Talk:Portland

Largest city

I don't think we want do deviate from our standard layout here.. I agree there may be a better standard way to indicate the relative interest in disambiguation articles, or even to order cities by visitor number or style, but this should be discussed elsewhere first. I have restored the default alphabetical order. --(WT-en) inas 20:21, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

That's fine, I was just putting it somewhat how Wikipedia had done it. Maybe we could adopt a new system as you say. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 21:29, 24 May 2009 (EDT).

disambig per london and wikipedia ? community input.

I was wondering, considering when one says Portland, I'd say 80-85% of the time they're talking about Portland, Oregon if we should make a disambig page like how we do with London, where it pops up to the main city, yet underneath there is a link to disambig if you meant Portland, Maine or Portland, Australia, etc. I think it would be most handy. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 19:07, 27 May 2009 (EDT).

I think Portland (Oregon) meets the "so much more famous" exception, in Project:Article_naming_conventions, and I would support redirecting Portland to Portland (Oregon), and adding the otheruses tag to it. --(WT-en) inas 19:19, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

What I was more meaning was, and maybe you meant this to, was moving not redirecting Portland to Portland (Oregon) ... and then moving the current one to Portland (disambiguation). (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 20:15, 27 May 2009 (EDT).

In this case, I think the best way to proceed is to move Portland to Portland (disambiguation) - I have just done this, and then to redirect Portland to Portland (Oregon), and then add otheruses to Portland (Oregon), which will point back to the disambig page. This has all the effects you are looking for, but has a couple of advantages. Firstly, we don't need to update umpteen pages already referencing Portland (Oregon), and secondly, if we ever get community dissent, and want to change the main portland page to the disamb again, it is as simple as changing one redirect.. --(WT-en) inas 20:30, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

I'll make Portland (Oregon) a redirect to Portland for the time being and if it serves any use in the future it can be edited. I'll move the actually Portland (Oregon) article to Portland. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 21:24, 27 May 2009 (EDT).

Then you will have to update all the links to the redirect. Just leave it to me, and I'll make the update now.. --(WT-en) inas 21:25, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Haha, just did actually :). (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 21:26, 27 May 2009 (EDT).

You haven't just moved it, you've deleted the text, and readded it, and lost all the history. I'll undo your changes.. --(WT-en) inas 21:29, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

But it isn't supposed to be Portland redirect to Portland (Oregon), rather the opposite. Portland should be the name of the article, not Oregon, and the Oregon should be a redirect. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 21:36, 27 May 2009 (EDT).

It is done both ways on the wikivoyage, and it works fine to have the main Portland redirect to Portland (Oregon), and to have the otheruses back to Portland (disambiguation). If you want to move the main Portland (Oregon) article, then you need to change everything that links to it, and to move the article. It is not sufficient just to copy the text, and put in a redirect. If you do that, and someone disagrees with what we are doing, it is a big hassle, to move it all back. This way, we can plunge forward and make the change, and if someone disagrees, and we fail to get consensus, it is a 30 second change, to redirect the main Portland article to Portland (disamb) one, nothing lost. --(WT-en) inas 21:44, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Oregon vs Maine

I don't understand what's going on here.

First, Portland redirects to Portland (Oregon). This is silly; if the one in Oregon is the primary topic, it should be at the base name.

Second, Talk:Portland redirects here, to Talk:Portland (disambiguation). This is inconsistent; the main and talk pages should both redirect to the same article and its talk page.

Third, who says the one in Oregon is primary anyway? It is certainly not "so much more famous" than the one in Maine to be considered almost indisputably the target of a search. It doesn't even come close to Paris or London, or even Saint Petersburg.

I propose moving this disambiguation page to Portland, the base name.

-- (WT-en) LtPowers 11:31, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

I agree, Portland (Oregon) doesn't seem to be much more famous than Portland (Maine) (although I'm probably biased, since I live in New England). –sumone10154^(talk) 01:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, Portland, Oregon, is a major city, and Portland, Maine, a somewhat less major city. But I really can't see the Oregon city meeting our "so much more famous" criterion. I'd be interested to hear more from Inas, though. LtPowers (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent, which per policy, I think means Portland should be the disambiguation ;) --Peter ^Talk 06:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the main Portland article should obviously be about the city in Oregon. I've never heard of any other Portland even though I'm from Eastern Canada, not too far from the one in Maine. Pashley (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)