Talk:Portland, Oregon/Archive 2

message: I just completed a pass (six checkins under two different IP addresses) of a clean-up of the current article.  I think what's really needed is to move some of Portland, Oregon into Portland metropolitan area.  I did what I could in its current form by moving more about the metro area into the intro so that a new reader isn't surprised when a given section chooses to focus on the city proper or its metro area.  There's plenty of precedence for fleshing out the  Portland metropolitan area article:
* Greater Los Angeles Area vs. Los Angeles, California
* New York metropolitan area vs. New York City
* Greater Boston vs. Boston, Massachusetts
* San Francisco Bay Area vs. San Francisco, California
* Houston Metropolitan Area vs. Houston, Texas
Once fleshed out, the current links to Portland need to be reviewed so that the metro area article is referenced where appropriate.  I'll get around to doing this myself at some point, if no one beats me to it. - 66.167.253.224 00:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a separate metropolitan area article 

message: Hey all, I've created a page specifically dedicated to "Downtown Portland". Check it out, make any revisions. I know some of you already have! I saw that Seattle had one, and I couldn't let Portland go unnoticed... Not only that, Ours is way better :) Alphalife 20:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a link to a Hawthorne district/neighbourhood page I created, but could someone please expand on it?  Karlkatzke 04:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Portland Page 

message: In the past couple of weeks, there are now both a Portland, Oregon#Transportation and a Transportation in Portland.  How would a contributor with transport-related information know which to add to?  Having both a subsection and an article is already leading to random divergence.  For example, the Portland, Oregon#Transportation section talks more about Hillsboro's airport than it does about PDX, while the Transportation in Portland article doesn't mention Hillsboro airport at all? 
With the detail in the right place now, I cut back on the version in Portland, Oregon#Transportation.Why not revert to this: See also: Transportation in Portland -  66.167.138.171 06:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Something needs to be mentioned in the main article about transportation in the city. It shouldn't be too long, but should cover the basics about airports, mass transit, and roads. The complete details in the Transportation in Portland section cover a lot more information that is just not necessary to include in the main article (e.g. lists of all highways and bridges, info about proposed projects, alternative transportation info, and such). That's why the separate article is there. I have added more detailed info about the airports to the separate article now as well. Dr. Cash 15:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, this is bad form. Having a section (or subsection heading) with only a See also link in it just looks bad. If you're going to do something like this, it's better to put all these extra links to other articles in the main See also section near the end. But the topic of transportation is important enough that something should be mentioned in the main article, even if it's a summary of the secondary article. Dr. Cash 15:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I reduced the detail from the section and tried to make it more apparent that Transportation in Portland is the main article. 66.167.138.54 01:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transportation 

message: :Category:Portland, Oregon has grown quite big. I think that some of the articles should be moved into existing and new sub-categories. For instance: KOIN Center is in both Category:Portland, Oregon and :Category:Portland, Oregon Skyscrapers. I think one category is enough for this and many other articles. I propose just having it listed in only the Skyscrapers category. For more notable things, or stuff that doesn't fit into a sub-category yet, they can stay (and be listed in more than one Portland category in the instance of notable things or people) where they are.
Changes so far:
*All the articles about Portland mayors, neighborhoods, and skyscrapers have been fixed hopefully.
*Added ":Buildings and structures in Portland, Oregon" to round up architectural stragglers such as the Oregon Convention Center, etc... that don't fit into the skyscraper category. Skyscrapers are also a subcategory of the buildings category now. 
*Added :Category:Education in Portland, Oregon" and put all Portland colleges, Universities, High Schools, Private Schools, and School Districts there that I could find (limiting this scope to whatever is inside Portland City limits hopefully).
*Left Vera Katz, Tom Potter, and a few other things doubly-listed, as they are notable Portlanders or Portland articles.
Sub-categories I haven't got around to making yet:
*:Category:Businesses in Portland, Oregon
*:Category:History of Portland, Oregon
*:Category:Media in Portland, Oregon (newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations go here)
*:Category:Brewpubs and Breweries of Portland, Oregon
--User:Ajbenj(9-21-05)
:I was also working on trying to fix this article, including moving some stuff around (ie dense areas out of the quadrants section) and moving some stuff out (ie a bullet point listing SW suburbs to the metro article).  In fact, the metro article is basically empty and this article doesn't really stay within the city boundries.  But a "skyscrapers" cat seems too specific. Oh, and can we archive some of the stuff here on Talk: that seems to have been answered?  --Jason McHuff 21:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Portland Category clean-up

message: "Portland's city center does not cater to tall buildings due to the 200 ft. long city blocks and design codes that constrain building height" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cacophony (talk • contribs) 14:06, September 12, 2004
:This statement is listed on Page 24 of The Portland Bridge Book. --Jason McHuff 01:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Building heights 

message: According to Dorie Welch (BPA fish and wildlife project manager) the climate is such to support vast numbers fish and wildlife species in and around the Willamette river, however, the greed and disregard by the local governments allows for various pollutants to be discharged throughout the river system leading to degradation in habitat in and around the river.  "Sometimes when I walk a long the river I tear up a little and wonder how amazing this place must have looked before the logging, pavement, industry and population arrived."
This seems to have a POV.  If someone thinks differently, they can put it back. --Jason McHuff 20:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed wildlife paragraph

message: Does anyone else get a vibe of subjective praise in the article? (or not?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.2.13 (talk • contribs) 17:32, October 16, 2005
:Well, I usually get the feeling that articles on wikipedia are praiseful - but prehapts you're right. We should add some negatives, I guess. We'll start with Seattle. Then we'll do LA. Portland eventually... Alphalife 04:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of article? 

message: I for one have no clue where Oregon lies in the US, so therefore the little mapplet displaying the counties position in the state of oregon doesnt make sense to me. Is it north or south? I'd rather have a map of the USA. --145.99.202.92 11:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the article for Oregon it shows very clearly where in the United States it is located.  Cacophony 19:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: I had read Portland, OR to be the most Wi-Fi (wireless internet connected) city in the nation, as well as one of the most thoroughly internet connected in general. Maybe some source confirmation and addition to the article is warranted? Nagelfar 12:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to dispute the notability of this. Wi-Fi is a pretty hot topic today, and there is an abundance of articles all over the net on cities building municipal wi-fi cities, as well as on the availability of non-municipal, free wi-fi. Due to the rapid propogation of wi-fi currently, just because Portland **might** be the most wi-fi connected city in the country one month, does not mean that some other city might beat it next month. I'd also have to dispute the status of "most Wi-Fi city in the nation" for Portland, too. What about Mountain View, San Francisco, CA? Boston, Cambridge, MA? New York? Who's judging? Dr. Cash 17:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, it is among the most internet connected in general, per capita. That should warrant some mention. Nagelfar 11:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technologically advanced city? 

message: Just of note, in at least two fiction works; the 1955 short film "A day called X" and the book/movie "The Lathe of Heaven", the city of Portland Oregon is attacked/destroyed. In the former it is evacuated after a nuclear attack; this was somewhat a government movie made to spread awareness & readiness about the assumed possible threat of a cold war nuclear assault, an 'educational' more than 'hollywood' film, which is interesting. In the latter, Portland is destroyed by aliens that come to earth, and this a fairly popular work of fiction. There's another, a book "Violence of Action" by Richard Marcinko, wherein Portland is the target of a nuclear bomb attack by terrorists. Nagelfar 12:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been a few years since I read it, but I believe Portland took a pretty good beating in L. Ron Hubbard's Mission Earth series (don't remember exactly which volume).  In this case it had to do with Mt. Hood erupting. --StuffOfInterest 14:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Maybe this could become a little 'discussion page' project finding this kind of information. Nagelfar 22:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portland destroyed... in pop culture fiction 

message: I don't see photos of police cars for other cities like Seattle, New York City, San Fransisco, Denver, Eugene, Oregon, Boise, Baltmimore, Charlotte, Miami, so why does one belong here?  Cacophony 19:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, 1) the image isn't properly licensed and 2) it's watermarked WIKIPEDIA ONLY. Seems inappropriate--I've already asked on the uploader's talk page about it. --Lukobe 21:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the watermark really bugs me -- don't know why.  If we really wanted it here I'd walk outdoors and take one to put in the public domain -- but I don't think it's really needed.  I'd like it gone. -- Gnetwerker 06:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Police car photo 

message: To the anon who keeps posting "Porkland" comments:  Please provide a source or citation.  It has zero hits on google. -- Gnetwerker 06:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, it should be removed from Tom Leykis too.  I'll just do that, and if anyone else wants to keep an eye out... -GTBacchus(talk) 06:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so no one gets mad, I should be precise: the search ("porkland" "other white meat") gets zero relevant hits. "porkland" gets a few hits by itself, but not clear if they relate to Portland, OR or Leykis, and none are from reliable sources. -- Gnetwerker 08:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Porkland

message: Is it true that Portlanders who use electric cars,can park their cars at no cost,and charge it for free too?Prateek01 18:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen an electric car parking spot in Portland, so I'm 99.9% certain this is not true.  The way things are going with Portland General Electric, I'd be shocked if they gave anything away.  First they need to pay their taxes (that were collected from the customers but never paid to the govermnet). Cacophony 21:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen dedicated electric-car parking spaces (without parking meters), but not recently, and since I cannot remember exactly where I saw them, I wouldn't want to put it in the article until verified. -- Gnetwerker 23:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know that there's some kind of "Electric Car Charging Here" type sign on the Old Town/Chinatown Smart Park... haven't investigated it, though, as my car runs on dinosaurs. -207.173.201.195 09:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, around here the electric cars run on salmon :-) -- Gnetwerker 22:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I ended up hearing something about electric car parking spots near the World Trade Center.  I'll take a look next time I am riding through there. Cacophony 01:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wanted to know Something

message: Okay I heard that the biggest distrubetar is Portland Oregon when it comes to Meth.
:Certainly there is widespread meth usage in Portland. There is also a problem with many many other drugs, and those tend to get a lot less publicity.  The Willamette Week ran a really good story titled Meth Madness: How The Oregonian manufactured an epidemic, politicians bought it and you're paying that is worth reading.   Cacophony 04:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meth Problem

message: Would it be allright to remove some of the  tags everywhere?  Their abundance makes the article less readable.  Maybe a template at the top of the page would get the message across without detracting from the article?  Cacophony 05:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, the best way to remove them is one at a time, while adding citations. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, they need to stay. The point of the article is not readability, it's meeting WP:V. So we need to work on this. --Liface 05:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation needed templates