Portal talk:Oregon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good start

Good work on the portal so far, everyone. I think it's in good enough shape that I've added it to the List of portals - they note "Not add some new portals until you have Finished Construction." I think we've done that. — Zaui (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

I'm thinking it might be better to re-direct the "suggestions" for the "article", "bio", and DYK to this page. That way it is all centralized. Aboutmovies 04:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made this change. — Zaui (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Try for featured status?

Anyone interested in getting the portal featured? If so, we should make sure it meets the Featured portal criteria and then send it through Portal peer review. I think there's enough content and with some judicious clean up, it will pass. — Zaui (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be great. Currently Oregon State Capitol is up for FA, so after that it might be a good time to push this. What kind of clean up are you talking about? Aboutmovies 18:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
(this is all my opinion, you may get different advice from Portal peer review):
  • Some of the Selected Articles and Biographies need to be trimmed - I think 250-300 words is ideal.
  • Make sure all Selected Photos are Featured or could be Featured. I don't see today's pic of the day on the page.
  • The DYKs should be grouped - at least 3 per entry. Appropriate photos should be added.
  • All photos need captions - even if they're not thumb-nailed - so that when users 'mouse over' them a description will appear.
  • There should be at least 20 Selected Articles and Biographies each - with photos if available.
  • Check that all photos used are free - not fair-use.
That's off the top of my head. — Zaui (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. We can work on these over the next month or so. I've worked in all DYKs that were not previously included, later I'll start to consolidate the others. After that I'll work on working in more of the previously selected bios until I reach 20 of them. Aboutmovies 17:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've started some clean-up and also found Wikipedia:Portal guidelines which has some good suggestions. — Zaui (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The DYKs are now done. They are grouped into 3s, and photos have been added where available. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo discussion

I forgot one thing, the only disagreement I have is with the pictures part where you suggest they be featured or could be. All the featured content is already in a spot, and shows up everytime the page loads. I think the other rotating items, pictures included, should be of good quality (thus the B class minimum I think we agreed on above), but not limited to FA status. This allows for a lot more options, and can help better cover the entire state instead of 3-4 pictures of the Portland skyline and a couple others. With the ones I added I tried for two things when adding non-FP class: fair to decent looking, and wide geographic coverage (plus not fair use). But that's my thoughts Aboutmovies 18:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously they can't all be FP (we should include all FP, IMO), but I think we can raise our standards for photos a little bit more then fair to decent - portal content should be (quoting from Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria) "the best of Wikipedia's content in an area". That's what we should shoot for. That's why I replaced the photos that I did.
Photos are a bit tricky because it's either a FP, or it's not a FP - there's no GP or A-class, etc. So maybe we can discuss what we're looking for to populate the photo section and then find photos that meet FP requirements - especially high technical standard, high resolution (wiggle room here), and must be free.

Selected Photo Ideas (please add more)

  • All FP should be included.
  • A photo from any of the articles listed above (at least B-class and High Importance) should be fair game.
  • Natural 'wonders' of Oregon: Mt. Hood, Multnomah Falls, Hells Canyon, Columbia River Gorge, The Coast, Crater Lake,
  • Cities: Portland, Salem, Eugene,
  • Regions: see list
  • Industry?: Logging, tourism, ski areas
  • Cultural events: Rose Parade, State Fair,
  • History: Oregon trail,

— Zaui (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the ideas of Zaui, just thought I'd mention that images on the Commons that are Quality Images might also be of the quality desired. User:Cacophony has a number of great pictures that should be looked into. User:Aboutmovies, you should also put at least few of your pictures in there. Zaui, you have some good ones of Lincoln beach, I may stick my Convention center picture up for FP in the next week or so. Otherwise, I wish I was still in Oregon so I get a few more contributions... I'll be back in February though : ) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we need a page to select images from? I have 159 uploads on commons, several of which might be of interest. —EncMstr 23:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
We can start with the Oregon catagory on Commons and wade through the sub-cats. Good call on the Common's Quality Images, FCB981. — Zaui (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I don't want bad pictures, but FP standards are so tough to meet (I've seen some very nitpicky comments on the nomination page) that I think limiting it to those and ones that could meet FP limits it too restrictive. I'd say much like the article minimum, maybe what we could call a B class picture. My biggest concern is that most of the pictures in the state are going to be Willamette Valley, Cascades, and coast related pictures, since that's where the majority of people live (or recreate). Going off probabilities, the more pictures the more likely some of them are FP class. So it would less likely to have pictures to use for east of the Cascades. That's my only concern. Aboutmovies 05:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
(missed this earlier) I just think they should meet the criteria - whether they could pass the nitpicky voting process is another matter. — Zaui (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Current Pictures

Are there any there we want to remove? If so, let's start there, since some of the above listed topics are covered. Aboutmovies 05:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I had trouble figuring out what you meant—you mean which of these (Portal:Oregon/Selected picture) to remove, right?
Indeed, I plunged into the Featured Photo process with this photo (image:Mount Hood timberline alpine meadow in bloom P1709d.png) and got plenty of suggestions. Perfection of every aspect, artistic and technical is demanded. —EncMstr 06:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I meant the current ones we have under the Selected Features. The Fred Meyer is interesting, but the only reason I added it was because it was FP. So I'm not sure if we should keep it or not. With Haystack Rock, it was the best one I could find so if we can get a better one I'm all for that. Don't really care eaither way with the White Stagg sign, just a landmark. Aboutmovies 07:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with any of the photos mentioned so far. A FP should be in the mix by default.
The photos that merit discussion, IMO:
Photos of civic buildings are inherently boring, so the technical aspects need to be spot-on to make an impact. Look at Image:WUWallerHall.JPG - civic building again, but nicely lit and much much better then the three I've pointed out. — Zaui (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I got three other pictures of portland that arn't featured. Good news is that I think they are well done, bad news, as Aboutmovies said, They perpetuate the trend of having few pictures of eastern Oregon. I mean, Eastern oregon has some pretty impressive natural beauty, its just that I (and probably most other people) don't usually have much reason to make the commute. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Zaui, with the capitol I think it is technically impossible to get that side lit since it is the north side of the building, but maybe the brithness/contrast can be adjusted. With the The Dalles library, it was simply the best available that I saw for that area. Unfortunetly a lot of pics for eastside are govenment USFA, USGS and not always good quality. I have no problem with any being replaced if we can find a better one. The old capitol picture that the above one replaced was crooked and low resolution, so the one I took was an improvement, but not the best that can be taken. I encourage you to go through the commons and within Wikipedia to see what I mean by a scarcity of really high quality and "wow" pictures, espically outside of Portland. I tried a few months ago and the ones there now (outside of the existing FPs) are the best I could find. Again, I'm open to changing out whats there, I just haven't found anything better myself. Aboutmovies 00:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the layout of the capitol grounds - why not get a shot of the south side then? Or the east (in the morning) or the west (in the afternoon)? Sounds like I need to wade through my stash for "other" Oregon photos. We visit once a year and mostly drive I-84, but we try to take a different route when we can. We've had stop-overs in John Day, Sisters, Ironside, Boardman and so on - I just need to get organized and find time to upload. — Zaui (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Photos

Here are some of my photos that I suggest: Image:OregonCoastEcola.jpg, Image:Pioneer-SquareDaytime.jpg, Image:MtTaborPortlandHood.jpg, Image:HaywardFieldPano.jpg, Image:PaintedHillsPano4.jpg, Image:PortlandStreetcar5.jpg. I have also been improving my skills at stiched panoramic images (see Image:HawthorneBridge-Pano.jpg for an example). These are a higher in difficulty and take lots of time, but it is worth it when they work out. If you have any suggestions please let me know. I probably won't be traveling out of the Portland Metro area for a while though. Right now I'm thinking that I'll try to improve the images for Pittock Mansion, all the Portland bridges, Rose Garden Interior, PDX airport entrance. Someday I'll make it back down to Salem to give another go to the capitol buildings. Also, there is pretty strong possiblity that I will be renting a helicopter for some aerial photography in the downtown Portland area sometime in the near future. Yee Haw! Cacophony 23:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal class

Hey, we don't have a Portal-class section in our assessment scheme. Can someone take care of that so this page doesn't show up in the "unassessed" section? (I assume that's why it was put in List-class up until recently.) Katr67 (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll just remove the project tag altogether, it's not that common on portal talk pages. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
There's nothing wrong with having it here, see Category:Portal-Class articles. Katr67 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd fix it myself but I'm not up to the coding. I think Esprqii did the last one. Katr67 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well if someone eventually fixes the coding for it on the actual template, no biggie. Cirt (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
Sure, I'll take a look, but no guarantees. I'm not a coder, but I play one on Wikipedia. --Esprqii (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I fixed it. Cirt (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
Yeah, that should work. I made a minor tweak. But...what is the purpose of that assessment class? --Esprqii (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, we might begin to use other talk pages in this portal other than just this one. Cirt (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

Bios

My suggestion for filling out the bios is to take all the bios in the B class and up ratings bios from Top & High importance sections. That should be 20 or so, and they should be decent quality plus these are our more important people. Thoughts? Aboutmovies 02:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Good plan. Is there a category that lists the B-class and higher rated articles? — Zaui (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There is Category:B-Class Oregon articles, but you may also want to go via Category:High-importance Oregon articles. Both have about the same number of articles so I'm not sure which would be easier to wade through. Aboutmovies 19:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Using those, here are all articles that are high-importance and

B-Class:

GA-Class:

A-Class: none

FA-Class: none

— Zaui (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

To Bio list

So it looks like the rotation list for bios would be:
And Top importance B+ are:
Which totals 14. I think that's enough for now, and we'll just have to bring up the quality on a few more High importance bios. Does this list work for everyone? Aboutmovies 21:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
New list of articles that now meet the criteria:
Plus I think we should add the GAs: Katherine Ann Power, Matt Groening
This should put us over the 20 bio mark. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I added Katherine Ann Power, and Matt Groening. Some of the other bios are difficult to add, because the Lead/Intro sections are so undesirably short. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC).
    • I'll work on the two remaining articles to improve their leads and then add them later this week. I have three GAs nominated (1 bio), so that should get bios up to 25. Then I'll see about getting the selected article to the same (the two GAs, and three Bs-Salem, Portland, and Eugene). Are the DYKs and selected anniversaries where they need to be, or do we need more? Aboutmovies (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Great work. Just to make sure that all "Selected articles" in both the Bios and Articles section are of a "B" quality rating or higher? The DYKs and Selected anniversaries sections are fine as far as WP:FPORT quality goes. Just for the DYK pages - notice how I added "noinclude" links to the WP:Recent archives for each of the "hooks", we just have to go through and replace "NUMBER" with the number of the archive for each hook, so that these can be verified that they all appeared on the Main Page. Not really necessary for WP:FPORT status - just a little extra thing I like to do for both verification purposes and to really nail it. Cirt (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

Free-use images?

Asa Lovejoy - Portal:Oregon/Selected biography/21
  • "Lovejoy Street and Lovejoy Fountain Park in downtown Portland are named in his honor"
    • Can we get a free-use image of one of these locations, to add to both the article and to the blurb? Cirt (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC).
Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004) - Portal:Oregon/Selected article/4

Also, in the Selected article section, this is currently the only Selected article without an accompanying free-use image. Any chance of getting a related free-use image for this article? The "blurb" text for its use as a Selected article could also be expanded by about 4 lines or so. Cirt (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

Ballot Measure 37 article

This (Oregon Ballot Measure 37) is a mess. Especially the Measure 49 section (did it pass with 61 or 62%?). I can't tell if 37 is still in effect or not. Whether it highlights the best that WP has for Oregon, and thus merits inclusion in the portal, is hard for me to justify. I propose we either clean up the article find something else to replace its spot in the portal. — Zaui (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Measure 49 was so complicated I couldn't bear to read very much of it. The effects that it has on 37 are extremely complex, difficult, and/or tedious to explain. The conflicting percentages are because it varied over time as the ballots were counted. —EncMstr 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Any free-use images available to go along with this? Cirt (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Hrm, I think probably the Oregon Supreme Court Building is best, what do others think? Also, the Intro/Lead for that article could stand to be expanded upon a bit more. Cirt (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
  • I just re-worked the text to expand, and also update it for the passage of Measure 47. Hopefully others can take a look and see if it is NPOV enough. As to pictures, if we go with the supreme court building, I'd suggest not using one of the three already used on the portal. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, where are those? Maybe we should go with a different one then, but we'd have to have a short'n'sweet caption to explain the image. Cirt (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
  • One's a feature article and two are DYKs. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, it shows agriculture and what appears to be prelude to construction. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Should we wait for some more feedback from Zaui (talk · contribs) and EncMstr (talk · contribs) ? If not, I'll let you add the image to the portal subpage if you want to. Cirt (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

"Selected article" section should only contain WP:GA and WP:FA quality-rated content

There are enough WP:GA and WP:FA Oregon-related articles such that "Selected article" section should be limited to quality content. (The "Selected biography" section is a different matter entirely, and we can address that later.) Checking the latest list at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Oregon articles by quality/1, I count (18) WP:GA/WP:FA articles (excluding Lists and Bios). Therefore, we should strive for a high quality-content section for the Selected article section, and require that articles there all have a rating of WP:GA or WP:FA. This will also serve as a motivation in the future for others to work on and improve the quality of Oregon-related articles. It will also be nice at some point in the future when the portal goes for WP:PPREV and later WP:FPORTC discussion, to be able to have (at least) one section of the portal relegated to WP:GA/WP:FA content. Cirt (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

  • I'll continue working on getting the portal to WP:FPORT status after I hear some feedback on this. There are still a few other subsections and things I want to work on, and perhaps one or two new sections that would be neat to add on. Cirt (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
    • Did you read the first posts on this page? We already were limiting it to B class and above for quality reasons, and then to Top and High importance articles. The only difference between a lot of B class and GA is a formal review. Though I do think we should also add all GA/FA that are not then in the Top/High importance classifications as well. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I read that. But for reasons I stated above (at least for the Selected article section) I think we should limit it to GA/FA. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
        • My concern with limiting it to GA/FA/A (as was the concern with the picture selection) is that is a bit limiting. The previous discussion was about both the bios and the selected articles. The GA class (I'm significantly responsible for about half of those making it through GA and have three more currently nominated) articles are not particularly representative of the state as a whole. The only city would be Hillsboro, and though I love my hometown and it is the 5th most populous in the state, county seat of the second most populous county in the state, and been a leading economic driving force for the last 15 years, I don't think it should be the only city with Portland/Salem/Eugene not being there. Even the flagship Oregon article would not make the list. And then Waller Hall and my law school without any other schools in the state on the portal? It just doesn't make sense. I'm all for including high quality (thus the minimum B standard) and having all the GA/FA/A, but I just think we should also include B class for the Top/High priority articles as well to give a more representative view of the topic Oregon, which I think is part of the reason for having a portal. The featured portal requirements only suggest the content used be already featured, and if we stress the screening process I don't think they would complain. As to motivation for people to improve other articles, I just don't see it as there has been a discussion to get both the Oregon and Portland articles to GA/FA for well over a year. And though we have made some progress on those articles, I doubt being featured on the Oregon Portal will be much motivation. But that's my thoughts. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Okay, sounds good. But I have noticed that there are some selected articles that are lower than B class, though I will double-check on this. Those should be removed/replaced. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
            • I know some of the first articles selected were selected before we had discussed any inclusion criteria, so it is quite possible some were below B class and thus should be replaced. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (outdent) Okay. I am also going to work on standardizing all of the "blurbs" summarizing each of the articles highlighted, for even spacing on the portal, as well as implementing a layout structure. I understand your explained rationale, and will retain the current "B" rated articles, and replace out the articles with ratings of less than "B". Cirt (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
    •  Done - After coming to a consensus above with Aboutmovies (talk · contribs) to keep the "Selected article" and "Selcted biography" sections to a quality rating of "B" or higher, I pruned out a couple that were lower than "B" status, and standardized the rest with a uniform layout structure. Cirt (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

List of articles left to add to Selected article

All of the above are either the FA/GA quality, or are the B class of Top or High importance. I think all of them have a free use image, but some will need some alteration to the exiting lead (Intel, Mt. St. Helens, Itanium, and other none Oregon only articles) to better tie it into Oregon, and others will need some expansion of the lead. But this would put us over 50 for the category, so more than enough for FP I'm sure, and it expands to the three largest universities, 4 of the 5 most populous cities, and some good geographical/historical items. I'll make similar list for the bios. Any others I missed? Aboutmovies (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • See my comment below about number of bios - again, 10 is really the min for WP:FPORT, our current number of 20 articles really is above and beyond, 50 would certainly be more than most portals, let alone most featured portals. Thanks for putting this list together! One thing to note to keep in mind when adding new "blurbs" about Selected articles/bios to the portal - is to try to keep them all (approximately) to 10 lines - 9 lines or 12 is okay too. This will help to minimize the chances that when a visitor to the portal clicks on "Show New Selections" that there won't be big gaps of space in the portal. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
Update I added 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens and 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot. 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens blurb should be expanded, as Aboutmovies (talk · contribs) already said above, to include relevance of the event to Oregon. (Should be about 4-5 lines or so more.) See Portal:Oregon/Selected article/22. Cirt (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
The St. Helens article has been taken care off and three more added. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Sweeeeeeeeeet. Cirt (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

Talk page archival

FYI - I set up auto-archival for this talk page - discussion threads with zero new posts or activity for over one month will be archived. Cirt (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

Portal:Oregon/Selected quote

I would like to start adding some more quotes from other former Governors of Oregon that are not currently represented at Portal:Oregon/Selected quote, selecting only those for which free-use images exist. Anyone wish to comment, or is it okay for me to go ahead and add more quotes w/ accompanying free-use pics from former Oregon Governors to Portal:Oregon/Selected quote ? Cirt (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

  • Two points. With the free use images, just be careful, I know someone had uploaded some of the gov pictures claiming public domain as USGOV work, when it was state gov work. Probably only a couple, as I uploaded quite a few from a pre-1923 book, and some other governors did serve in Congress so pics were likely available there. I think many of the bad ones were deleted, but I'm not sure.
  • The other point is, and this is for everyone not just Cirt, can we also try to expand non-politician quotes? Sure these folks are important, but it seems its the "selected political" quotes. Maybe if we could find a quote by say Lewis or Clark (maybe Clark's ocean in view bit or whichever one complained about the dampness at Fort Clatsop with a pic of the fort), John McLoughlin, Chief Joseph's speech even though it may not have been authentic, Terry Baker accepting the Heisman trophy, something by Tonya Harding, or maybe a homegrown actor's quote about growing up here? Anything to help balance it out some and expand it. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • D.B. Cooper's "ransom" demand would also be good. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Good suggestions, I will work on some of them. But so you are not objecting to adding more quotes from Governors, just that you also want more quotes from other types of sources to be added as well? Cirt (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
        • Exactly, feel free to add more govs, may most of them rest in peace. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Okay, cool, thanks. If no one else works on it, I will also try to add some of the other individuals/free-use images you mentioned above. Cirt (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Update: Added quotes from individuals D. B. Cooper and Tonya Harding, which were suggested from above. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Only McLoughlin and Chief Joesph left, anyone no of a good quote for the doctor? I'll add Gray's naming of the Columbia River journal entry, Joe Meek's "who's for a divide" bit, and Joseph's I will fight no more part later this week. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

An idea for a new section, though certainly not needed for WP:FPORT status

  • I think its a good idea for later. If we were to keep the quality level at B and above, which I support, the section would be less than 10 right now (Portland, Salem, Eugene, Hillsboro, Medford, Cave Junction, & Coos Bay). At least Hillsboro and Cave Junction have improved to that level in the last 4 months or so, so with another 4 months or so maybe a few more will make it. With some of the larger cities they mainly need references and lead work to get to B (e.g. Bend is close). Aboutmovies (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, sounds find. As I think of these things, I can create a list of "Ideas for the longer term" - but certainly the article will pass through and become a WP:FPORT at some point soon without that section. Cirt (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Working to get to Featured Status

I've gotten three portals to WP:FPORT status so far. If you all like, and you don't mind seeing a few WP:BOLD formatting changes to the portal, I could work on getting this one to Featured Status as well. With the great content you have here, and the good start you have going on the portal, it wouldn't take too long. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

I don't think the news section adds much to the portal for the following reasons:
  • It points toward Wikinews and not Wikipedia articles - Portals are supposed to "help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas" (from Wikipedia:Portal).
  • Portal guidelines lists a news section as optional, with the provision that it includes "Frequently updated headlines related to the topic" - a gap from 8 July 2007 to 10 January 2008 is not frequent.
  • It's redundant to the Wikinews link in the Associated Wikimedia section.
— Zaui (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this input, however, it's already there, and it updates regularly, and it's something that the folks at WP:FPORTC definitely like to see. And a new precedent is being set now with the active adoption of User:Wikinews Importer Bot across portals, to use this type of section in many Featured Portals. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
I'm not following: "it updates regularly" - what does? Wikinews? A story in July 2007 and then nothing until January 2008 isn't very regular, is it? It just seems to go against the notion of frequent updates. ::— Zaui (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's only because there are not more categories at Wikinews tagged with the n:Category:Oregon. There are probably other more recent articles there though. Cirt (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Zaui (talk · contribs), I just wanted to say that I do value your opinion and your comment here, I want to apologize if you feel that the way I made my statement above, if I came across that I did not. Aboutmovies (talk · contribs) commented here about my above comment: "it comes across as, that's great I don't value the other contributor's opinions, which comes across as ownership." -- well that is not how I had wanted it to come across. I had wanted it to come across that we were having a polite back and forth discussion about the News section in the portal. By the way, if you check, the User:Wikinews Importer Bot has recently updated the News section with more recent news about Oregon. Over time, this will fill in, and as it gets updated more and more there will be more recent news, and the last two older entries will not show up. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
    • (Just noticed this here) - Cirt, "it's already there" did seem a bit dismissive - my initial reaction was "so what?", but I wanted to focus on the content of the news section. It just seems to me that there is not enough Oregon-related activity at Wikinews to warrant its inclusion in the portal. I even tried looking around Wikinews for more Oregon-related stuff that I could tag so more recent stuff would show up, but someone's already done that and there's still not that much. I don't think it will fill in over time, unless some Oregon-centric writer shows up at Wikinews. If I were reviewing the portal, I'd ding it for this issue - it doesn't meet the criteria. — Zaui (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Again, Zaui, I must reiterate my apology to you, I did not mean to come across dismissive like that. Evidently the first person to comment at the portal peer review did not ding it - the only comment he made about the News section was something minor about an icon image. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

formatting and layout suggestions

Is there a way to get rid of the (explorer) qualifier on the William Clark wiki link here? Nothing I tried worked.

I would swap the selected biography and picture on the main portal page - just so the first look folks have is the selected article and a high-quality picture side by side. There's too much text right now - especially when the biography doesn't contain a photo - and the photos that are in the bio section aren't much to look at.

Does anyone have a problem if the selected article photos are bigger? It's hard to tell what some of them are at the current size. — Zaui (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Use {{!}} to pass | to a parameter. I "fixed" it. RichardF (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Your wiki-fu is better then mine. — Zaui (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Portals typically have the left column wider than the right column, partly so images can be displayed larger on the left side, and without screwing up 800X600 displays. RichardF (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Replies
  1. From the layout design, it just shows the actual article title in the quotes. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Personally, I like the current setup with Article on the left and Biography on the right. Also, as for some reasoning as to why - the Left column is wider, and if you put the "Selected picture" in the right column - some of the rectangular images would stick out of the portal to the right. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. I'll try to adjust the Selected article photos default on the layout display, and see what that looks like. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I see you adjusted the default image size to 150px from 100px, I dropped it back to 120px, does that look okay? Cirt (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(combining my comments)

  • 1. so there's no way to fix that?
  • 2. In my opinion, the layout is too gray above the fold (to use a couple newspaper terms) - the immediately visible part of the portal has too high a text/image ratio.
  • 3. I think the 150px size is superior - except for the 99W image - it's a bit overwhelming. I'll look for a photo of something along 99W that can be used instead of a reproduction of the highway sign. — Zaui (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Replies
  1. Not sure at the moment of a way to fix it, but I don't think it's that big of a deal - and it's the formatting of Featured Portals, like Portal:Religion. Cirt (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. There's an easy fix for the "layout is too gray above the fold" or the text/image ratio issue - just set a new standard that all "Selected articles" and all "Selected biographies" must all have an accompanying free-use image. This need not be an actual free-use image of the individual in the biography - just something relevant to each person. I maintain this standard in other Featured Portals, but I'll wait to hear feedback on this before doing anything about it here. Cirt (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. If you really think 150px looks okay on all the pictures and isn't really too large, then okay, I'll change it back to your version. Cirt (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Only 6 out of the 21 articles at Portal:Oregon/Selected biography don't have relevant free use images. If we fixed that, then that would certainly be more free-use images displayed at the top of the portal. Cirt (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Update on images
  • Every blurb at Portal:Oregon/Selected article now has a relevant free-use image to go along with it. Only two blurbs at Portal:Oregon/Selected biography do not, those are Portal:Oregon/Selected biography/16 and Portal:Oregon/Selected biography/21. 16 is John Kitzhaber, there's got to be a relevant free-use image available for him, either of the former governor himself from some public domain photo, or perhaps of a main Oregon office-building? 21 is Asa Lovejoy, and it shouldn't be too hard for someone to get a photo of Lovejoy Street , or Lovejoy Fountain Park, for use in that article, blurb, and in Reverend Timothy Lovejoy. Cirt (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I added a free-use image to the blurb for John Kitzhaber, the entrance to the Oregon State Capitol. Obviously if someone gets a free-use image from somewhere of the individual himself, please feel free to change the image. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I guess my point is more to aesthetics - what would you rather see first - this or this ? The quality of the bio photos is far inferior to the selected pictures. — Zaui (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • A good point - but I'd rather give the second picture more room to look pretty, instead of squashing it at the top and taking out less room for the Selected article next to it. Yes, one or two of the pictures for the Selected bio section are not of featured picture quality, but at least now we have free-use pictures to go along with all the blurbs for all the bios, save for Portal:Oregon/Selected biography/21, which would be relatively easy to get ahold of as well. Cirt (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
          • So then we could move the pictures up one position, move the articles to where the bios are now, and move the bios to where the pictures are now. That will get the pictures 'above the fold' without screwing up anyone's display. — Zaui (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
            •  Done, I tried out your suggestion - how's it look? Cirt (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
              • Thanks, I like it. What do you think of it? — Zaui (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
                • I think it looks great too. Yay for consensus ! Cirt (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

New Bio list

That's it for now of GA/FA or B w/Top or High. I have one bio at GA, and about 6 others I'm planning on getting there in the next month or so which will help expand this out to at least 25. If people want to help increase the number, go through Category:High-importance Oregon articles and find start class articles that just need a little work to get to B class and improve them to B if not GA class. For instance Mark Hatfield needs the lead improved, the honors section turned to prose, and some copy editing and it would be B class. Again, add any that were missed. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • 25 would certainly be a nice number, but just to let you know, generally the minimum people like to see for WP:FPORT is 10, and personally I usually go for 20. So our current 21 count is really fine for the moment, 25 would just be extra icing on the cake to really nail it. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Added the last two and one that is on GA hold that should pass later today. Once that happens I'll update the "randomizer" component. Should have another one ready soon as well that gets it to 25. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal peer review

This portal has had a portal peer review, which has since been archived. Please see Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Oregon/archive1. Cirt (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Willamette Meteorite

Just curious, what became of the Willamette Meteorite bit I put on the portal a while back? Seems that the nature of a portal makes it tough to track such changes, but it's a little disconcerting that something I worked on was removed without explanation (as far as I can tell). Not the end of the world, but I do think it was a good part of the portal.

But in general, thank you all very much for your diligence in improving this portal. It's come a long way, and is looking very good. -Pete (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See above discussions - we came to a consensus that selected articles should be (at least) of a "B" class or higher. Generally "B" class should mean something that could pass as a Wikipedia Good Article, but hasn't been through WP:GAC. Cirt (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Got it -- I noticed that in the FA nom, right after I wrote that. I don't think the WM article is that far off from being B-class; can you help me figure out where the summary I wrote is, so I can resurrect it if and when the article is judged B-class? Thanks for the quick reply. And if there's no easy way to find it, don't sweat it. -Pete (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to find it. Cirt (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Here it is, used to be at Portal:Oregon/Selected article/18. — Zaui (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks Z! -Pete (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dates in bio summaries

I've been doing something that I realized should probably be brought up for discussion: changing the dates in the lead sentence of bio summaries to include only the year. It seems to me that these blurbs, since the are constrained by space, should be as tightly focused on essential information as possible. The full dates take up a relatively large amount of space, and also require creating extraneous links (to make dates display according to user preferences.) Seems to me that just the year of birth and death is enough, and if the reader needs the full date, it's only a click away. Any objections? (The closest thing I could find to a guideline covering this is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death.) -Pete (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A similar issue is the removal of not-commonly-used middle names. this edit illustrates both these points. -Pete (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think simplifying dates to the year is fine if it is far enough back. But a recent death date ought to be to the day. Where's the line? Around 1950 or 1960 feels about right, though I'd be easily swayed up to 20 years or so around that. Dropping uncommonly known or used names—not just middle names—seems useful too (J. P. Morgan comes to mind). —EncMstr 04:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'll try to avoid doing it on more recent folks going forward, and if I screw up I won't object to reverts ;) -Pete (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Addition list

Those articles left that meet both the B class minimum and being Top or High importance:

Reproduced from archived section, may need to add a few since list was made in early Jan 2008. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

GA potential?

Just out of curiosity - Are any of these relatively close to getting to WP:GA status? Cirt (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking a quick look, U of O is probably the closest, needing POV and reference work with minor additions to some of the smaller sections. Coast Douglas-fir and Chinook salmon look like they mainly need references and a copy edit. Oregon Trail could easily make it with proper referencing, if school kids would stop vandalizing it. Pacific Northwest needs referencing and some POV refinement as the Canadians often claim it is a bit US biased. Barlow Road is getting close. With a proper lead and more references I think Corylus avellana would be there. Mount Mazama mainly needs inline citations. The rest would need major expansions or overhauls to meet GA criteria (with one I think it is really a start class). Aboutmovies (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so there's about 8 or so that are relatively within reach, exciting stuff for the project. Cirt (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Mos' def! There are others (already included here) that are close, too. My biased memory says Neil Goldschmidt and Columbia River are closest (those are my personal priorities), though I know there are many others that are close too. I think AM has a good list on his user page. -Pete (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

AM, did you intentionally exclude biographies? It would be nice to have a similar list for bios, I suppose I could do it myself. Just noticed Joel Palmer is not here. -Pete (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to add to Portal_talk:Oregon#New_Bio_list, above. Cirt (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Pete the list was made in Jan, before Palmer was upgraded to B class, but yes bios were listed separately. Feel free to add above or start a new list, Matthew Deady and Mark Hatfield should be joining the group soon. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha, I didn't catch that before. I'll add it to this section, seems to be worth keeping this stuff together. Congrats on Deady! -Pete (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Oregon/Selected biography/25

Blurb for this one is a bit long - text could be cut down by about half, for better appearance on main portal page. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a little long, but I already did as much trimming as I could without removing what seemed like essential elements of his career. Please feel free to take a crack at it, I might have a little tunnel vision from working on the article too much. -Pete (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, will do. Take a look at the sizes of some of the other bio blurbs, for comparison. When this one appears on the main portal page, in comparison it will look bulky and not that great (unless we cut down the text a tad). Cirt (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I needed a nudge on that. I think the interruption of the Mount Hood Freeway is actually one of the things he's most remembered for -- the thing that "put him on the map," so to speak -- but I'll ruminate on it for a day or so, and if I put it back in I'll take out a similar amount of text from another part of the summary. Fair nuff? -Pete (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That sounds fine. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

COTW

Should Collaboration of the Week be included here (or did I miss it)?Awotter (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that has already been discussed on the talk page of WP:ORE, but if so, the appropriate place would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/to do. Cirt (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Expansion ideas

Re-visiting old ideas, and proposing a new one. Regarding the year old proposal to add a "locations" section, I think we still don't have enough high quality articles at this time (seems we haven't improved the quality on most of the cities).

As to a new idea, I was thinking we might be able to have some sort of animated/sound spot after I came across this, but I'm not sure if there would be enough, so this might be maybe later type item. Then as a matching compenent to keep two columns, I was thinking a B&W image section. I know we have a lot, and some have to be of decent quality. Thoughts. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, if we have over 10 or so Oregon-related Featured pictures, we could add a Featured picture section in addition to the Selected picture section. (Not appropriate to label a section "Featured", unless everything in its rotation is of Featured quality). Cirt (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
We don't have that many, its only 8. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah okay. Cirt (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Updating list

Articles still to be added:

All are B class and either High/Top importance, meeting the criteria. All FA and GA (minus 2 that don't have proper images) have been added. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Music for a Time of War

... was promoted to Featured article status. Should it be removed from this list? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you should. Great work! Jsayre64 (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice from the Portals WikiProject

WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.

As of May 2nd, 2018, membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for improving each component of portals. So far, 2 new dynamic components have been developed: Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject. Hope to see you there. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   07:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Selected article addition list

The following articles should be added to the selected article list:

All of these articles are ranked "B" class. Some may be already on the list.SouthParkFan65 (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Oregon/Archive_1&oldid=1096057602"