Jump to content

Talk:Portland, Oregon: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Feedle (talk | contribs)
131 edits
Feedle (talk | contribs)
131 edits
Line 172: Line 172:
== Rose Quarter: Not technically in NE ==
== Rose Quarter: Not technically in NE ==


As a point of order, the text in the section describing the Rose Quarter complex as being in "Northeast" is misleading. According to the city "quadrant" system, Rose Quarter is actually in the "North" quadrant, even if about 100 feet crosses the line to NE. (If you examine any good map of Portland, the "North / Northeast Boundary" is N Williams Avenue: any place east of Williams Avenue is "Northeast", anything west [inclusive of Williams itself] is "North"). According to the building's placement in the 2005 "Thomas Guide" Portland Street Atlas, Williams Ave. would land in the middle of the building.
As a point of order, the text in the section describing the Rose Quarter complex as being in "Northeast" is misleading. According to the city "quadrant" system, Rose Quarter is actually in the "North" quadrant, even if about 100 feet crosses the line to NE. (If you examine any good map of Portland, the "North / Northeast Boundary" is N Williams Avenue: any place east of Williams Avenue is "Northeast", anything west [inclusive of Williams itself] is "North"). According to the building's placement in the 2005 "Thomas Guide" Portland Street Atlas, Williams Ave. would land in the middle of the building, but far to the east of the bulk of the building and anything that would be considered a "entrance" for purposes of street addressing.


It is worth noting that the address for the property was (until it changed to the ambiguous "1 Center Court") 1401 N Wheeler, and streets in the complex (like N Dribble Drive) are referred to with the "North" designator, as is Wheeler Avenue itself, which cuts to the east of the complex in between the Rose Garden and the highway (according to a street sign placed on Wheeler).
It is worth noting that the address for the property was (until it changed to the ambiguous "1 Center Court") 1401 N Wheeler, and streets in the complex (like N Dribble Drive) are referred to with the "North" designator, as is Wheeler Avenue itself, which cuts to the east of the complex in between the Rose Garden and the highway (according to a street sign placed on Wheeler).

Revision as of 02:09, 31 July 2007

Economy of Portland

Um, this is my first post (I think I'm doing this right...) and I noticed there's no "economy of" section in this article. Well, I thought I might offer a few bits of information for anyone who has the knowledge to add it to the article: silicon forest; Nike (headquartered in Beaverton); Tektronix (its location in the area helped to create silicon forest); Intel (largest employer in Portland area, or maybe state); history of steel industry and existing/remaining companies-precision cast parts, oregon steel, northwest pipe company, etc.; portland is the largest grain shipper in the nation, and the third largest port destination in the west coast; emerging biotechnology (?), although that's debatable as we don't have any major businesses in that field in the area... I don't know, just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snowden352 (talk • contribs) 02:21, August 26, 2006 (UTC)

Why is there nothing on Portland's economy? I think this information would be useful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.182.41 (talk • contribs) 17:37, January 26, 2007 (UTC)

Agree. A local economy section is vital to an city wiki. That is what I came to look for here, and was dissapointed when I found it missing. Someone who knows better should take the information above and begin crafting a section on the main page. Onishenko 13:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I am compiling some information for the economy section. Should we create a seperate page for the economy as well? There is a multitude that could be written about the economy in Portland. JordanRL 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that an economy section is needed, your examples are not in Portland, but in the Portland metropolitan area. The silicon forest is mostly if not entirely outside of Portland proper. I don't really think it is appropriate to talk about Beaverton/Hillsboro/Gresham/Vancouver in this article, but it is entirely appropriate and needed in the metropolitan area article. Cacophony 01:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Econ section definately needed, as I just started the Precision Castparts Corp. artilce to remove the redlink from the Oregon artilce and thought I'd link it here too, but can't. And Cacophony is right, Portland companies only, no Nike, no Columbia Sportswear, and no Intel (unless they still have an office in downtonw Portland). And while we are on this subject, could someone remove other none Portland items, such as oh the universities not in Portland. Aboutmovies 18:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing that two related pages get moved: Metropolitan Area Express (Portland) to MAX Light Rail and J. E. Clark to Bud Clark. Please come discuss these on the articles' talk pages. Jason McHuff 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

band vanity

I removed a band from the list under the "Popular Culture" section a couple weeks ago, with the following comment:

removed what appears to be vanity. The wiki page on the band makes no convincing case for notability; also I have followed music in Portland for some time and am unaware of them.)

The band was just re-added at the top of the list (by a user at the same IP address as the first time: 81.216.8.15) I'm reverting again, and will explain my reasoning a little more fully: the other bands listed (Elliott Smith, Pink Martini, Sleater-Kinney) are all well-known around town, and have received considerable news coverage over a period of several years. This coverage has largely been from mainstream publications, not just music-oriented entertainent papers. Elliott Smith's music was nominated for an Oscar. Portland residents who don't follow music could be reasonably expected to have some familiarity with these bands. I am a Portland resident who does follow music, and I have never heard of this band anywhere but here. -Pete 00:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the add to make it conform to the English language, and the format of the others. The band Agalloch I've never heard of either, but their wiki page has 3 full length and several EPs. I don't think the threshold for inclusion should be "well-known around town" but either (1) well-known nationally in their genre or (2) multiple "available" recordings. It has to be something other than "Portland residents who don't follow music could be reasonably expected to have some familiarity with these bands.", since I don't think either Smith, PM, or S-K would be known by the "average" Portland resident. Philvarner 03:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opening the door to any band with "multiple available recordings" would invite literally thousands of bands to attach themselves to the list. I could probably rattle of 20 or 30 without pausing for breath. I am certainly open to discussion about what the standard should be, but I don't think that is a good one. As to specifics, I'll concede that Sleater-Kinney might be a reach, and wouldn't oppose removing them. But Elliott Smith was nominated for an Oscar, and his suicide got front page coverage on general-interest Willamette Week and possibly other papers. Pink Martini has also had front page treatment, is involved in charitable events around town, and tours internationally. -Pete 03:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the recordings one is a good one either. I think the Seattle#Culture section is a good example we should follow. This would exclude Agalloch. I would say theirs are "nationally prominent bands in their genre". For example, Skinny Puppy isn't necessarily popular overall, but they are nationally prominent in their genre. Austin, Texas goes the other direction and lists just about everyone, even if they don't even have a wikipage. I don't think his is what the list should be. Although, there's also a lot of grey here, for example, Storm Large is prominent locally and was recognized nationally on "Rockstar: Supernova". I don't know whether she should or not, but I do think she's the marginal case which should be used to determine the threshold. Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philvarner (talk • contribs) 20:00, February 11, 2007 (UTC)
I think Storm Large should be on there - she went far on Rockstar: Supernova, and was heavily praised there. Austin would probably have a different standard than Portland, because it's known for its music pretty much more than any other characteristic. I think "prominent in their genre" is a little dicey, simply because musical genres seem to propagate faster than bands sometimes…do we want a "prominent" house-dub-techno-industrial DJ on Portland's front page? Or an operatic-grungecore band? Another specific suggestion: if a band's wikipedia entry does not cite mainstream or national sources, it doesn't go on the page. Which isn't to say EVERY band that does goes on the page. By that standard, only the Shins and Elliott Smith would get to remain…but I'm sure citations could be found for the other bands currently on there. -Pete 06:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think any band should go on the page, this particular case shows a bias against metal music and for indie rock. And I say that as basically the biggest Elliot Smith fan outside of Portland. - Stick Fig 07:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would happily support the idea of removing all bands from this page. Short of that, I'd say the appropriate way to overcome that bias is to find a truly famous metal band from Portland…if there is one. If Portland is more of a hotbed of indie rock than metal, that would be reflected in the page - I'm not sure if that's the case, but calling for equality among genres may not fit reality. Anyway, is there anyone who feels strongly that ANY bands should be listed here? -Pete 01:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're totally arguing in the wrong direction. Portland's got a good cultural scene and it should be reflected on the page. Just saying, "this is too tough" and removing everyone is the wrong way to go. In fact, I would be bold and put them back in if you took them out, because I think they're essential to the page.
Instead of suggesting this line of thought, go the other way and figure out how to show that Portland is home to a variety of artistic contributions. - Stick Fig 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I misunderstood you. Not sure I understand even now - but, I'm not really suggesting that they all be removed, just that I would support that choice if you or somebody else made it. I think the ideal section would express something in prose, as opposed to a list, perhaps listing a few examples, but aiming more to inform the reader of trends or culture rather than a laundry list. But I'm not really prepared to write that myself, I have enough projects on my plate! Which is the main reason I wouldn't suggest removing the list. Certainly, something should be there. -Pete 02:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Public Art

I have nominated Portland public art for deletion. Please visit that page and share your thoughts. I have noticed that editors of the Portland page are diligent about keeping extraneous external links off this page. The PPA page avoids that controversy by making an uninformative stub, that contains a link to the weblog. I like the blog, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote web sites. Please visit the PPA page to discuss. -Pete 08:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of good faith addition of "otheruses" template

Any reason not to have one on this article or was this just reverted because it was added by an anon? Katr67 14:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page name is "Portland, Oregon", not "Portland" -- it is not ambiguous, so does not need disambiguating. See WP:D, and related guidelines. Joe D (t) 14:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the alleged coin toss

Ok, I am just saying there are many, many people who believe the alleged coin toss was nothing more than an urban legend. The only sources that state this as fact are organizations made to draw tourists to the city. I could hardly call that a reliable source!

I have lived in Portland all my life, and have always questioned this alleged coin toss. I think that unless someone can find a better source than visitor's association, my comments should stand.

I don't understand what the tourist organizations would gain or lose if the coin toss never happened. However, here are some less touristy references:
—EncMstr 20:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are primary sources. They do not count if they are not primary souces. I want an actual article from the time of the actual coin toss or a photograph or something.

User:Mainliner.espresso please sign your statements with four tildes (~). Wikipedia does not require primary sources (though they do of course take precedent over secondary and tertiary ones), only reliable published sources. VanTucky 20:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I want video showing the Missoula Floods otherwise all references to it should be removed! And I also want a newspaper article covering the Trojan War too!!!! ;) Aboutmovies 00:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology

As far as I know, Portland has a great record and initiative in taking care of the environment and climate. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Btd-no 23:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like the raw sewage into the Willamette whenever it rains a lot, or the toxic cotamintion that prevented the use of the back-up water wells along the Columbia, or the dioxins lining the bottom of the Willamette from pulp production? Aboutmovies 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the Willamette is one of the most polluted rivers in the US. But if you want to consider the carbon footprint, the mass transit system pu tin place by Metro is a step in the right direction. Also, consider the number of those biking and Flexcars. VanTucky 23:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess both could be mentioned in the article. I've only heard the city's side and they speak about carbon-emission reduction, mass transit and bike-commuting far above the general US levels. If it's true, it should be mentioned, if they pollute heavily in other areas that should of course also be included. Btd-no 01:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the city's industries pollute heavily currently, but they sure used to. Where's the city at as far as Superfund site cleanup? I believe there are still quite a few toxic sites along the rivers. Allied Plating on MLK, now cleaned up, was the worst Superfund site in Oregon at one time, IIRC. The owner used to discharge heavy metals directly into the Columbia, and the site affected (affects?) an awful lot of groundwater. I got to walk around on the site pre-cleanup, not sure that explains anything... Katr67 02:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Btd-no's point is close to "right," but not quite. There are three similar points that I think are more defensible, but not quite the same: (1) the state of Oregon is known for its history of environmental stewardship, notably with the Oregon Bottle Bill, protection of the coastal land, protection of salmon, etc. and (2) Portland is known for its neighborhood-oriented urban planning, largely as a result of the Mount Hood Freeway revolt and Neil Goldschmidt's redirecting federal fund to projects like MAX, and (3) Portland is known as being a very liberal city, which includes environmentalist sensibilities. (Tre Arrow's protest of the Eagle Creek timber sale comes to mind.)
The 2nd and 3rd points should definitely be touched on in the article, as they are important defining characteristics of contemporary Portland - and can be backed up by reliable sources. But saying the Portland has a "great record" would be original research or POV-pushing, and as illustrated by the discussion above, rather controversial at that! -Pete 07:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planning and development section

I'd like to see the "land use planning" section expanded and split off into its own article - any thoughts?

Also, it has one paragraph (quoted below) that is pretty non-encyclopedic. I think it has good info, somebody more knowledgeable than I (or with a good book on hand...) should rewrite it! -Pete 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


knife capital of the world

In a KATU article today, it dubbed Portland "knife capital of the world". The article can be found here. http://www.katu.com/news/7361421.html 71.59.236.48 03:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multnomah Falls

I'm not sure this is entirely relevant, but I didn't see Multnomah Falls under Geography. I thought it would be important to mention them because I always bring visitors from out of the country or state to that particular landmark. Or should I state watermark? (Laughs at cheesy joke)Gargoyle123 02:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing, Multnomah Falls is 30.1 driving miles (according to Google) from Portland, and at least 15 miles outside the city limits. All the listed attractions are within the city limits. The proximity of Multnomah falls is a good tidbit for WikiTravel though. —EncMstr 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Education

The section about notable high schools seems to be growing into all the high schools. Maybe we want to rethink and rewrite that section, since "notable" in this application is somewhat subjective, and subject to endless revision by people from the schools not included? I'm not from Portland, so I don't know which schools are truly notable. Katr67 03:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that no high school is simply notable, independent of context - rather, a school is "notable for its…whatever. The "whatever" is filled in by a reference from a reliable source. Any school that you can't write and cite such a sentence for should not be included in the section. -Pete 05:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's official--all but one of the high schools have been added to the section. Rather than weed it I simply changed the wording. Katr67 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible deletion of related article

The article Portland, Oregon in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. Please take a look at the discussion, and chime in if you have an opinion. It is my belief that the existence of this page is very good for three reasons:

  1. It serves a reader looking for an overview of books, films, bands, etc. with strong connections to Portland. (It could do a better job of this, but is already useful, and improves over time.)
  2. It makes the job of deciding what's notable enough to include on this page much easier.
  3. Related to #2, it serves as a tool, allowing us to collaborate with new editors who come to Wikipedia to promote their favorite band, author, etc., and introduce them to the cooperative spirit that makes Wikipedia work, rather than getting into unpleasant arguments all the time.

-Pete 05:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!) Katr67 15:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added www.portlandGuide.com

PortlandGuide.com is one of the best guide sites to the city of Portland. It should be considered as an additional resource to be included on the portland page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbagehead310 (talk • contribs) 7:58, June 6, 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

I love the picture in the infobox and it is a Featured Picture, but I'm wondering if it would work better later in the article using the panaroma feature (see below) and find a picture that is less elongated that would work better within the constraints of the infobox? Any thoughts? Aboutmovies 17:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

It just depends on the image you had in mind to replace it with. VanTucky (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been returned to the wide format as it is there as the example of the proposed change. That's why it says "see below" so people unfamiliar with the wide image template can see what it looks like. As to a different picture I'm not really partial to any image in particular. I tried this Image:Portland&MtHood.jpg one in the infobox and it looks OK, but maybe someone knows of a better one. It's not so much about the replacement to me, but showing off the current Featured class picture in a better way. Aboutmovies 22:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think this image is better as the infobox image. The one you linked isn't very good composition, the trees in the foreground like that look stupid, and the depth of field makes it look like Portland is in the Rockies or something. But whatever replacement we would use, the above image doesn't look very good as a wide image. A more...panoramic one, with more of the bridges and such, would be better. It should also be pointed out that wide images aren't used very much for the simple reason that they tend to disrupt the flow of an article too much. VanTucky (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I don’t care what picture goes in the infobox. As to the use of large pictures you might want to spend some time going through the FA class articles about cities, which I might suggest Vancouver, BC, New York City, Detroit, Michigan, and Minneapolis, Minnesota. They all have large pictures (not all using the wide format template) in the article breaking up the text. Thus large pictures like this are perfectly acceptable for FA class articles, and though Portland isn’t FA I would hope the editors are looking to get it there. As I said, it’s about showing off this Feature Class picture, and due to the size constraints of the infobox I don’t think that is the best place for the picture. Even working it into the body as a larger picture would be better (see above or the way NYC handles these pics). Aboutmovies 23:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look about on Commons. It is pretty tiny in the infobox, but I just dislike the wide format. A simple large size would be fine with me though. VanTucky (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me, this image is the one to use as a wide format image. Awesome! VanTucky (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to join the party a bit late. I wouldn't recomend my FP as a wide picture because it really isn't that panoramic. Having it, say, 1500 px in width would make the height about 600 px. which is very tall. The bridges one above is a good choice for its showing the bridges and its nice lighting but it is inherently small, blowing it up any bigger than it is here would have less than optimal results. Two pictures I think are possibilities: this picture that isn't even in the portland artical is also an FP and illistrates the geography. And this (also mine) has a better aspect ratio. cheers -Fcb981 02:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Workgroup

The new Portland Workgroup division of WikiProject Oregon is now open for business. If you would like to join and help improve Portland related articles, go to the page and sign up. Plus list any items you think need to be worked on. Then you can add this userbox to your user page: {{User WikiProject Oregon PW}} Aboutmovies 18:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Quarter: Not technically in NE

As a point of order, the text in the section describing the Rose Quarter complex as being in "Northeast" is misleading. According to the city "quadrant" system, Rose Quarter is actually in the "North" quadrant, even if about 100 feet crosses the line to NE. (If you examine any good map of Portland, the "North / Northeast Boundary" is N Williams Avenue: any place east of Williams Avenue is "Northeast", anything west [inclusive of Williams itself] is "North"). According to the building's placement in the 2005 "Thomas Guide" Portland Street Atlas, Williams Ave. would land in the middle of the building, but far to the east of the bulk of the building and anything that would be considered a "entrance" for purposes of street addressing.

It is worth noting that the address for the property was (until it changed to the ambiguous "1 Center Court") 1401 N Wheeler, and streets in the complex (like N Dribble Drive) are referred to with the "North" designator, as is Wheeler Avenue itself, which cuts to the east of the complex in between the Rose Garden and the highway (according to a street sign placed on Wheeler).

At best, the current language is disputable, and should probably be struck for more "neutral" placement of the complex. --Feedle 02:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portland,_Oregon&oldid=148180481"