closes at the end of the year. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I couldn't find any photos on Flickr to illustrate the outside of the club, but there are several of the interior. I have added two to the article. --MB298 (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, much! I'll try to snap a photo of the venue's exterior in the next couple weeks, if I'm around, unless someone beats me to the punch. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

References removed

Your attention is drawn to the removed references at Robert B. Pamplin, Jr., which I describe over at Talk:Robert B. Pamplin, Jr. § Unsubstantiated reference. I'm not sure what should be done, so I'm leaving it up to WP:ORE and WP:BLP. YBG (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

For us older people

Merry Christmas from Payless, Merry Christmas Aboutmovies (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Like Groucho Marx, I resemble that remark (tap cigar twice). But you're not that old...I was old when that jingle was introduced. Forgive me, I digress. Wishing all WP Oregon mavens joy in the coming holidays! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Duckbill

Bummer, the Duckbill article is now unillustrated, if anyone happens to have a picture sitting on their computer. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Chuck Bennett

I've created Chuck Bennett (politician). He did serve in the Oregon House of Representatives at some point, but I couldn't find any sources that say when. Does anyone know where to find that information? MB298 (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This piece from 2012 says he had been a lobbyist for 26 years, so probably he was in the legislature prior to 1986. This Heppner Gazette-Times piece refers to his winning a primary in 1978 but losing the general (also some other election skullduggery stuff). So check the Oregon Legislators and Staff Guide for the years between 1978-86. Painful, but not impossible to find. Cheers! – Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Grand'mere Eugene: Thanks! I've found it. MB298 (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hung Far Low (save the giggles...!)

Hung Far Low (restaurant) is a fun article to work on, if anyone wants to join. I am also looking for pictures of the restaurant at its original location, or the SE 82nd Avenue space, if anyone can help. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

All my mental pictures of the original are waaay too blurry to be of any use, sadly. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hah! I have a feeling others may be able to relate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

On a perhaps more helpful note...here are a couple sources that might interest you, relating to the history of Chinatown:

-Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hoping we can get around to creating Chinese-American culture in Portland, Oregon eventually... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

With just a bit more research and a lead expansion, this article is pretty close to GA-ready, IMO. I have a question, though, which I posted on the article's talk page. Do others think Wong On and Jack Wong are the same person? I wonder if these might be Chinese and English names for the same individual, and which naming convention I should use for the article. Is someone able to review sourcing in the "History" section and chime in here or on the talk page? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Mount Hood Skyway Sky Bus

Does anyone know where details about the Mount Hood Skiway Sky Bus belongs, or if a standalone article is appropriate? I'm less familiar with transit-related articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that you'll find enough to put in a full article. Until then, the material might go in Timberline Lodge or Timberline Lodge ski area, wherever it most logically fits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. There is also this section in the Magic Mile article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The reader comments suggest a couple of resources: Mount Hood a Complete History 1975 by Jack Grauer, and this comment from "OSU Engineer": "In any event, the building that served as the lower terminal (the one seen in the photo and video above) is still there in Govt. Camp and can be seen in this aerial from Google Maps. Note, you can also still the see the line in the trees that was the path of the tram leading towards Timberline." Cheers! – Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Women's March on Portland

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

@Another Believer: If it does attract as many demonstrators as intended, it will most likely receive enough coverage to warrant an article. I would recommend keeping it a draft until after the event actually takes place, then we'll wait and see. MB298 (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be working in the draft space for the time being. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I thought we'd need weekend coverage before establishing notability, but I'm quite sure there is enough coverage already. There's been quite a bit of leadership conflict reported by multiple outlets. I'll be swinging by the march this weekend to show support and document the event for Wikipedia. Expect some pictures, then a move from the draft space to main space. Again, all are invited to help improve this article. Right now I'm adding as much detail as possible, which can then be trimmed as appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

I think it would be fine, especially given they are separate articles. MB298 (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I might try uploading tomorrow, along with the rest of my event photos. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for taking those. MB298 (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure! I still have 20 or so more to upload, hopefully soon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting stats plots of WP Oregon

Hello all,

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

Some explanations about the variables:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting page view analysis

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

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

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

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

I haven't taken part in any of the deletion debates because I'm often busy working on obscure topics that may very well set records for low interest. Perhaps because of that interest in little things, I agree with you. What I generally try to do is to be inclusive if possible and to resist the temptation to jump straight to cleaning up by deletion. It takes a lot of work to save an article that starts out as a PR puff piece and to keep it from being re-puffed. Saving an article, if possible, seems much better than throwing it out. Finetooth (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

AB, I’m glad you wrote the post above. From what I’ve seen, article on businesses (no matter how interesting and well written) are inevitably magnets for conflict. When I was getting started as an editor, I wrote a couple of articles on large, well established non-profit organizations, but got push-back about notability and sources. Both got rating from appropriate wiki-projects, but never shock-off the issues and one was eventually deleted. That was very disappointing. I later tried an article on a restaurant, since those articles seemed to be passing in peace. However, I had to take it out a section on menu/cuisine, because it was considered advertising. I just don’t know how an editor could do a good quality article on any medium-size business without ending up in a fight about something. As a result, I write a lot of semi-obscure articles. Someday, when I run out of innocuous history stuff to write about, maybe I’ll try a business article … til then, I think I’ll steer clear of the drama business articles seem to generate. Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful comments.--Orygun (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting post, Aboutmovies. We'll have a piece in the upcoming Signpost about paid editing of company articles, which I think speaks to Orygun's point somewhat. I wonder if there might be an interesting Signpost article in the kind of data crunching you've done here... -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This England nominated for Featured article status

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

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

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

Blue Bridge (Reed College) nominated for Good article status

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

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

Nazis/Hitler

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

Godwin's law --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that's it, thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

weird small town edits

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

I reverted/revised pages for Moro, Wasco, Grass Valley, The Dalles, and Mosier after checking their official town websites, and added a ~~second~~ third disruptive editing warning on the IP user site. Probably won't have much effect, but at least the affected pages have been fixed. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks much. tedder (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Are the edits weird, or the small towns weird? Asking for a friend. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Or are the editors of small towns weird? Valfontis (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Homepage exposure

Oregon Cultural Heritage Commission is about to get some homepage exposure, and members of this WikiProject are asked to please chip in, because the article is in poor shape. Please see its talk page. Schwede 66 18:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I added infobox and reorganized article; add some new text and several new sources. It's still short article, but I think it's better now--Orygun (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up that terrible stub I started in 2008! I recently looked at the group's website and it's possible it's not much of a going concern anymore. At least someone needs to give them money for a web redesign. In any case, there might not be much more material on the group out there? Valfontis (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New mayors

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

Someone with some extra research time on their hands or access to one good source could have a lot of fun with List of mayors of Bend, Oregon. It is not accurate. I have added a pile of sources and lots of HTML comments in an attempt to start sorting it out. I don't know where the original list came from, but everything on the list (names and dates) needs to be verified. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, weird small towns aside, but has anybody tackled updating the all the city infoboxes with the new mayor names? I usually use the Oregon Blue Book website as a reference. Valfontis (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I did only the cities over 100,000, including the navbox template (linked above) for them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

January 2017 winter storm - Portland, Oregon

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

FYI. Used one of the Reed College photos for Mid-January 2017 North American ice storm info box.--Orygun (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted, but thanks for trying! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It seemed like good fit for that article as well as opportunity to use one of the Portland storm photos you collected, but I guess it wasn't right...oh well.--Orygun (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll post a link to the gallery on the article's talk page in case someone wants to browse and integrate an image. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Historic post offices need articles

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

Actually, all 11 of the Oregon post offices listed in the above-linked article are on the NRHP, not just three. The phrase "listed on the National Register ...." was added for those three entries as a (piped) link to the relevant county's NRHP list, to establish notability for inclusion of red links in that list. SJ Morg (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I've created a very basic stub for the La Grande one. MB298 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, MB298. I might get around to creating a stub or two later, but hopefully someone willing to do more than a stub will beat me to the punch! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Go team! – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Dibs on Eugene. If I don't get something put together by Monday you can revoke my dibs privileges. Valfontis (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget the broken promise to the Lane County Historical Museum that the previous post office would be the site of an expanded museum facility, in trade for the property the vacant downtown post office occupies, a deal broken only by the outbreak of WWII when the space was needed for federal offices. Local history buffs believe the U.S. govt owes the museum, still...sources available on the LCHM site.— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Seeking AfD discussion participants...

Resolved

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

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

Portland Winter Light Festival

Resolved

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

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

Main Page, y'all!

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

@Finetooth: Beautiful work, as usual. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Finetooth (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Past protests?

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

Vortex I? YBG (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Michael Munk's Red Guide to Portland would be useful for identifying any historical protests worth covering.... if anyone has a copy at hand. --Lockley (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Guerilla Theater of the Absurd! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

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

Many thanks and best wishes,

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

Re: Paris Theatre (Portland, Oregon)

Resolved

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

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

Hopefully things have slowed down a little. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Category:2009 establishments in Portland, Oregon nominated for merge

Resolved

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

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

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

Distraction

Knight Ryder

I see what you did there. Let's keep it on topic, please:

Ore Gun

Insert Flo Rida/Flo Ryder/shape of the state of Florida/Ore Gun/Ore Gon n^th-degree-pun here. Jsayre64 (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Will Lamb ET

Oregon Women in Red

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

Right now, only 16.85% of Wikipedia biographies are of women - that's less than one in five [2]. Which is a disgrace. I know this is an active & able project - please do what you can by way of adding biogs for these women. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Recommend checking various name alternatives before starting working on articles. I recognize 2 that are already in Wikipedia under different names. Hallie Brown Ford is listed under Hallie Ford and Claire Maybelle Phillips is listed Claire Phillips. I've changed both of these on the Women in Red master list so they no longer show up red.--Orygun (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, Tagishsimon, and for the reminder, Orygun. I've added the page to my watchlist and will try to tackle some articles when I can. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've removed most of the blue links after making sure articles existed for those entries. Now the page is mostly red links to create! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

New COTM! Insert your alt facts today!

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

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

WikiProject Oregon at Commons?

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

Oddly enough, on a tangentially related note, Eugene's mayor just used a pic from Commons as her Facebook cover photo. I pointed that out to her. More or less outing myself as a Wikipedian to much of Eugene. And so it goes. Valfontis (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You can thank me for bravely taking a stand for Wikimedia later. Valfontis (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and welcome to the club! I came out (oh, right, as a Wikipedian) a long time ago. :p ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

March 4 Trump

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

article for deletion

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

Pittsburghangelsforever, you are not allowed to "campaign" for votes at an AfD. This posting is in violation of the behavioral guideline WP:CANVAS. I'd suggest you remove it. A neutrally worded notification to involved projects is fine; advocating a position is not. John from Idegon (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry about this I was unaware Pittsburghangelsforever (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't Shoot Portland

I created a stub for Don't Shoot Portland, if anyone is interested in contributing. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Not My Presidents Day - does this article belong under the WikiProject Oregon umbrella?

Not My Presidents Day was a national protest, so this article is not Oregon-specific, but I went ahead and added the WikiProject Oregon banner to the talk page because the article has a section dedicated to Oregon, with details for Eugene and Portland, where 13 arrests were made. If this is not enough to justify a project banner, feel free to discuss here or revert. Otherwise, I am recruiting help to make sure the "Oregon" section is complete before nominating this article for Good status, if anyone is interested in lending a hand. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Tom McCall Waterfront Park navigation template

I created Template:Tom McCall Waterfront Park, if anyone has ideas for improving the navbox. I've added this template to all articles currently displayed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The Battleship Oregon Memorial is a major feature in Tom McCall Waterfront Park. There isn’t a stand-alone article on the memorial right now, but there is a section in the USS Oregon (BB-3 article that discusses the memorial.--Orygun (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I already have "USS Oregon (BB-3)" in the template (see "Related"), unless you had another article in mind as well? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

More Commons photos

The O used some more if anyone wants to tag their photos as published. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming Art+Feminism events

Just noting two upcoming Art+Feminism events:

Art+Feminism 2017 – Portland Institute for Contemporary Art (PICA), Portland (March 18, 2017)
Art+Feminism 2017 – Albert Solheim Library, Pacific Northwest College of Art, Portland (April 29, 2017)

Hope to see you there! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Bump, in case anyone is interested in the Art+Feminism editathon at the PNCA Library on Saturday. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming "420 collaboration"

You are invited to participate in the upcoming

"420 collaboration",

which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017!

The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion.

WikiProject Oregon participants may be particularly interested in the following: Cannabis in Oregon (Category:Cannabis in Oregon).

For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Image request: Third Eye Shoppe

Resolved

If you find yourself nearby, and the building hasn't been demolished already, the Third Eye Shoppe article could use a photograph. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Done @MB298: Thank you!! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: No problem. MB298 (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

AfD: Sunnyside United Methodist Church

Resolved

Sunnyside United Methodist Church has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunnyside United Methodist Church.

I invite other project members to participate in this discussion. What would be particularly helpful is if someone is willing and able to search the Oregonian archives for additional sources. For some reason, I am able to log into the Multnomah County Library website, but not the Oregonian archives via the MCL website. I will keep trying to do this, but if someone else can help, that'd be great. Please keep in mind, this church has had a couple different names throughout its history, so searching different phrases may be helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: Kept. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hands Across Hawthorne

Resolved

Hands Across Hawthorne is featured on the Main page today. I invite project members to help keep an eye on the edits being made, and help combat vandalism. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The article was edited and vandalized a few times, but mostly all that stuck was an image swap, some minor wording changes, and URL archiving. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Help w/ column widths in template

Resolved

Random ask, but does anyone know how to make the "Art+Feminism", "Portland Wiknic", and "Wiki Takes Portland" columns at Template:Meetups in Portland, Oregon to be the same width? I'm failing to understand the documentation at Template:Navbox subgroup to make this happen. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. At least for me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Some welcome Duck news from Eugene

In case you missed it, see this story from NBC Nightly news. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Oregon assessment matrix

Does anyone know how the Oregon articles by quality and importance matrix works? All of the articles shown as needing assessments were rated at least a month ago; and since then, nothing has been added or dropped from the matrix. Bottomline … it looks like the matrix is dead in the water.--Orygun (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but if you don't get an answer soon, you might consider posting a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's what I found out about matrix bot:

The BOT has been down since early February, take a look at the various posts at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. For the time being you can run it manually whenever you want at https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/update.fcgi. Keith D (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I tried the manual update process and it works.--Orygun (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

March for Science

I created commons:Category:March for Science in Portland, Oregon, if anyone else has images to upload from today. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I just moved March for Science Portland into the main space, if anyone has suggestions, improvements, or other edits before I nominate the article for Good status. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia meetup in Eugene: May 26, 2017

Just sharing a link to the upcoming edit-a-thon: Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA. You can also find information here: https://www.facebook.com/events/1546419775390031/. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Meetup Invitation

You are invited to the upcoming Asian Pacific American Heritage month edit-athon.

This will be held on the first floor of the Knight library at the University of Oregon.

For more information please see: Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA, a Facebook event link is also available on the Meetup page.

Date: Friday, May 26, 2017
Time: 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Location: Edmiston Classroom, Knight Library, Room 144
Address:1501 Kincaid Street, Eugene, Oregon, 97403-1299

Hope to see you there!

(This message was sent to WikiProject members via Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA/MailingList on 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC). To opt-out of future messages please remove your name from the mailing list.)

*bump* ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiki-Oregon Main Page Fix

As some of you regular Wiki-Oregon team member may have noticed the lower part of our main page somehow got incorporated into the member box. I think I’ve found the solution to make the bottom of the page re-appear on the main page … it works in preview at least. However, I would like an Admin person or other expert give my fix a check, just to be sure I don’t do any damage to the page. Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks good to me. You solved the problem. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Women's March on Portland

Are there any editors who would be interested in helping me finish off Women's March on Portland by incorporating these 16 sources, before nominating the article for Good status? I'm working on so many articles and struggling to tie loose ends. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 27/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Oregon.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Oregon, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:2017 Portland, Oregon stabbing 2017 Portland train attack

So, I'm not entirely sure this incident is notable enough for Wikipedia (I mean, I think it is, but there's that whole WP:NOTNEWS thing), so I started Draft:2017 Portland, Oregon stabbing and invite others to contribute, if interested. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the draft into the main space today. Not sure if "stabbings" or "attack" would be more appropriate in the title. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: 2017 Portland train attack went to AfD and was kept. Despite the subject matter, this article is coming along nicely. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:History of racism in Oregon

I just created Category:History of racism in Oregon, if you'd like to help populate. Thanks ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Gentrification of Portland, Oregon

Apparently I'm on a roll of creating content about touchy subjects: Gentrification of Portland, Oregon. All are invited to help expand. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Any wikipedians in the Eugene area?

Hi! I'm looking for wikipedians in the Eugene area, but are there any on here? If you are, I've changed the Wikipedians in Eugene page so you can add User {{User Eugene, Oregon}} to get

This user lives in
Eugene.

and put that on your user page! Thanks! 80atUO (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I have an interest in editing articles about the Eugene/Springfield area. I mostly do gnome work, but I will create an article if I see a glaring omission. Some of the very few articles I have created are List of mayors of Eugene, Oregon, Lucy Vinis, and Nike OTC Marathon. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

To clarify 80atUO's note above, there is a Category:Wikipedians in Eugene, Oregon. The userbox is an added bonus... Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Are you based in the Eugene area or know of anyone wikipedians in the Eugene area? 80atUO (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not personally know any WP people in the Eugene area, but I am in that area quite often. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: If you would like, you can use this category on your userbox so that there can be a community of wikipedians that are in Eugene or are affiliated with Eugene in any way. Thanks! 80atUO (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm in Eugene. Howdy. Valfontis (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Oregon Encyclopedia entries

Per this discussion on my talk page, I'm curious if any project members are interested in helping to create a list of Oregon Encyclopedia entries, which we can then use as a checklist to identify missing Wikipedia articles. I'm willing to compile the list manually, if folks are willing to help check off and create new articles accordingly, but I'm also wondering if someone is able to create a script to generate a list. Thoughts? Interest? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I have generated such a list. See WP:ORE/OE List. It looks like (very) roughly half of their articles are our redlinks. Please update the table! There are doubtlessly hundreds of errors: I did not check thoroughly in favor of less work for me while allowing contributions from many of you.

In the list, I created a Likely WP:ORE article column which has one of:

the appropriate article linked, or
a link to a wrong article, or
a redlink to something close to the right article name needing creation.

I have applied MOS:TITLE to OE's article title. However, their naming is muddled in several ways:

It looks like there are at least two philosophies for qualifying biographies, usually with a year range, but sometimes with a reason for notability. A few have two names in the title. Example: A-dec (Austin Dental Equipment Co.)
The URL title is often a munged version of the article title, but there are exceptions.
OE assumes an Oregon context, so they usually omit Oregon from titles (Newport instead of Newport, Oregon).

That's all I remember. Thanks to anyone who reviews and fixes my errors. —EncMstr (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this list! I look forward to working on it and creating new articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Doing... I placed an "under construction" tag at the top of the page, since I am going through the list and swapping columns and adding new ones for additional info. In the meantime, feel free to update the rows with 5 cells going across. I'll use the "in use" template if I am actively editing the list. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Updating--this looks like my idea of a good time! Valfontis (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I love these sorts of tasks. Must be the OCD in me. In case folks are interested in checking tables, I am posting sections with proper table formatting on the talk page. Might be easier to start with those to avoid edit conflicts. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Improving the Salem station article

Anyone want to improve the Salem station (Oregon) article? As part of restoring the freight shed, ODOT dug up a bunch of historical info. Links are on the talk page. Jason McHuff (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a great project. I'm bad at following through on my promises but I'll keep it on my radar. Valfontis (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I did go ahead and take care of at least some of the issues. Jason McHuff (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Oregon Women's Land Trust

Here's an interesting new article: Oregon Women's Land Trust. I added a few categories, but I'm sure more are applicable, if project members can think of more + other article improvements. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Oregon at Wikimedia Commons

I created commons:Commons:WikiProject_Oregon, if you're interested in adding the page to your watchlist. I think it'd be nice to have a space to collaborate. I've already posted a question on the talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride at PNCA: Tuesday, June 27

Project members are invited to today's Wiki Loves Pride edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway), from 5–8pm. For more information, visit the meetup page or Facebook event page. Hope to see you there! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone is in the area, the article for the Prism Health clinic on SE Belmont is currently unillustrated. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Mark W. Bullard

Not sure why New Oregon Articles Bot didn't pick up Mark W. Bullard article, but it didn't so request AB or someother Wiki-Oregon member give it quality/importance assessment. Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating! I didn't review the article too closely, but went with a C-class reading for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I dunno how you lose a carousel, but...

... Jantzen Beach Carousel. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Ankeny Plaza vs. Ankeny Square

I created a new article called Ankeny Square, based on the name I saw in a few sources. Then I noticed some sources, including the City of Portland, referring to the space as Ankeny Plaza. Then I started finding other sources using the name Ankeny Plaza to refer to the alley on Southwest Third Avenue between Voodoo Doughnut and the Keep Portland Weird mural. Can I get some help determining which name we should use for the plaza with the columns by Saturday Market? Any help is appreciated. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

March for Science Portland

The good article review for March for Science Portland has been... frustrating... Are there any project members who are willing to take a look to see if I am being unreasonable? I feel like I'm being strung along a bit... Regardless, the extra eyes on the article and review would be very helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Put in my 2 cents on issue of misused colons--hope that doesn't further complicate the review! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! No, I agree with you -- they are not necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: I didn't love all the requests made during this review, but it's come to an end and the article has been promoted. Thanks to the editors who chimed in via talk pages. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments

For those who may be interested, the annual Wiki Loves Monuments campaign is running through the month of September. For more information, see:

commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United States
- commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States/Oregon

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I wish there was a cat or other listing of most-needed monument pics. tedder (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure there is, somewhere. I saw the "Monumental" tool being used at Wikimania, but I haven't had a chance to dive deeper yet. If I come across a list here or at Commons, I'll be sure to share. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is a link to an interactive map of NRHP sites: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wlm-maps/#5/43.501/-123.245. It indicates which have vs. do not have any photos yet. I found it at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2017_in_the_United_States, and then re-centered it to point to a location in Oregon. Zoom in to see what's needed. Also you can browse within the state and county NRHP list-articles, starting at List of RHPs in OR. Hope this helps. --do ncr am 15:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Another tool is wp:NRHPPROGRESS#Oregon (or wp:NRHPPROGRESSOR) which tallies the number of sites and the number with photos, by county. There are photos apparently for 93.2 percent, 1,889 out of Oregon's 2,027 NRHPs. Curry County needs 30 photos, the most of any. The ~~southeast~~ southwest counties need the most generally, but other counties are missing some, e.g. Clatsop needs 6. Tillamook needs 21 but those are archeological sites for which the locations are not identified, and IMO we don't want to identify them but rather get photos of artifacts from them, from archeological studies, say. Up at the top of the NRHPPROGRESS page is a map showing shadings for % illustrated and a sortable table by state. Currently 10 states and the District of Columbia have higher percentages of photos. --do ncr am 15:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, really there are very few to get. Actually Clatsop, Coos, Curry, Lane, Lincoln, Tillamook, Umatilla counties "need" photos but those are all address-restricted sites, besides just-recently-listed Jacob Clearwater House in Springfield, Oregon and 1994-listed Seelig–Byler House in Coos Bay, Oregon. Josephine County's NRHP list needs about 13 non-address-restricted, Jackson's needs about eight. Two are needed in Deschutes County, but just Whaleback Snow-Survey Cabin is needed in Douglas and just Silver Creek Youth Camp – Silver Falls State Park is needed in Marion County. That's only about 19, state-wide, i think. The interactive map tool linked above presumably only shows places for which coordinates are available, so mostly non-address-restricted. --do ncr am 16:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC) --do ncr am 01:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, for completely unknown reasons I said in my original post that the campaign is being held in November. The Wiki Loves Monuments runs through the month of September, so if you're uploading photographs of NRHP sites, feel free to use the campaign tools so your work will count towards this project. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Up to now, there have been no changes during this month in the number of "illustrated" NRHP places in Oregon, per updates to wp:NRHPPROGRESS#OR. However there may have been Oregon pics uploaded, and I hope that photographers here will upload photos during the remainder of the month. Adding additional photos for any NRHP site "counts" for Wiki Loves Monuments and is generally helpful. Any NRHP article is better with multiple pics, hopefully covering details mentioned in NRHP documents. Especially for historic districts, one pic really doesn't suffice for coverage. Also there are state- and locally-designated buildings and historic districts which are eligible. Some links for Oregon are here. --do ncr am 15:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red's new initiative: #1day1woman

Women in Red is pleased to introduce...
A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman

Create articles on any day of any month
Cover women and their works in any field of interest
Feel free to add articles in other languages, too
Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Bullseye Glass

There have been some interesting edits to the Bullseye Glass article recently. I've reverted much of the content, but feel free to take a look or help expand. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I lost the plot. How many reversions constitute edit warring? Good effort on your part to keep the text faithfully sourced, buI I noticed at least one of the now-deleted additions (the sentence about the company starting a renaissance) was NOT supported by the O-live citation supplied. New SPA editor wants to hype the business--COI suspected since the user page claims extensive experience in all things glass. I'll keep watching... Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I posted warning tags (advert, edit warring) on the editor's talk page. Also, some of the content added by an IP editor in Beaverton was unabashed copy-vio, so I also warned that culprit. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Eclipse images

If you took any photographs during the eclipse, feel free to upload them here: commons:Category:Solar eclipse of 2017 August 21 in Oregon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

World War I Memorial (Salem, Oregon)

I created World War II Memorial (Salem, Oregon), based on this Smithsonian Institution entry. However, other sourcing says the work by Littman is a WWI memorial, so I went ahead and moved the page to World War I Memorial (Salem, Oregon). I changed World War II Memorial (Salem, Oregon) into a redirect to the newly-created Oregon World War II Memorial. Should we somehow note that Smithsonian is incorrect? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

(FWIW, I happen to know from previous research that the SIRIS database is loaded with errors. Their administrators accept corrections with good grace, but nobody should be shocked to find mistakes in there.) --Lockley (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- AB, I've added an image of the Littman sculpture on the Marion County courthouse to that page, and added another couple in the Commons. I'm thinking this piece is best described as a "War Memorial", not specific to WWI. This old local newspaper refers to "Frederic Littman, sculptor for the War Memorial". And it just would have been super weird to dedicate a WWI memorial in 1954 although sometimes people are super weird! all best AB --Lockley (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  - @Lockley: Thank you for adding the images. I wasn't surprised about the Smithsonian error as much as just wondering if the Wikipedia article needed some sort of note or disclaimer to identify the sourcing error. I'll post your recommend to the article's talk page as a future reminder. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)