Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 25

Proposed change to Portland watershed navbox
Please comment on this proposal: I'm not sure the proposal is technically accurate, but it seems to make a certain amount of sense to me. Anyone else care to comment? YBG (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Portland, Oregon, watersheds/sandbox is grouped as follows:
 * 2 Columbia: Columbia Slough & Multnomah Channel
 * 6 Willamette: Balch, Crystal Springs, Fanno, Johnson, Stephens & Tyron Creeks
 * Portland, Oregon, watersheds(current) is grouped as follows:
 * 2 Major: Columbia & Willamette
 * 8 Minor: All of the others
 * Thanks for asking. Categories by nature seem to be flexible and subjective as well as partly logical. All of the water in and near Portland is in the Columbia watershed and could logically grouped under one head: Columbia. That wouldn't be very helpful. The proposed arrangement doesn't seem to me to be more inherently logical or helpful than the existing one, which also differentiates between major and minor streams. I created the original navbox, so I probably have a bit of ownerish bias. If others agree that the proposed navbox is an improvement, I'll cheerfully go with the flow. Finetooth (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Another thought. The Multnomah Channel is a distributary of the Willamette River and can't go in the Columbia category. It would have to go in the Willamette category. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A third thought. (Haven't had enough coffee yet, I guess.) The Columbia Slough flows into the Willamette River, not the Columbia directly. Finetooth (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on the proposed change, but I need to point out that North Portland Harbor, a distributary of the Willlamette, was missing from both. It was created only last year and is still a stub. I've gone ahead and added it to the current template for now. SJ Morg (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool. Most interesting. I never thought to look for a GNIS listing for that channel, but you are right (except that the channel is an distributary anabranch of the Columbia rather than the Willamette). I will add a geobox and the source coordinates. Finetooth (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was unfamiliar with the term anabranch. And I knew it was Columbia, not Willamette; must have been tired when I wrote that. SJ Morg (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I had never heard the term either until well after I started working on stream articles for Wikipedia. It's hydrologist-speak for a side channel that returns to the main stem, whereas a distributary is a channel that takes water away from the main stem and distributes it elsewhere, never to return. Finetooth (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When I said 'not ... technically accurate', I was thinking of (a) Multnomah Channel being a distributary and (b) Columbia Slough flowing into the Willamette. In the latter case, I have always thought of the Slough being something of an anabranch (also a new word to me), although I see from the article that it actually has a source ... though I suspect that much of its water flows seeps in from the Columbia. So I guess I'll withdraw my suggestion.
 * By the way, why is this 'watersheds of' instead of 'rivers and streams of'?
 * Oh, and Tanner Creek (Goose Hallow, Portland, Oregon is missing. Probably lost since it was buried over a century ago. YBG (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Replies to YBG: Complete stream articles always include information about the stream's watersheds, which have the same names as the streams. They are intimately connected.
 * The Columbia Slough was originally an anabranch of the Columbia, but human engineering changed the stream course.
 * Tanner Creek is one of several buried Portland streams. It empties into the Willamette between the Broadway and Fremont bridges, as I recall. Another one, Caruthers Creek, flowed down Marquam Gulch into the Willamette near where the Marquam Bridge is now. Portland's first piped water supply came from Marquam Creek in 1856. There were other surface streams (no longer on the surface) on the east side of the Willamette as well. Not sure if they had names. Thanks for your interest in these watery matters. Finetooth (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * re Watersheds' vs. 'Rivers & streams', with the presence of North Portland Harbor, it seems R&S might be better than Watersheds. With 'Watershets', I'd expect something that was mutually exclusive & jointly exhaustive -- except for the natural overlap due to the hierarchy of tributaries. YBG (talk)

I agree. Just now I altered the template, using only one of your suggested words, streams, since all rivers are streams but not all streams are rivers. I also deleted Portland Water Bureau since it is not a stream (or a watershed). I will also attempt to find enough reliable data to create an article about Tanner Creek, per your suggestion. It may be that other editors will have differing views about the template; I remember early on that someone suggested not using it at all on grounds that it was redundant. I would not be averse to removing it completely if that is the consensus opinion. Finetooth (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, all rivers are streams, but the word 'streams' in isolation is ambiguous, and can be used in both a generic sense, meaning 'any linear flowing body of water' and in a specific sense, meaning 'a small linear flowing body of water'. This was one of the points discussed at great length which resulted in the merger of category:Rivers of Oregon and category:Streams of Oregon into category:Rivers and streams of Oregon. To avoid this ambiguity, I would encourage the use of 'Rivers and streams'. YBG (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've created a couple of new alternatives: a 2-level hierarchy and a single-level version. The changes in common to both are:
 * Subdividing the minor ones into three geographic categories, Columbia floodplain and East/West banks of the Willamette
 * 'Columbia flood plain' avoids the problems mentioned above
 * The subdivision shouldn't cause a problem for someone who already knows the location of a minor stream
 * The subdivision would provide useful information to someone who hasn't heard of one of them. (North Portland Harbor? Where's that? Swan Island?)
 * Full disclosure: I have a tendency to be a splitter.
 * Renaming Bull Run River to Watershed and including a reference to the Portland water bureau to explain including a river outside of Portland
 * Does anyone else see either or both of these changes as improvements? YBG (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Min-Max elevation locations in Portland article
I have restored the locations of the min and max elevations in the infobox of Portland, Oregon and per WP:BRD, suggest discussing it here. YBG (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that including the specific locations is way too detailed for the infobox. The goal of the infobox is to provide a summary, not be a detailed table of statistics. And why do you suggest discussing it here instead of the Portland talk page? This doesn't seem to be a project standard or anything; I looked at three other OR cities at random (Salem, Astoria and Bend) and none of them have this info. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggested discussing it here in order to have a broader audience, that's all. More later. YBG (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with the goal of broad audience; the practice I've seen with other Wikiprojects is to do it the other way around: if the topic isn't about a project standard, then notify the project that an interesting discussion is happening on a specific article. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, in retrospect, I probably should have put the discussion at Talk:Portland, Oregon and just left a link here. In fact, I had no sooner hit 'save' than that alternative occurred to me. Oh, well.
 * By way of background (and to reveal a bit of WP:OWN on my part, I modified this part of the infobox recently. At least in my browser, the previous version was considerably more jumbled than after my edit.  I'd be interested to know how these two versions appear to you.
 * I've looked at it again and can think I can see the problems the elevation location is creating. I am going to experiment a couple of ways to narrow the location information and report back here with a counter-proposal. YBG (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have restored the min/max elevation location information, but in the footnote, so it doesn't mess with the infobox format. Thanks to all! YBG (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Thanks for the improvements. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Serves as a good reminder that what is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. Thanks for your patience with my myopia! YBG (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Janrain
The article about the local tech company Janrain has been nominated for deletion. See Articles for deletion/Janrain to contribute to the AfD discussion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Portland Historic Landmarks?
I started a discussion at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places regarding the Portland Historic Landmarks program. I am not sure if we've discussed local historical status before or not, but figured it is best to include this project in the discussion (here or there). More or less, I am wondering if we should:
 * 1) have an article about the Portland Historic Landmarks program,
 * 2) have lists with PHLs, which may or may not be pretty similar to the lists of NRHP sites, or
 * 3) create a category called "Portland Historic Landmarks" to add to Wikipedia articles about the local historic sites.

Any thoughts? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Jules Bailey
Might be worth putting this on your watchlist, lots of activity on the page, perhaps driven by campaign. -Pete (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see my talk page. Valfontis (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

SVG files
I used CloudConvert to convert to an EPS format, then converted the EPS file to. The background came out white and not transparent. This is the first SVG file I have ever uploaded and I don't exactly know how to make the background transparent. I don't have Paint or Photoshop. MB298 (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Inkscape: I know some of Wikipedia's master map makers use it.  If you don't already use Linux, this would be a great reason to because Inkscape was developed to run on Linux and runs fine on OSX.  The article says that there is recently added support for Windows.  —EncMstr (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

the article is short on information and not accurate
While reading over this article I quickly discovered that the facts are not all quite there. For starters this article states that osu's engineering department is organized into only four schools. After doing research on the osu website I quickly learned that this information is not accurate OSU's engineering program is actually split into 6 schools and offers almost 30 different engineering degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewokofendor7861 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What article are you talking about? MB298 (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently Oregon State University College of Engineering. Valfontis (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Education agencies - oh, my.
I thought I would simply move one of the Oregon education-related articles to reflect its renaming in 2013, but suddenly I was reminded of a DIY project a few years ago to replace 3 loose boards in our deck, which ended up in a 3-month-long project to redesign and replace the whole deck. Only this time, instead of rotting lumber and nails, there was all this educationese to slog through, plus a confusing landscape of acronyms. I think I managed to clean up at least one double re-direct, but the whole mess could use more help, and I am now too grumpy to continue. Here is my list of sins:
 * Oregon State Board of Higher Education‎ (updated to reflect demise)
 * Oregon Higher Education Coordinating Commission‎ (new page)
 * Oregon Office of Student Access and Completion (moved to new title, fixed double redirect)
 * Oregon Office of Community Colleges and Workforce Development (moved to new title)
 * Oregon's Chief Education Office (new page; debated the apostrophe but it sounded like a Native American-related page without it)

I wanted to include some of the more interesting politics that led to this chaos, but my better angels prevailed. Please feel free to delete any of the dirty details that sneaked by my NPOV internal editor. Also need help with categories, in some instances. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I call this "going down a wiki rabbit hole". You are a braver person than I! Speaking of loose boards, if you're feeling especially brave, we've needed Oregon State Board of Education for ages. I don't have time today but I'll see to the final sanding and paint job soon. Valfontis (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Not that I’m losing any sleep over these questions, but I am curious about the best way to proceed with the mop-up of remaining inconsistencies in Oregon’s higher education articles, categories and templates.
 * Category:Oregon University System
 * should it be moved to Category:Office of University Coordination with another new page, Oregon Office of University Coordination
 * or should it be moved instead to Category:Oregon Higher Education Coordinating Commission which would also include the 17 community colleges? …or…?
 * Related questions:
 * Template:Oregon University System
 * move to template for either Office of University Coordination or for Oregon Higher Education Coordinating Commission? …or…?
 * Finally, the OUS article is in Category:Public university systems in the United States, but the new Office and Commission are not “systems”. See this essay. Is there a category for non-centralized agencies of universities? (Should there be?) Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the sweet sound of crickets. I know it well. Do you still need help with this ? Valfontis (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, here's an update: Category:Oregon University System was speedy deleted, and Template:Oregon University System was deleted after a brief discussion here. There is still Template:Colleges and universities in Oregon, a navbox that includes all Oregon public and private universities as well as community colleges, with a link to List of colleges and universities in Oregon. It's not clear to me we need a Category:Oregon public universities or a corresponding navbox, which would be populated by the seven public universities, based on the institutions coordinated by Oregon Office of University Coordination. Would it be helpful for navigation purposes, or maybe overkill? Cheers! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm the wrong one to ask as I'm not always crazy about navboxes! But more power to those who take the time to design them! But it seems like the existing scheme is adequate. Category:Public universities in Oregon might be helpful? Unless 7 entries is too small for a subcat? I think it is. Valfontis (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * After revising ~20 pages with outdated references to the Oregon University System, I now think it would be helpful to have Category:Public universities in Oregon. There were some articles referring to legal articulation agreements within the system, and I'm assuming the individual universities are still honoring those agreements. Anyway, there are instances where a link to a list of our public universities would be helpful. Also--I believe (but have only seen one reference, which I now can't find) that OHSU is considered a public and private university with an affiliation with either the Oregon Higher Education Coordinating Commission or the Oregon Office of University Coordination, and should be the 8th on such a list of public universities. But I've lost the plot. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I did create a sub-category Category:Public universities in Oregon, tied it to the article Oregon Office of University Coordination, and populated it with the categories of Oregon's institutions, including OHSU. One remaining question: OHSU is not mentioned in the enabling legislation for the HECC, which seems to be the replacement for the State Board of Higher Education, nor for the Oregon Office of University Coordination, but I did find references on the OHSU website to documents for curriculum approval from the HECC. So even though it is not one of the 7 universities listed in the legislation as overseen by the office of University Coordination, I think it should be listed on the new page of public universities. Nothing is perfect... Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Photo requests
I was wondering if somebody would be able to take photos of facilities owned by Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District. While we already have pictures of most facilities, we still need the Elsie Stuhr Center, Harman Pool, and the facilities in the Howard M. Terpenning Recreation Complex. In addition, most of the pictures we do have were taken in 2009 or 2010, and since then THPRD has done extensive remodeling and rebranding of the facilities, so newer photos would be nice. MB298 (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, if someone in Salem could possibly take a picture of Anna Peterson, as a thorough Flickr search proved no images suitable for upload to Commons. MB298 (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I emailed her. tedder (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll also ping my friend who goes to city council meetings. Valfontis (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We got Janet Taylor but no Anna. Valfontis (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Noticed this discussion while headed to another (see below). Any chance we could get a photo of the former Portland Sports Arena, whether a contemporary one depicting it as the Sports Arena or one showing its present use as a church building? Pacific Northwest Wrestling has a lot of FU images which may come under scrutiny. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Geraldine L. Richmond and other notable Oregon faculty
Gerry Richmond has just been announced as a National Medal of Science laureate, which I added to her list of awards. I also tagged the talk page with the WikiProject Oregon template. Since I worked at UO a lifetime ago, I will defer to others to review and improve the article, which was apparently translated originally from the German WP. I wanted to include here a list of Knight endowed chairs and professorships, which would be a good starting point to improve coverage of notable UO faculty, but so far there is only a reference to 27 Knight faculty, no actual list. Cheers! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very mild COI and you should go for it. I graduated from the UO and I approve this message. Valfontis (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just added scientist-type info box to article.--Orygun (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, if COI is your concern, please feel free to expand articles. I would recommend placing a COI note of some sort on the article's talk page, if you feel doing so is necessary. I've done this many times in the past without problem, and even promoted COI articles to Good or Featured status. Don't let "COI" prevent you from improving Wikipedia. :) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Article summary table anomaly

 * Does anyone understand why these 2 articles appear on Wiki-Oregon article summary matrix in the "Other" category and "???" column? Barr article appears to have been deleted some time ago and Bradley article doesn’t have Wiki-Oregon tag or any connection to our project that I can find. Nevertheless, both show up on our article summary table.--Orygun (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, Frank Barr was deleted almost five years ago and existed for about 90 minutes. It never had anything Oregon in it.  Ryan Bradley has been stable but never contained anything Oregon either.  It must be some sort of glitch which caused them to appear. —EncMstr (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Think I found the Barr article problem. There was a hidden Draft talk:Frank Barr page with an Oregon tag the category listed as DRAFT. Tag had red note that said that “template should not be on this type ("Draft talk") of page” so I removed the tag.  Think that will probably make the anomaly on the Oregon summary table go away.  Still not sure what’s causing the Bradley problem.--Orygun (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just found hidden category called "Category:Oregon articles needing attention." Only article listed was Draft talk:Ryan Bradley and it was same problem as Barr article.  I removed Wiki-Oregon tag so that should fix Bradley problem as well.  Learn something new every day.--Orygun (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As the person responsible for that, perhaps I should explain. First off, nice to see that there's real collaboration occurring WRT article assessment on this project. I've been handling that task for WikiProject Alaska almost singlehandedly for roughly the past four years. I've also been working towards filling in holes in coverage (and in the case of that topic area, there are plenty of holes), but I refuse to do all the work myself, which has been the source of contention. As of late, this contention has involved WP:AFC and their blatant hijacking of the draftspace, simply to continue to bludgeon others with their WP:POINTy bullshit attitudes about Wikipedia as a collaborative environment. The "anomaly" described above is due to the 1.0 Editorial Team having not yet incorporated the draftspace into their assessment scheme, which fits perfectly with AFC's attitude that draftspace is a place to bury content because the topics involved are not "popular" or "trending" or whatever else have you. When I poked around on the 1.0 pages for the reason why, I saw one editor mention that they're desperately short on warm bodies to do coding. As such, I didn't prod them to do something about it.

From what I've seen, AFC is mostly a gang of petty bureaucrats/turd polishers who are all about carrying out perfunctory tasks to make themselves look good in the eyes of their fellow admins/editors (at least based on what I've seen whenever I browse WP:RFA). Meanwhile, they make A LOT of bad decisions on a constant basis which have a negative effect on article space, and have been consistently blind and deaf to any such concerns, apparently content to carry on as though they're entitled to be an island unto themselves, not so much interacting with as imposing their will upon the rest of the encyclopedia. To this end, I have had a series of recent disputes with, whose activities on behalf of AFC often cross the line between being bold and being reckless. Said admin/AFC participant has been busy micromanaging draftspace and userspace content, with zero indication that any of this effort will actually lead to expanding or improving our coverage of notable topics. In fact, at times, a lot of this effort has approached the level of battleground editing. If this project doesn't feel the need to participate in the draftspace, that's understandable, as obviously you're quite active and perhaps don't need it. Ricky81682 recently brought this same issue up with WikiProject Professional wrestling, also an active project which rejected the need for draftspace, based on the discussion. As WP Alaska is far less active, I have been tagging draftspace content mostly to track it, to serve as a check-and-balance against AFC and its anachronistic behavior. We certainly can't do much of anything else, what with AFC participants exercising such an overreaching WP:OWN complex and constantly dumping problematic content into our laps as if they expect that it's our job to fix it for them. Evidently, my efforts have been at cross purposes with AFC's agenda.

As for those two drafts: in both cases, you all appear to be referring to content in article space which may not be the same as the similarly-named content in draftspace, which is another indication of AFC's "island unto itself" attitude. While Ryan Bradley does not relate to Oregon, Draft:Ryan Bradley describes someone who was raised in southern Oregon, graduated from high school in Medford and earned bachelor's and master's degrees from Pacific University, which sounds to me like plenty enough association with Oregon. That topic isn't very important to me, but Frank Barr is. The edit summary of the deleted article gives no indication that it was deleted as non-notable or even that we're talking about the same Frank Barr. No, he wasn't another one of the wrestling sons of Sandy Barr or heir to his flea market empire. Rather, he was one of the second or third generation of aviation pioneers in Alaska and northwestern Canada. He was also a U.S. Marshal, territorial legislator, and more importantly, a signer of the Constitution of Alaska. He spent the last quarter-century-plus of his life in Oregon and operated a small business in the Portland area. For notability's sake, that hardly compares to his activities in Alaska and British Columbia, but that makes it clear there's a connection to Oregon. A book on his life was written by Dermot Cole, who is a respectable enough historian and journalist. It was published in 1986 by Alaska Northwest Publishing and reprinted in 1999 by Epicenter Press, neither of which can be described as a vanity press (both are very similar to Binford & Mort). To sum this up, if you're telling me that someone such as that is non-notable, what you're really telling me is that I'm wasting my time with Wikipedia and perhaps I need to find a venue populated by people with a clue. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * tl;dr, in no particular order.
 * 1) The Frank Barr article that was deleted was about an apparently minor Irish politician and photographer and was blanked by the author. The Frank Barr draft claims the minimum notability as a member of the Territorial Senate, and if it was sourced it could be moved into article space (and it is the sort of thing I would defend from AfD by helping it pass GNG). I'm not sure about Bradley but a cursory glance says it needs more refs.
 * 2) It's true that collectively WP:ORE may not be interested in participating in draft space--is it common to put project tags on drafts? (We usually find out about Oregon-related drafts with our new article alert system)
 * 3) I won't get into my personal feelings about AfC, except to say that I would suggest that anyone who feels they have a modicum of "clue" (have read WP:GNG, know how to write, have fully sourced the article to pass GNG) just put their articles in mainspace, like we all did back in the day. And if anyone wants to run an article by me before doing so (put it in your user space instead draft space), feel free, as I think I have a pretty good idea about notability. Somewhere there's a tool to show my track record at AfD that if I can find I will link here. (link added) Valfontis (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) I grew up watching Portland wrestling in its heyday, and acknowledge "The Country Gentleman's Pickup" as a Northwest shibboleth in league with "I like frogs." Valfontis (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I need to get to bed soon. Unfortunately, I have no clue about Crooked River Bob and still have no clue about Aunt Betty despite reading the project's page.  From my very brief residency in the Hawthorne District and scattered other visits to Portland over the years, I can say that I faintly recall the 24 Hour Coin Operated Church of Elvis, have visited Tom Peterson's when it was east and not south of Fred Meyer (got to meet Gloria, but not Tom), made it to the Sports Arena for the flea market but not for wrestling (I did make it to a wrestling event at the Lane County Fairgrounds, attended by what appeared to be every inbred toothless chicken farmer within a 40-mile radius of Junction City).  You were discussing the importance of Gresham earlier; I could have swore I had tumbleweeds passing by me during one visit there.  Years before those visits, I received regular tapes of Portland Wrestling in the mail.  C'mon, recite right along with me here:"(This is KPTV, Channel 12, Portland)...From the Portland Sports Arena...This is Portland Wrestling...Brought to you in part by Tom Peterson's, 82nd and S.E. Foster Road, Oregon's largest TV, stereo and appliance store...And by Marv Tonkin Ford, where you're number one!...Hello once again, Frank Bonnema here, glad to have you with us, and we're going to have a lot of action for you tonight..."C'mon, you know you miss it.  Years later, I could appreciate the irony of Powell's and Zupan's being within close proximity to Ground Zero of the other end of the economic spectrum.  Anyway, so as not to be totally off-topic: as we're speaking of old Portland memories, there is a Morningside Hospital research project here in Alaska, but I haven't heard a word out of them for at least 4–5 years.  As for Frank Barr, I believe he moved to Portland months after signing the constitution.  He was semi-famous for remarks made during the constitutional convention about how he feared being openly mocked on the streets of Fairbanks for playing a role in creating "burros". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  18:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Watch out, my people are from Junction City, and they did in fact raise chickens. ::smile:: And I was "married" at the 24-Hour Church of Elvis. As for Aunt Betty, it's really hard to explain. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * For Frank Burr, I wasn't the one who added Oregon so I'm not sure what RadioKAOS is mad at me for. Oregon seems irrelevant to that biography to me. Does this project has no interest in tagging Draft pages or is it bad tagging at issue here? If there's no interest, then it can change the template to disable the draft class at all and I will delete Category:Draft-Class Oregon articles myself. By default, the template will drop those pages into the NA class category if anyone else tags them. Otherwise, AFC tags drafts and most states have a draft category based on projects like this one but if this project doesn't want it, that's its right. If it's bad tagging, then blame the taggers. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for raising this issue; didn’t mean to create a stir. I try to monitor Wiki-Oregon Summary Table to keep it clean and up-to-date.  Since this problem hadn’t come up before, I don’t think Wiki-Oregon editors use DRAFT category; or if they do, they don’t put Wiki-Oregon tag on the article until it’s uploaded to the main encyclopedia.  So, I think it’s fair to say Wiki-Oregon has no interest in using DRAFT category.  Any other thoughts from Wiki-Oregon teammates out there?--Orygun (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an inconsistency between Userspace draft#Style and layout, which advises to use the colon syntax when adding categories to a draft to avoid adding drafts to any categories before moving to article space, and the draft class on the template that caused the anomaly in the article table. Tag templates for Wikiprojects are also mentioned on Template draft as "Tagged prior to Userfication (strictly speaking incorrectly). [emphasis mine] I do seem to recall seeing error messages when adding either a category to a draft or a Wikiproject tag to the talk page, but I could be wrong about either or both of those alternatives. Is there any advantage to us having a draft article tagged prior to an article moving to mainspace? Cheers! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Draft-Class Oregon articles
Yes (going off of Grand'mere's question above), that would be my question as well. Do WikiProject Oregon members want project tags on drafts? Is there any sort of advantage? I don't see what the point is, as we have enough to keep track of with all the tagged articles in mainspace. But maybe I'm too much of an old-timer to grok draftspace. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the default answer is no, we don't want project tags on drafts. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. So far that's me and Orygun in the "no" camp and Grand'mere is in the "neutral" camp. Does that sound accurate? Does anybody else care (noting the that Wporegonians probably care far more about Aunt Betty that the minutiae of project tagging, which is to say, very very very little). YMMV. Valfontis (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To note, there's very limited advantage to it. Again, disabling the tag means that the pages will fall to NA-class so it's somewhat a moot point other than being able to distinguish them easily. One use being the possibility of using it in conjunction with a requested articles to start on basic drafts (see WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices for one example nationwide). Second, any tagging of these drafts (and that does include userspace drafts if there's interest) is helpful if they taken to MFD where Oregon people may be of some help. Third, I've asked for article articles to add alerts when AFC drafts at least fall into Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions so that in theory the projects could have something to review and possibly save drafts from deletion. A four use is that some projects have found that multiple people were creating drafts on the same people and so merged their drafts together to make a workable one. On the other hand, it doesn't really hurt anyone who doesn't want to use it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Militia take over of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters
I am not really sure what is going on here, but seems notable. Yes? Any suggestions for an appropriate article title? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, never mind. Glad to see Malheur incident already exists. Another Believer  ( Talk ) 18:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Don Vaughan
Articles for deletion/Don Vaughan (landscape architect) (2nd nomination) Joeykai (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: keep. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia 15
Wikipedia 15 is a campaign and series of events being held around the world to celebrate the project's fifteenth anniversary. West Coast events, supported by the Cascadia Wikimedians User Group, will be held the weekend of January 16–17. Portland had a decent-sized event for the tenth anniversary, but there have been fewer PDX meetups as of late. Whether or not anyone is interested in actually celebrating a birthday, I think it would be great to have a local meetup. Hit me up or response here if anyone cares to meet for coffee or a beer. Happy holidays! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It sounds cool. We have been quiet around here for a while. I would also note that WP:ORE's 10th anniversary is in March, if anyone is into planning a combo event. --Esprqii (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried organizing Wikipedia meetups for a while, usually in conjunction with a national or global campaign like Wiki Loves Monuments or Art+Feminism. Some were barely attended, while others attracted more than 50 people. I am not sure what the formula is for success. I've learned that events should either be billed as 'come learn how to edit Wikipedia', or 'let the experienced editors do what they do'. Some are in the middle, but it can be hard to mix newbies with those who just want to show up and collaborate and crank out content. I'd love to see more in-person meetups, and especially since I am a member of the Cascadia Wikimedians, I hope to plan more in 2016. I'd be down to at least meet at a coffee shop or bar in January and/or March if others are interested. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just found this. I would definitely be interested in a meetup, and would help organize it if there is enough interest. Tdslk (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Images (for state legislators)
I'm posting this on the Legislature talk pages as well.

On Flickr:
 * 
 * (possibly)
 * (possibly)
 * (possibly)
 * (County chairs in 2009, some may have been elected to legislature since then)
 * (unlikely)
 * (unlikely)

On YouTube:
 * (looks like official channel of Sen. Chip Shields, videos licensed under CC-BY)
 * (most videos licensed under CC-BY)
 * (most videos licensed under CC-BY)
 * (most videos licensed under CC-BY)
 * (some videos licensed under CC-BY)
 * (licensed under CC-BY but most likely taken from another source)
 * (channel uploads videos under CC-BY but most likely taken from another source)

MB298 (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Update – Adding https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBP1j5BVL-c (published under CC-BY but most likely taken from another source) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB298 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 4 January 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Adding https://www.flickr.com/photos/oregonsos/with/11719465103/. MB298 (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * https://www.flickr.com/photos/oregonsos/9248401451/. MB298 (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

History and Oregon's wheat production seen through the lens of Portland
I'm not sure where/how to integrate this, so I thought I'd toss it here, at least others can enjoy it. Notes from a Centennial Mills forum:

"[quoting Chet Orloff] "Oregon's rich topsoil was deposited by volcanoes thousands of years ago, and it produces this great soft wheat," Orloff explained. "There began a trading system based first on furs and gold and silver, heading across the Pacific to China and on to Europe. At some point in the 1860s, as the story goes, some trader took it home, ground it up, and made it into noodles, and discovered that Oregon soft white wheat made great noodles. It sounds silly, but I think there’s a lot of truth to it. Within the next 10 years, China became the major market for Oregon wheat. Today it’s still the major export, wheat, and China is still the biggest importer. It began before statehood and continues to this day. Wheat would be brought down to the Columbia waterfront and shipped by sternwheelers, loaded into 100-pound sacks and brought down to the docks of Portland."

"By the 1880s, there were three wealthy cities in the US: New York first, Philadelphia second, and Portland third," Orloff added. "We were the third wealthiest city in the nation based on the wheat trade. We were able to build buildings like the Pioneer Courthouse and the Portland Hotel in the 1890s. It led to an elegant collection of historic buildings downtown and along the park blocks, most of which were funded through the wheat trade.""

tedder (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

WPORE Importance Discussion 2015.1
Don't think we've had a discussion yet this year on the importance parameter, and trying to shoot this in the bud before someone wants to address this in regards to a specific article. After some adjustments based on prior policy changes, we are still a bit down year over year, and off from what I view is sustainable.

My proposal is a series of nominations to bump some articles up. So, to start, bumping 30 articles from High to Top, which would pt us at 100 in the Top category. I'm thinking people can nominate up to 15 articles, giving the reasons why they think it should be Top. Then we can debate and ultimately vote with the top 30 getting promoted to the Premier League. Once we are done with Top, we can do a similar process for Mid to High, and so on. I'm also thinking maybe take our time over the next few weeks. I will get us started below. Choose from this list. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should move this discussion to a separate sub-page so it doesn't interfere with normal discussions on Wiki-Oregon's main Talk Page.--Orygun (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Normally I would agree, but we don't have too many normal discussions anymore to interfere with. This may end up being our most active discussion in years. That said, if someone does want to move it, go for it. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * By all means, please continue the conversation here. It is nice to see some discussion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Aboutmovies

 * Astoria, Oregon - oldest establishment by far and also a county seat
 * Civil War (college football game) - pretty much always the biggest sporting event every year
 * George Earle Chamberlain - state house, US Senate, Oregon AG, and Governor
 * Crater Lake National Park - only national park
 * Donation Land Claim Act - very impactful to this day on land ownership
 * Phil Knight - richest person for many years and huge impact on athletics
 * John Kitzhaber - 4 terms plus his legislature experience, and then throw in the resignation
 * Mark Hatfield - longest serving US Senator, plus Senate leadership, plus a ton of things named after him, plus Governor/Sec. of State and legislature
 * Tonya Harding - sadly likely our most famous female Olympian
 * Great Flood of 1862 - many cities were permanently wiped out
 * Multnomah Falls - tallest in the state, huge tourist attraction
 * Oregon and California Railroad Revested Lands - huge impact still on rural counties
 * Oregon Coast Range - most people see them everyday, most people drive over them at least once a year, keeps most of the people drier
 * Willamette River - large majority of the state's population lives in it's valley
 * Aboutmovies (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Jsayre64
While I don't think it matters a lot what we rate "high" and what we rate "top," this is a fun idea. I agree with many of your selections, Aboutmovies, so below I borrow some. But first, I should point out that Eastern Oregon is rated "high" but Western Oregon is "mid" – that doesn't really make sense. Here are my 15, mostly just in the order I thought of them:


 * 1) Multnomah Falls - same reason as above
 * 2) Astoria, Oregon - same reason as above
 * 3) Donation Land Claim Act - same as above, also a huge part of Oregon's 19th-century history
 * 4) John Kitzhaber - same as above
 * 5) Great Flood of 1862 - same as above, and the overall magnitude and rarity of it
 * 6) Oregon Coast Range - same as above
 * 7) Willamette Valley - of equal or superior importance to Willamette River because of the population and because it's an everyday geographic term
 * 8) Christmas flood of 1964 - very rare, memorable, destructive, and costly, nearly as important as the 1862 flood (ignoring recentism)
 * 9) Hayward Field - venue of some of the world's most important track and field events, so of course very well-known for that and its history
 * 10) Oregon Trail - big migration route in U.S. history, taught in schools
 * 11) Maritime fur trade - even broader than the Oregon Trail, spans more time in history; why not be the only WikiProject to rate it "top"?
 * 12) Native American peoples of Oregon - tens of thousands of years of history
 * 13) Oregon City, Oregon - one of our oldest establishments, so plenty of historical importance
 * 14) Pacific Crest Trail - huge part of recreation in the Western U.S., it goes through just two other states, popularity/use has been increasing
 * 15) List of people from Oregon - different from list of lakes or cities or something because those lists can be easily seen with a map or elsewhere online, but this list on Wikipedia has the potential to be more valuable and helpful than any other online list of Oregon people
 * -- Jsayre64  (talk)  05:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Orygun
I agree with many (but not all) of the articles suggested above. Here are four more that I think should be upgaraded: --Orygun (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Jason Lee (missionary) – Represents Oregon in Statuary Hall at U.S. Capitol
 * 2) Tom McCall – Important governor and secretary of state
 * 3) Bend, Oregon – largest city in eastern Oregon
 * 4) Lists of Oregon-related topics – overarching Oregon list that leads to all the other lists.
 * While I only added 4 suggestions above, I support upgrading number of other topics suggested by AB including:
 * Astoria, Oregon - See AB's note above
 * Multnomah Falls - See AB's note above
 * Oregon City, Oregon - See AB's note above
 * Oregon Coast Range - See AB's note above
 * Oregon Trail - See AB's note above
 * Native American peoples of Oregon - See AB's note above
 * Willamette Valley - See AB's note above
 * Pacific Crest Trail - See AB's note above
 * Plus I'd like to suggest two more topics from existing High Priority list:
 * Oregon Country - covers history before organized government was established in Oregon
 * Timberline Lodge - iconic building with important depression era history
 * Also, we may want to consider a few articles from lower priority lists. Here’s 3 to consider:
 * Oregon Geographic Names - book that documents Oregon location names and history...or Lewis A. McArthur - original compiler of the OGN book
 * Willamette National Forest - NFs cover much of our state and are important to our history, economy, and  recreation; this is largest NF in Oregon)
 * High Desert (Oregon) – region that covers ~one third of Oregon similar to Cascade Range, Oregon Coast, and Willamette Valley
 * In any case, this is my revised list of suggestions.--Orygun (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I presume your lists add up to more than 15 because you aren't counting the ones from lower priority lists. I'd say go ahead and add these to the chart below or if you'd like, ask someone else to do it for you. YBG (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)S

Valfontis
For the record, I'm not fond of lists, outlines, or Jason Lee (who may be on his way out as a statue). This part of the project is important, since this is a real encyclopedia. My picks, in no particular order (explanations may come later), based on my particular biases and not on having actually read the criteria: Valfontis (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Mark Hatfield
 * Tom McCall
 * 1) Donation Land Claim Act
 * 2) Astoria, Oregon
 * 3) Climate of Oregon
 * 4) Culture of Oregon
 * 5) Eastern Oregon (Western Oregon is not usually referred to as much, see next entry)
 * 6) Willamette Valley/Willamette River
 * 7) Vote-by-mail in Oregon
 * 8) Portland International Airport
 * 9) Oregon State Senate
 * 10) Oregon House of Representatives
 * 11) Oregon and California Railroad Revested Lands
 * 12) Oregon Trail
 * 13) Native American peoples of Oregon
 * 14) Land use in Oregon
 * 15) Pietro Belluschi
 * I apologize to those trying to keep track of this, but a historian friend also suggests Conde McCullough, Mount Mazama, and Harvey W. Scott. Just sticking them here so I can revisit this later. Valfontis (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

YBG
I've included my votes in the summary table I created below. YBG (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Summary
Here's a summary of our nominations:

Discussion of summary

 * I hope the above summary in tabular form is helpful. I think here at WP:OREGON, we must all be just a bit OCD. Is there any other explanation for us responding in alphabetical order by user name? YBG (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Blessed be the table makers. This rocks. Valfontis (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that there's a difference between List of Oregon-related topics (which redirects to Outline of Oregon, rated a low-importance list) and Lists of Oregon-related topics (rated high-importance). Jsayre64   (talk)  00:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What a difference a lowly 's' makes. YBG (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've added some additional suggests to my original input plus I'd like to go on record supporting a number of AB's suggestions...see note in my section above. How do I get them on this list?--Orygun (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I just went in and looked at all of the Governors and re-assessed many to High based on the prior discussion on this topic. I also moved a couple to Top based on the existing criteria. I also came across La Fayette Grover, which can add to the table as my nomination (I'm still under the 15). Not only was he governor, but he was also the first US House member after statehood, a US Senator, a delegate to Oregon Constitutional Convention, and a member of the Territorial House of Representatives. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * La Fayette Grover was also involved in the Oregon aspect of the controversy over the United States presidential election, 1876. YBG (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that I have actually looked at the criteria, I'm less comfortable with these subjective evaluations. I think it would be helpful to turn the criteria into a numbered list so it is easy to reference them. YBG (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've rank ordered my suggested topics 1-15. Hope that helps.--Orygun (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a summary of the current status as of October 21, 2015
 * {|class="wikitable"


 * Number of votes   ||  5 ||  4 ||  3 ||  2 ||  1 ||  0
 * Number of articles || 1 ||  3 ||  8 ||  5 || 21 ||  3
 * Cumulative        ||  1 ||  4 || 12 || 17 || 38 || 41
 * }
 * If the original goal was to bump 30 articles from High to Top, it looks like all we're almost there. If we accept every article that received 2 or more votes, that gives us 17.  All we need to do is figure out which of the 21 that only received one vote should be included.  I suppose people could adjust their nominations until we are left with just 30.  Or we could just accept all 38. YBG (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't we each cast 5 more votes and see where we stand? There  are several more I'd like to support, but I ran out of votes.--Orygun (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The plan was anyone nominates up to 15, then we take a vote (up to 30). I'd like to wait a few more days to see if there are anymore nominations. Regular or long-time WPORE editors such as Another Believer, SJ Morg, Peteforsyth, Grand'mere Eugene, and EncMstr among others have not nominated anything and may be found in contempt of the WPORE bylaws if they fail to mail in their ballots. So hopefully they will find it in their hearts to give some love to an article or two or fifteen. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't we each cast 5 more votes and see where we stand? There  are several more I'd like to support, but I ran out of votes.--Orygun (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The plan was anyone nominates up to 15, then we take a vote (up to 30). I'd like to wait a few more days to see if there are anymore nominations. Regular or long-time WPORE editors such as Another Believer, SJ Morg, Peteforsyth, Grand'mere Eugene, and EncMstr among others have not nominated anything and may be found in contempt of the WPORE bylaws if they fail to mail in their ballots. So hopefully they will find it in their hearts to give some love to an article or two or fifteen. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I claim exemption from dereliction of duty or being "in contempt of the WPORE bylaws” on the grounds that I not only have an Aunt Betty, but my father actually named a family cat after her. He was in a fit of pique because after he said our family couldn’t have a kitten, we gave him a kitten from one of Aunt Betty’s cat's litters for Fathers' day […too many apostrophes, maybe]. Also, I have refrained from writing articles about either Aunt Betty or Cat Betty. Here are 7 choices, no particular order: I'm content with only offering seven because I am vigilantly monitoring the Oregon Encyclopedia for cat articles, and believe me that takes time. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Timberline Lodge - while we’re at it, needs complete overhaul to reflect history, architecture, and cultural value, less Shining (UNDUE)
 * Oregon Trail - Iconic, important not only to Oregon but westward expansion of the country
 * Willamette River - Defining geographic feature that has influenced population and economy of the state
 * Hayward Field - Important track venue; recently more visibility nationally for hosting Olympic trials
 * Land use in Oregon - Important planning laws preventing urban encroachment on agricultural and forest lands
 * Vote-by-mail in Oregon - A “First-in-the-nation” that deserves attention
 * Up above I expressed some discomfort over the arbitrary voting without criteria -- although I do really enjoy the process. I hadn't been aware of any criteria until it was mentioned below.  So I went to the criteria over at  and added a table form of the criteria that were there.  After it was all done, I'm not sure if it is an improvement or not.  Sign. YBG (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I went back there today and replaced the table I'd added yesterday with a different one that I think actually might actually have some advantages over the bulleted lists. If anyone's interested, check it out at .I'd be interested in hearing any comments. YBG (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the bulleted list better, the table looks confusing. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I read through the list/table, numerous exceptions came to mind for every category as well as things that didn’t fit into any category (not even the “Other Stuff” category). I my opinion, trying to create a comprehensive rule set that directs every current or potential Wiki-Oregon topic into the right importance level will inevitably over or under rate the importance of some articles.  Rather than posting a detailed set of rules, I think the solution is to use the good judgement of our Wiki-Oregon team to identify a relatively few Top priorities; and then use the simple Importance scale we’ve used in the past (i.e. Top = “This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information”) along with the same good judgement to assess importance (and quality) of new articles as they are uploaded.--Orygun (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, how about we open the voting for folks to choose up to 30 of any of the above nominations? Should the top 30 vote-getters (maximum) be promoted? A lot of articles will be tied in number of votes. There are just a lot of possibilities for how the voting process could work. Jsayre64   (talk)  07:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussions
❌ No consensus yet on proposed changes to importance assessment criteria. Jsayre64  (talk)  21:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Bend
First, I have no issue with Bend per se, my issue is the criteria. I personally would prefer to stay away from "largest in x" types of criteria. Do we do Coos Bay cause its the largest on the coast (or is it Coast, I forget), and so on. I've also been thinking of moving away from the five most populous criteria as well, since that is subject to change. So for me, changing it to 10 most populous has that same issue, plus I just don't think Springfield is that important despite its connections to The Simpsons (for those who may think I dislike Springfield, I also don't see Gresham as that important despite its population). What I propose is we change the city criteria for Top from "5 most populous" to any city of 75,000 or more (based on any Census or US Census estimate). This way Bend gets in, and so would Medford and Beaverton. Thoughts, counter-points, points, notes, tangents? Aboutmovies (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. That would result in 4 high-importance cities (Springfield, Corvallis, Albany, Tigard) + the rest of the county seats, and 8 top-importance cities (Portland, Salem, Eugene, Gresham, Hillsboro, Beaverton, Bend, Medford). You basically have to include Gresham, since it's #4 in the state. The rest of the geography criteria look just fine to me as they are now. Jsayre64   (talk)  05:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Helpful list of Oregon cities by 2014 population estimates: page 20. Jsayre64   (talk)  05:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because of their history, I'd put Astoria and Oregon City of Top Priority list before adding Bend. I my note I said Bend was largest city in eastern OR, but I really wasn’t referring to population (in fact, I don’t think population by itself is a very good criterion). I think Bend would be a good choice because it‘s the only real urban center east of the cascades, and therefore, influences the economy and culture of a large part of the state.  Including it helps balance our Top Priority list, i.e. shows there are important cities outside the Willamette Valley.  For the same reason, I think Medford would be a good choice to include on the list.  However, I’d stop there. While Springfield has a larger population, its proximity to Eugene reduces its impact on the surrounding area.  The same is true for Portland suburbs.  Including Hillboro and Gresham highlights the diversity of the Portland SMA, but including every suburb that reaches a certain population would be redundant. At least that’s my opinion.--Orygun (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I get your points, but I think it would be hard to write specific, uniform criteria for Oregon-related articles that would match what you're saying. Though I already see some subjectivity in the criteria, if we used your ideas then many articles would have to be judged case by case. That's not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but it would be a lot more complicated. Jsayre64   (talk)  22:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The criterion is indeed subjective. I don’t see how it could be made objective, given the fact that Wikipedia is designed to cover every notable topic from alpha to omega.  It’s our collective judgement regarding the articles within the scope of Wiki-Oregon that determines what is Top/High/Medium/Low priority.  I think 5 (or more) experienced/interested Wiki-Oregon editors can do case-by case assessment and come up with a good result.--Orygun (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Decision 2015 (AKA the vote)
Now that the nomination process is complete, we will proceed to vote for the promotion of 30 articles to the Top importance classification. Each member of WikiProject Oregon is eligible to vote, and each member gets up to 30 votes. To vote, simply sign next to the nominated article with just three tildes. If there are any ties for the last spot, we will do a single vote run-off, and if there is still a tie then Aunt Betty will flip for it. Voting will run till approximately 12/13. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Paging and : last chance to vote, and since you both nominated articles, it would be pretty swell and stuff if you could vote too. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Takes serious thought. Will try some ADD meds. And give it a shot. Valfontis (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Total votes by editor (maximum: 30)
 * 12
 * 21
 * 15
 * 24
 * 26
 * 30
 * 24+3 (01:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC) + 01:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC))
 * 16

Astoria

 * ✅, seems particularly important to understanding the history of Oregon --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅Orygun (talk)
 * 3) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 4) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 5) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 6) ✅ YBG (talk)
 * 7) ✅ Finetooth (talk)

Bend

 * ✅, largest city in Central Oregon and fifth largest metropolitan area in the state --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) ✅Orygun (talk)
 * 2) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 3) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 4) ✅ YBG (talk)
 * 5) ✅ Finetooth (talk)

Christmas flood (1964)

 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅ YBG (talk)

Civil War

 * 1) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 2) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)

Climate /OR

 * 1) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 2) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 3) ✅ YBG (talk)
 * 4) ✅ Finetooth (talk)

Culture /OR

 * 1) ✅ --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 20:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 3) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 4) ✅ YBG (talk)

Donation Land Claim Act

 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅Orygun (talk)
 * 3) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 4) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 5) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 6) ✅ YBG (talk)
 * 7) ✅ Finetooth (talk)

Eastern OR

 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 3) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 4) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 5) ✅ YBG (talk)

George Chamberlain

 * 1) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 2) ✅ Valfontis (talk)

Great Flood of 1862

 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 3) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 4) ✅ YBG (talk)

Hayward Field

 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 3) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)

High Desert (Oregon)

 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅Orygun (talk)
 * 3) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 4) ✅ YBG (talk)
 * 5) ✅ Finetooth (talk)

Jason Lee

 * 1) ✅Orygun (talk)
 * 2) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 3) ✅ YBG (talk)

John Kitzhaber

 * 1) ✅ --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 20:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 3) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 4) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 5) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 6) ✅ YBG (talk)

La Fayette Grover

 * 1) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 2) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 3) ✅ YBG (talk)

Land use in Oregon

 * 1) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 2) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 3) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 4) ✅ YBG (talk)
 * 5) ✅ Finetooth (talk)

Lists of Oregon-related topics

 * , because this page is, imho, less about content and more for organizational, if not administrative, purposes --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) ✅Orygun (talk)

List of people from Oregon

 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅ --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Maritime fur trade

 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅ Valfontis (talk)

Multnomah Falls

 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅Orygun (talk)
 * 3) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 4) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 5) ✅ YBG (talk)

Native American peoples of Oregon

 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅Orygun (talk)
 * 3) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 4) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 5) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 6) ✅ YBG (talk)
 * 7) ✅ Finetooth (talk)

O&C Lands

 * 1) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 2) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 3) ✅ and so would if he was in on this process. Valfontis (talk)
 * 4) ✅ YBG (talk)
 * 5) ✅ Finetooth (talk)

Oregon City

 * ✅, seems particularly important to understanding the history of Oregon. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅Orygun (talk)
 * 3) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 4) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 5) ✅ YBG (talk)
 * 6) ✅ Finetooth (talk)

OR Country

 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅Orygun (talk)
 * 3) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 4) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 5) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 6) ✅ YBG (talk)
 * 7) ✅ Finetooth (talk)

OR Coast Range

 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 3) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 4) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 5) ✅ YBG (talk)
 * 6) ✅ Finetooth (talk)

OR House

 * 1) ✅ --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 20:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 3) ✅ YBG (talk)

OR Senate

 * 1) ✅ --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 20:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 3) ✅ YBG (talk)

OR Trail

 * ✅, of course! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅Orygun (talk)
 * 3) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 4) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 5) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 6) ✅ YBG (talk)
 * 7) ✅ Finetooth (talk)

Pacific Crest Trail

 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)

Phil Knight

 * 1) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 2) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 3) ✅ Valfontis (talk)

P. Belluschi

 * 1) ✅; really the only nationally known architect from Oregon. Valfontis (talk)

Portland International Airport

 * ✅: "largest airport in the U.S. state of Oregon, accounting for 90 percent of passenger travel and more than 95 percent of air cargo of the state" --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 2) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 3) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 4) ✅ YBG (talk)
 * 5) ✅ Finetooth (talk)

Timberline Lodge

 * 1) ✅ National Historic Landmark. --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 20:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) ✅Orygun (talk)
 * 3) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 4) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 5) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 6) ✅ YBG (talk)

T. Harding

 * , high importance for WP Figure Skating, perhaps, but I don't think an understanding of her and her career are necessary to acquire an understanding of Oregon --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)

Vote-by-mail

 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 3) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 4) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 5) ✅ YBG (talk)
 * 6) ✅ Finetooth (talk)

Willamette National Forest

 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅Orygun (talk)
 * 3) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)

Willamette River

 * 1) ✅ --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 20:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 3) ✅Orygun (talk)
 * 4) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 5) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 6) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 7) ✅ YBG (talk)
 * 8) ✅ Finetooth (talk)

Willamette Valley

 * 1) ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)
 * 2) ✅Orygun (talk)
 * 3) ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * 4) ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * 5) ✅ Valfontis (talk)
 * 6) ✅ YBG (talk)
 * 7) ✅ Finetooth (talk)

Conde McCullough

 * 1) ✅; more architect/engineer love. Valfontis (talk)

Mount Mazama

 * 1) ✅ Valfontis (talk)

Harvey W. Scott

 * 1) ✅ Valfontis (talk)

Results & Runoff
OK, I tallied the votes and those being promoted are:Aboutmovies (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Astoria
 * 2) Oregon Trail
 * 3) Willamette River
 * 4) DLC
 * 5) Native Peoples
 * 6) Oregon City
 * 7) Oregon Country
 * 8) Willamette Valley
 * 9) Bend
 * 10) John Kitzhaber
 * 11) Oregon Coast Range
 * 12) PDX
 * 13) Timberline Lodge
 * 14) Vote by mail
 * 15) Eastern OR
 * 16) High Desert
 * 17) Land Use
 * 18) Multnomah Falls
 * 19) O&C Lands
 * 20) Climate
 * 21) Culture
 * 22) 1862 flood
 * 23) Hayward Field
 * 24) Jason Lee
 * 25) La Fayette Grover
 * 26) Oregon House
 * 27) Oregon Senate
 * 28) Phil Knight
 * 29) Willamette National For.

Runoff
As you can see, there are 29. We had a six-way tie for the 30th spot, so time for the run-off. Vote for one and only one (election will end in a week or so): Aboutmovies (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 1964 flood:
 * Civil War: ✅ Aboutmovies (talk)
 * George Chamberlain:
 * List of people:
 * Maritime fur trade:
 * PCT: ✅ Jsayre64   (talk)  02:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * OK its been about three weeks, and we still have a tie, so both will be promoted. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

WPORE Importance Discussion 2016.1
Now that the Top discussion is wrapping up, time to move on to the High category. On this one, we are around 400 articles off our artificial goal. Since we had about eight editors participate, if we all just go through the Mid and Low categories and randomly move up 50 based on the criteria already outlined and mixed with some personal opinions, that would get us about there, or close enough. So go forth and move some up. You don't have to do 50, and you did not have to vote or have participated in the above discussion. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I did title-review of all Mid importance articles this weekend, and only found 35 I thought were upgrade candidates. I've posted them on bottom of my User page for anyone who's interested.  While I'm sure I missed some, I don't think there's anywhere near 400 articles worthy of upgrade.  Think we need to be careful we don't upgrading articles that aren't worthy of High importance rating.  I'll wait week/so before I change any article ratings to High just in case anyone has a problem with any of my picks...just leave me note on my talk page.--Orygun (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅...the 37 Wiki-Oregon articles I upgraded are listed on my Talk-page.--Orygun (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I did 49, but I didn't keep track. Hoping this spurs some others. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oregon state elections, 2016
It's there now, but needs expansion. MB298 (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

New collaboration time
Aunt Betty got the face lift she needed, so on to the next set. We now have Crown Point that was nominated, and I came across this 32nd Oregon Legislative Assembly, and just knew it needed help. Like most other people, I like XXX content, but probably best not to have it on Wikipedia. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a few edits to the latter article and removed the 'xxx' content. Speaking of xxx content, feel free to participate in this discussion about the deletion of Jiggles: Articles for deletion/Jiggles. :p --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 19:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at 32nd Oregon Legislative Assembly and then realized, unless I am misreading something, that none of the names in the House list matched the source, and that the Senate list is incomplete. It looks like  may have pasted the lists from another article and intended to come back and replace them with accurate names, but it never happened. Or I am completely wrong.


 * Anyway, I removed the names that did not appear to match the source and marked both lists as incomplete. I think that is better than having incorrect information in the article. Revert me if I am completely off base here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the state of the article, your guess is probably correct. I cleaned up a bit, and now page (our Eastern Oregon person) and nominate them to write about Jay H. Upton. He is from that neck of the woods, and has a lot of incoming links now, so research should be fruitful. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC) PS, may be related to William W. Upton given both were in politics. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Eh, that's possible. My bad. Carrite (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And if anyone is bored, here is the voter's guide for the election that was for this term on Google Books which is PD if we needed any photos or someone wants to start some bios. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Am just now finishing article on another early 20th century Oregon legislator. Will do article on Jay H. Upton next.  Thanks for finding Public Domain photo in Oregon Voter.  That’s often hardest part of research.  By the way, you’re right…Jay Upton is grandson of William W. Upton.--Orygun (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅...Just uploaded Jay H. Upton article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orygun (talk • contribs) 02:47, 5 March 2016

New political article needed?
There have been a number of politicians throughout Oregon history unaffiliated with any political party. This would include statewide office holders (Julius Meier, Wayne Morse, Ben Westlund) as well as local politicians, and at least some officeholders in officially "non-partisan" offices like judges, mayors, city council members. However, with the 2007 establishment of the Independent Party of Oregon, the topic of what it means to be "independent" in Oregon politics is now rather complex.

I suggest we start an article, say unaffiliated voter in Oregon, to explore these issues. Another alternative would be to tell the story on the IPO's article, but that seems less than ideal. (For instance, if you want to add context to a bio like Avel Gordly, it would seem odd to link to the IPO's article, when the IPO didn't come into existence until after she had left office.) Thoughts, anyone? -Pete (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems we should have a category for independent politicians of Oregon and one for the Category:Independent Party of Oregon (or similar, such as Category:Independent Party of Oregon members). --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Independent" (i.e. affiliated with the Independent Party) has a meaning in American politics that could easily be confused with "independent" (i.e. not affiliated with any party). And we can't depend on using the initial capital letter to disambiguate, because WP pages are case-insensitive relative to the first character of the page name.


 * And we are not talking about voters at all here, so I'm not sure how "unaffiliated voter in Oregon" is relevant to articles about elected and appointed officials.


 * How about "non-partisan" (or "nonpartisan") instead of "independent"? The page about Eugene's Mayor and Council says that the mayor "is elected by the City at large on a nonpartisan ballot for a four-year term" and "Councilors are elected on a nonpartisan ballot for four-year terms." – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not tied to any particular name, and you're right that "voters" in particular was the wrong word. However, "non-partisan" and "unaffiliated" are different things. The former refers to an office; the occupant of the office may well be a member of a party, it just won't appear on the ballot or invoke a nomination process. The latter refers to an individual politician. "Unaffiliated" is the official term in Oregon law, and what the media uses. (It used to be "independent" before 2007.) (An article about non-partisan offices could be worthwhile too, but it's a different topic.) -Pete (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Art+Feminism


Plans are being made offline to host another Art+Feminism edit-a-thon in Portland. I believe March 5 is the tentative date. I have also been contacted by an Associate Professor at UO's Department of Art who is interested in hosting an event. If there is someone in Eugene who would be willing to speak with her about providing assistance during the event, please let me know so I can connect you. I don't think it would require too much work. As long as you agreed on the schedule and location, your job would more or less be to just show up and help any Wikipedia newbies who may have questions about how to contribute. There have been a couple successful edit-a-thons in Eugene, and it would be great to have another. I can't promise to drive down to Eugene for a Wikipedia meetup, but I've done it before. Of course, ideally someone local would be able to help at UO. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can help. Let me know whom to call. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! Will do. If there are others who are also interested, I can loop you into the conversation, too. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I can show up to help! Valfontis (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Valfontis! Grand'mere Eugene and Valfontis, I provided the Associate Professor links to both of your profile pages asked her to use the "email this user" to contact you. I hope the three of you can agree on a time and location to host a productive event. Do keep us in the loop! And, of course, let me know if I can help remotely by creating a meetup page, doing outreach, etc. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As I'm trying to explain to the professor right now, I will show up to help individual editors but I'm not up for much planning, etc. So anything you can do to help would be great. In other words, I won't stand in front of the group and talk like Sarah did last year. Any takers? Valfontis (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think a formal presentation is necessary. I've helped at many Wikipedia events without standing at the front of the room., have you contacted the asst. professor as well? I am curious if a time and location has been confirmed. If I am able to attend the event, I don't mind giving a presentation, but again, I don't think this is necessary. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the event is scheduled for Saturday March 5, 12-5, presumably somewhere on UO campus. There is an organizing group meeting 3:15 on Monday, Feb. 1, in 198 Lawrence Hall (art office). I suspect we may need your help creating a meetup page, maybe also with outreach. We'll know more after Monday's meeting. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. I went ahead and created Meetup/Eugene/ArtAndFeminism 2016, which can be expanded as details are confirmed. I am also happy to distribute talk page invitations. I have "mass message" user rights, so I can send invites to everyone listed here with the click of a button. The list says "Portland", but really it is a list of WikiProject Oregon participants and anyone who has attended a meetup in Oregon. I can include details for both PDX and Eugene in the same invite. Just let me know, happy to help! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: See Meetup/Portland/ArtAndFeminism 2016 for details about the Portland event. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As both a Wikipedian and a copyright attorney, would there be any interest in me stopping by to give a spiel on copyright? This given people may be inclined to go take pictures or grab images off the internet due to the topic. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you consider making an appearance in Eugene? We organizers here are reluctant to even mention the topic of adding images, due to concerns about imparting copyright info. Maybe you could send a clone of yourself through the space-time continuum to our little event in Eugene? Cheers! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be a bit of a drive, and my schedule on Saturday would not quite allow it (unless Uncle Phil could loan me a jet, as those are just down the street from me). Perhaps via Skype I could, or some other video conference technology, if that would work for you? I can then put together a subpage with some tips. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, please! Let me see what we need to do to arrange for your fabulous self to be connected to UO via Skype or Facetime or GoToMeeting or whatever. I'll check in with  and  to set things up at our end. What times between 12:00 and 5:00 would be best for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand'mere Eugene (talk • contribs) 02:22, 2 March 2016
 * How about 3 pm? You can email me using the tool to the left any specific info to connect. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: Just a reminder re: today's events. If you have a few moments, feel free to contribute remotely. Have a great weekend! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We had a great event in PDX, and it looks like the Eugene event was very successful as well. I am curious to learn more, if anyone cares to share. Otherwise, thanks to everyone who attended and participated! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Press
Woah, check out Willamette Week article on the upcoming Art+Feminism meetup and suggested edits to Wikipedia. I added this link to all 5 talk pages of the mentioned Wikipedia articles. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

See also: https://aaa.uoregon.edu/news/artists-join-volunteers-change-how-women-represented-wikipedia --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Oregon Encyclopedia in distress
Alas, our step-sister project currently suffers from 3 defunct citations (out of 4), including its own press release. I don't have the heart to tag it. Who will leap to its aid? — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When I approached the project manager at a history night about a possible Wikipedia collaboration, she literally rolled her eyes at me and said OE is better because it is edited by vetted people... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)