Talk:List of parks in Portland, Oregon/Archive 1

File:McCoy Park (Portland, Oregon).jpg Nominated for Deletion

 * Sigh, my fault. I should have remembered that most sculpture photos aren't allowed. Jsayre64   (talk)  15:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, this one might be kept. See the discussion here. Jsayre64   (talk)  01:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

To add: Errol Heights
✅

Errol Heights Park:
 * https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/finder/index.cfm?action=ViewPark&PropertyID=114

Also known as Errol Heights Natural Area:
 * https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/491208

--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Added. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Lynchview Park --> Verdell Burdine Rutherford Park
Lynchview Park has been renamed Verdell Burdine Rutherford Park: --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.wweek.com/outdoors/2020/06/09/portland-has-renamed-a-park-after-a-black-woman-for-the-first-time-in-city-history/
 * Thanks for updating the page! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Table?
Should we display information in a table format, such as the one seen below (would be used for Northwest section)?

We could discuss which columns belong in the table (I am not sure "Location" is required, or perhaps additional columns should be added, etc.) Thoughts? It would take a while to get most of the parks added to the list, but it would certainly qualify for FL status once completed. Would make a fantastic, informative addition to WikiProject Oregon! Perhaps we could use List of National Parks of the United States as an example to follow. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To make it useful, the size of the park and its general character should be individual columns. Also a coordinate for each would allow the mapping templates to be used to map of the parks.  I don't think the year opened belongs here, but in the individual article.  —EncMstr (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps more like the following? I removed the year column, and added coordinates. Not sure what you mean by "general character" column exactly...


 * {| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;"

! Name ! class=unsortable | Location ! Size ! class=unsortable | Description ! class=unsortable | Image ! class=unsortable | Ref.
 * Jamison Square
 * Pearl District 45.52833°N, -122.68278°W
 * 0.94 acres (0.38 ha)
 * Blah blah blah...
 * Jamison Square Park - Portland Oregon.jpg
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * Would love more feedback from others as well! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This would be a fun list to work on. Would the refs be better placed directly after the claims they support? The coords ref would differ from the acreage ref in each row, so there would be at least two refs (Geographic Names Information System for coords, parks and recreation department for acreage and at least some of the description). Finetooth (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think statements with specificity should be referenced directly after the claims they support, but the Ref. column could be used for one or two general sources about the park itself (for example, this for Jamison Square). I think there is some flexibility as far as the columns, spacing and method of referencing should be -- it may take just working on the list itself to determine what works best. But you are right, this would be a fun one. Will take some time to be thorough for the MANY parks located in Portland, but the final product would be well worth the effort. -- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 04:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Combine the best of the suggestions above with my own preferences for wikiformatting and layout:
 * {| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;"

! Name !! Image !! Location !! Type !! Size !! Features
 * Forest Park
 * Forest park wildwood trail in early summer P2860.jpeg
 * Tualatin Mountains (West Hills) 45.2222°N, -123.123°W
 * forested trails
 * 5200 acre
 * Largest park in Portland and among the largest in the U.S. Most of the park is heavily forested, but it contains over 70 mi of trail, some open to bicycles and equestrians
 * Jamison Square
 * Jamison Square Park - Portland Oregon.jpg
 * Pearl District 45.52833°N, -122.68278°W
 * urban lawn and kiddy fountain
 * 0.94 acres
 * Blah blah blah...
 * North Park Blocks
 * North Park Blocks image goes here
 * downtown Portland between NW 8th and 9th 45.2222°N, -123.123°W
 * urban lawn and sidewalk a few basketball courts
 * 3.6 acre
 * Blah blah blah...
 * Wallace Park
 * Wallace Park image goes here
 * somewhere in NW 45.2222°N, -123.123°W
 * hidden art a few basketball courts
 * 5.39 acre
 * Blah blah blah...
 * }
 * hidden art a few basketball courts
 * 5.39 acre
 * Blah blah blah...
 * }


 * —EncMstr (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! I am not sure I prefer the Type column, though, as it does not seem like there would be much consistency or reason for sorting those entries. Well, may as well start with Northwest Portland since that is what I used in the above example. If others care to join in, here is a list of NW parks according to Portland Parks & Recreation. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All NW parks are now listed. Here are links to NE parks, SE parks, SW parks, and North parks. There is a separate link for downtown parks, though obviously these are included in the appropriate aforementioned regions as well. Right now I am trying to go through and just get the parks listed, along with a PP&R reference for each... then the gaps can be filled in over time. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sections
Should the sections be in alphabetical order (North, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest), or clockwise (North, NE, SE, SW, NW)? Also, I can already tell this is going to be an extensive list based on the number of parks alone. If, way down the line, this list becomes too long once the features and other parameters have been added, it may be necessary to split the article into 5 separate lists (for example, List of parks in southwest Portland, Oregon). I won't split the list up now, but it may be an option down the line--and who knows, maybe it could result in five featured lists for WikiProject Oregon! :P -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We've had discussions like this before without reaching a consensus. Personally, I don't think there should be any sections:  A single table with all entries, plus maybe another sortable column for the "section of town" would provide the same utility.  Except the Pete makes the valid point that a tiny handheld browser makes it hard to work with large tables.  —EncMstr (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Pete on this one, especially for a list so long, as sections assist with organization and (in this case) create one less column. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Status of list
The Northeast, Northwest, and Southwest sections are complete as far as a simple list goes. I am still working on completing the Southeast and North sections. Also, I have not started any research yet, but it may be worth discussing whether a "Former" section would be beneficial to the list (as in former parks that no longer exist). Once the simple list is complete, then comes the time to fill in the gaps and determine uniform ways to display Location/Coordinates, Type, Features, etc. Also, uniform column widths for each section would be nice so that the list is easier to read down the page. I'll keep plugging along, but any assistance from project members would be greatly appreciated! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if there are no entries for the former parks, that in itself would be very interesting. I wonder if the lake that used to be in the NW industrial area was a park?  It was part of the 1905 exposition.  —EncMstr (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I added markup to make variable-width columns just now. I set all but the last to 15 percent to make the total come out to 100 percent, but any column width can be adjusted by changing the percent figure to achieve a layout that looks good. It's kind of hard to tell early on just what the right size for each might be. I like EncMstr's arrangement of the coords in the Location column above. I agree with both of you that a Former section would be useful, perhaps necessary if FL is the ultimate goal. Macleay Park, for example, though originally a separate park, was incorporated into Forest Park in (as I recall) 1947. Ditto for some other bits of Forest Park. The history gets pretty complicated. I've never created an FL, though I'm working on what I hope might become a sortable one that lists the longest streams of Oregon. It's harder than I thought; finding reliable sources for everything takes a lot of time, and unexpected questions arise as the process goes along. In the case of this list, it might easily grow to be too long to be workable and might need to be split into sublists somehow. I think anything longer than 100 kb might cause load-time problems, for example. I'm not sure because, as I say, my direct experience with lists is limited. Finetooth (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for playing with the column widths. I had the Image column set for pictures to be 100px wide, so now it looks a bit off, but we can keep playing with it. You are right in that it is somewhat difficult to tell what widths are preferable so early in the list's construction. I do think that ultimately this list could be renamed as an article called "Parks in Portland, Oregon", containing general information about the parks, history, former parks, etc. Then, from that page, there could be lists for each geographical region (North, SW, etc.) This is getting way ahead, though... -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The image column could be re-set to 10 percent or thereabouts, or the thumb size could be re-set to something bigger. Also, it does appear that the list for each region might end up being substantial enough to stand alone. Finetooth (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I updated the column width, and made the widths the same for all tables. I do think there is potential for stand alone lists, but I think they should be split (if needed) after the list itself is completed. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it'll be clear if and when the time comes. Finetooth (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: HERE is a complete list of parks listed under the Portland Parks & Recreation "Find A Park" tool. I created the WP list by using the tool for each region, so almost all of the parks should appear on the WP list now. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I noticed Mill Ends Park does not appear on the WP list. I will be sure to note any other parks I see missing. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I added Mill Ends Park to the list. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I had added Tryon Creek (state park) and Smith–Bybee (regional park managed by Metro) a couple of days ago. Tryon's the only state park in the city, but there may be other Metro parks within the city limits. The list title doesn't specify what kind of park, so I assumed all parks would qualify. Finetooth (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

North, NE, NW, and SW parks are done as far as a simple list with a reference goes (at least the parks that display on the PP&R site using the tool for those particular regions). As we have seen, though, sometimes parks fail to display properly, so a few will need to be added independently. Finetooth, you are more than welcome to add the parks you mentioned to the list. If I removed them, it was not intentional, I was simply starting each section from scratch, assuming they would be included on the PP&R site. As you stated previously, this is not a "List of Portland Parks & Recreation sites", so parks not included on the PP&R site can be listed as well. Actually, some of the sites on the PP&R website are not so much parks as community centers, community gardens, pools, etc. However, I included them for now since this is a list of parks and these locations are on the Portland Parks & Recreation site under the "Find A Park" tool. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Size column
Is there a way to use the convert tool (acre to ha), but display the ha size on the line below the acre size? I think that would help narrow the column a bit. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this can be done using the tool, but for now the designated column width percentage seems to display the size units in two separate lines (at least it does on the computer I am currently using). -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Another solution is to use the convert template in a sandbox to do the conversions, then enter them by hand with the html code  to separate the acre line from the hectare line, like this:

12 acre 4.9 ha


 * Finetooth (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. OK. Will keep using the convert tool for now, then we can determine if we wish the information to be displayed differently later. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's another FL about parks that might be a source of ideas for this one: List of Pennsylvania state parks. Finetooth (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Great example! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

PP&R sites to include
I am going ahead and adding all sites currently listed on the Portland Parks & Recreation website. However, is this overkill? Should this list only contain parks, or are community gardens, pools, community centers, and other natural areas appropriate inclusions? There are around 30 community gardens alone--enough to create a separate "List of community gardens in Portland" if need be. Thoughts?

Or, should this be a "List of Portland Parks & Recreation sites", where only sites associated with PP&R are listed? I just don't want this list to be confusing or ambiguous. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you can have both. I would have this as just parks, whether they be PP&R or some other agency, but only actual parks. Then have a Portland Parks & Recreation Department (or is it bureau?) page that has only PP&R items, but no need to call it a list. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

To do
Just a checklist of things to be done:


 * image for each park/site
 * alt. text for each image
 * coordinates for each site
 * determine uniform method of displaying information for Location column See the section below for how we've resolved these issues
 * determine potential categories for Type column (garden, trail, manicured, mixed, wilderness?)
 * should there be a column for year of acquisition?
 * emdash for unknown park sizes?
 * create stubs for parks/sites worthy on their own article
 * expand lead (probably best to do after it is decided whether this article should be split into separate lists or not)

Feel free to note additional tasks that require completion. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)