Talk:Portland (Oregon)

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I starting on the article for Portland, Ore. I've lived my entire life in Portland, so I should be able to have a good time with this :-) - (WT-en) Pingveno 17:10, 3 Jan 2004 (EST)


So, I stripped out most of the template boilerplate, and added a brief intro on Portland. I'll try to add some of my weak and lame knowledge about Portland to the mix. --(WT-en) Evan 22:33, 4 Jan 2004 (EST)

Internet connectivity[edit]

It'd be nice to list at least a couple of good places to get wireless connectivity. Checking a Web site to find out how to access the Web is kinda a chicken-and-egg problem. --(WT-en) Evan 11:09, 5 Feb 2004 (EST)

Moved from article

The Portland Mercury is Portland's local indie newspaper, available every Thursday. Local upcoming events can be found in their calendar. The Willamette Week, another local paper, is bigger than the Mercury but a little less 'street-level'. It serves as a great reference for local restaurants. Call it the Willie Week if you want to sound cool.

- (WT-en) Nils 14:30, 20 May 2004 (EDT)

Nils: I'd think that local newspaper info is very useful. Why take it out? --(WT-en) Evan 14:34, 20 May 2004 (EDT)

Evan: I agree. I'm from portland, and can attest that these two publications in particular are very valuable sources of information for travellers. It may not belong in the 'Understand' section, but at least under 'Learn' or 'Do'? --(WT-en) sohcahtoa

North Not NoPo[edit]

I changed NoPo to North based on the following comments in the article.

  • If you say NoPo in North Portland, you will be shot.
  • I have lived in North Portland for over 11 years and I have NEVER heard anyone say "NoPo"

In deference to provoking a riot, or worse, in North Portland, I thought it prudent to make the change, so the traveler would not be misinformed and consequently endangered. -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:18, 8 Mar 2005 (EST)


Added a big run-down of newspapers with the traveller in mind. Each publication in town has a different set of info to offer a traveller and some are more cross-demographically friendly than others. For example, I would argue someone in the boomer set wouldn't appreciate the Mercury as much as the Tribune. Short-hand nicknames for the papers were excluded because I don't feel they're universal enough but here they are for someone who feels they should be included: The Oregonian (The O', The Big O'), Willamette Week (WW, The Willy, The Willy Week), The Portland Mercury (The Mercury, The Merc), Portland Tribune (The Tribune, The Trib).

In what crazy mixed-up alternate universe is the Willamette Week left-leaning? 00:45, 27 Nov 2005 (EST)

It's left of the Big O. However, it's probably more centrist than the tree-huggers would like. --(WT-en) RandalSchwartz 11:11, 28 Nov 2005 (EST)

Northwest/The Northwest[edit]

A small thing, but I've only heard portland's major divisions (NE, SW, SE, NW, N) referred to sans article. "I live over in northwest," not "I live over in the northwest." So I changed it.

Get Out[edit]

Under the get out section I suggest that we discuss some city's near Portland that might appeal to the yuppies and hipsters who frequent Portland. These citys might include Hood River, Corvallis, and Eugene.

Hmmm, I might have to object to the addition of Corvallis. Unless you're plan is to go to an OSU game there isn't much doing there. 19:17, 10 August 2006 (EDT)

There is an Oregon Wikivoyage page. That might be a good place for something like Corvallis. Perhaps we could put the Oregon link in the get out section.

Making some additions and changes[edit]

I have started making some additions and changes. I am moving some of the things listed in the Do category to the See category, like the Chinese Gardens, and combining redundant information. So don't freak out.

I like some of the suggestions, such as wifi locations and places for yuppies. I will add them when I get the time.

I was looking at the Seattle page and like the way it's done. I was thinking of doing like they did, with a very large See category divided into sections, such as sports, parks, etc. Right now the See and Do categories have different types of activities.—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Bruvensky (talkcontribs)

That's fine, we assume you are doing good stuff --thanks! But do see the page history to see why some of your edits have been re-edited. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:02, 21 January 2008 (EST)

It says to avoid secondary links, but it does not say they are outright banned. The link about the Columbia Gorge is very good, and has a lot of photos. Very good for tourists. Even though the link itself could be considered secondary the photos themselves are not secondary.—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Bruvensky (talkcontribs)

If you check out Project:External links, the full rationale is in there. One of the rules is basically "just because we don't have a good guide to a particular area does not mean we should just link to one instead." Secondary sources are pretty much close to outright banning while just leaving in a little room for some judgement. For example, the site you describe about the Gorge is definitely a no-go. We want photos, descriptions, and guides to be written directly into our pages so our pages will be fully useful on their own or printed out. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:48, 21 January 2008 (EST)

I read the link. It says to avoid secodary links, but there is no outright ban. There is no rule, "just because..." It is as you say, some room left for judgement. I don't think you can object too much to the image index on the site I posted. It lists so many places of interest to visit and thousands of photos. There is no way that we will ever include all those places in this guide. I don't think it would be too bad to have this one secondary link. I would like to ask wikivoyage about it, but haven't been able to find contact information. I noticed that you also removed someone's post of the panoramic cam at Larch Mountain.—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Bruvensky (talkcontribs)

Webcams and photo galleries are listed in the "What not to link to" section and a really clear no-flys. If you disagree with the policy, you can try bringing up a discussion of it at Project:External links. But please understand that one of our goals (see Project:Goals and non-goals) is to be a printed guide, and links to webcams and photo galleries are utterly useless in print. -- (WT-en) Colin 23:53, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Why did you delete what I and someone else wrote about the gorge?

I deleted the sentence about Ward Cunningham. He is in the list of notable residents on the Portland Wikipedia page and is mentioned at the bottom. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Bruvensky (talkcontribs)

I haven't edited the article since the 17th. If you check out the history page, you can see what other people have edited and sometimes there is an edit summary that describes the edit. I'm just here to try to guide you through this process. -- (WT-en) Colin 01:20, 24 January 2008 (EST)
Someone left me a note telling me that links I have put in have been removed because of guidelines, but left many many others. I think some people are a little attached to their work. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Bruvensky (talkcontribs)
the crime section is a bunch of nonsense. listing bus stops to stay away from? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) (talkcontribs)
If you see incorrect information, please plunge forward and fix it yourself! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:16, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Additional Taxi information for Portland - TaxiFareFinder[edit]

I was not sure if this violated the rules on External Links, but I found this site useful the last time I went to Portland. It allows the visitors to estimate taxi fare and it also has the latest fare information. I will leave it up to you guys to link to the site.

P I C TU RE S[edit]

You guys need to get out and take more Portland pictures for those of you in the area or travelling soon, and upload them to Shared. It's a guide article with one pic-ahhh! Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 11:48, 3 November 2008 (EST).

It is the US's largest urban park?? what about chugach state park at 500000 acers??

kevin68.178.77.126 15:36, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Portland night

here is one I thought you guys would like! Lumpytrout (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

District - or just keep working with 1sngl article?[edit]

I've been debating if this article is worthy of districtification. I know it's a hard task that's why I'm questioning it. I don't think it's necessary to do, but it might be nice, but what do you think? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 22:22, 17 May 2009 (EDT).

From what I've seen in all the articles in Wikivoyage that have be districtifified, it is of very limited benefit to articles like Portland. Some districts end up very sparse, and the maintenance level for the articles goes up. Unless the article is unmanageable and overflowing with detail (which portland isn't), I'd avoid districting for now. Some of the best small city articles for cities the size of Portland are in one article IMO ... --(WT-en) inas 20:45, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Redirect Problem[edit]

I noticed a problem with the redirect for the Portland article when I was adding some photos to the article today, and I hope someone is able to fix this (as I'm new to WikiTravel and not sure how to do this myself). This Portland page should be redirecting to this one, but it isn't actually redirecting. As it stands there seem to be two Portland pages as the photos I added to the "Portland_(Oregon)" page aren't showing up on the page that has simply "Portland" at the end of the URL. I haven't gone through both articles to see if there are other major differences, so we may want to check this carefully at some point. Right now when someone searches in "WikiTravel" they are ending up on the "Portland" URL rather than the "Portland_(Oregon)" one. Thanks for looking into this... --(WT-en) Minnow 23:06, 1 August 2009 (EDT)


Surely Portland's employment picture can be more accurately presented than than a forty-year-old governor's quote. Finding work in Portland is easier than in Los Angeles, Detroit or Miami, according to an August 2009 report by the search engine Indeed (reported in Huffington).


This list is pretty deficient in Neighborhoods, forgetting some key ones like Foster-Powell.

Neighborhood Overload[edit]

I think this article has got a real overload of information on Portland's neighborhoods. I just tried to condense the information here, going from a laundry list of neighborhoods (which seemed wholly impractical) to five paragraphs, one for each section of the city, with info on the neighborhoods within that section. But I still feel like there's too much information here, so any thoughts or suggestions on how to handle this would be welcome. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 00:39, 9 March 2010 (EST)

Should this article be split up into sections like LA and NYC are?[edit]

Should it? Purplebackpack89 15:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment at least, I'd say no. Our rule of thumb has been that we don't break up an article until it gets to the point where the amount of content is overwhelming, and I'm not feeling overwhelmed by the amount of content here. A good comparison to this article, length-wise, is Albuquerque, which has a lot of content but is structured well enough that it doesn't overwhelm you with information. Unless this article grows to something like Glasgow, a page which is practically bursting at the seams (and there has been a move there to split it up), I think we're fine. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative banner for this article?[edit]

old banner currently used in this article
suggested new banner (which is currently used in the parallel article in the Hebrew Wikivoyage)

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I prefer the existing banner (though I may be biased, given that I made it). For all of Portland's charms, it doesn't have what I would consider to be a very interesting skyline. The existing banner really drives home the "Rose City" idea. PerryPlanet (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The new proposed one is not terribly unique as skylines go, and could be almost anywhere, while the current one gives a great close up of something unique about the city. Texugo (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the roses, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although the rose picture is nice, it could actually just be a rose bush pretty much anywhere right? Therefore I would support the proposed banner.
Just to ask, why can't we use the 'Portlandia' statue? Or is that covered by some copyright law? Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a rose bush from the Rose Test Gardens, which is a fairly popular attraction and rather unique to Portland. As for Portlandia, you do run into copyright and freedom of panorama issues there, but that's not even the thing that would keep me from making a banner of that statue; what kept me from doing it was is that that statue really doesn't fit in a horizontally-oriented banner image (at least not without chopping off everything but the head or everything but the trident, and neither were sufficiently interesting on their own). PerryPlanet (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The top image is more appealing to me and even moreso after reading PerryPlanet's comment about it being known as the Rose City, which I didn't know. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taking another closer look at the proposed banner I would say that I agree Oakland doesn't have a defining city scape. I change my preference to keeping the rose bush. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(You mean Portland. This landscape doesn't look like Oakland.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant Portland :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This article is well written and currently enjoys guide status, so I do understand the potential risk of creating a lot of half empty outline articles on districts. That being said, some lists of options are getting to numbers higher than fifty, which makes it a bit unwieldy. Is there a good organic way to districtify? Otherwise we maybe should wait a little before we create districts without much sense or logic. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should districtfying be deemed necessary, I think the quadrants system could serve as inspiration. But rather than five districts, I think we could neatly divide up this guide into just three: Southwest (south of Burnside and west of the river; includes the downtown core and Washington Park), Northwest (north of Burnside and west of the river; includes the Pearl District and the Northwest District), and the Eastside (everything east of the river). The Eastside could be divided further, but given the relatively small number of See/Do listings out there that doesn't seem necessary at this stage. That'll neatly break up the biggest concentration of listings (the downtown area) between two guides, cover the whole city, and still avoid any largely empty outline articles. PerryPlanet (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. What about the suburbs, though? Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The suburbs were never covered by this guide in the first place; they have their own pages. PerryPlanet (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Districtification for DotM[edit]

Portland has been nominated for DotM, and there some folks including myself pointed out that the article needs to be subdivided. As this has been discussed many times before on this talk page without result, and PerryPlanet has come up with a division that is seemingly easy and quick to implement, let's not drag this out further. I'm going to begin this project today. ϒψιλον (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nine hours later: basically Yes Done, maps and everything!!!
There are still perhaps some holes to fill in both in the main article and districts, but as this isn't going on the Main Page tomorrow there's plenty of time. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We need mapshapes for the dynamic maps in the districts. And maybe a dynamic map here (Berlin has one) Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done as well as possible, but @Ypsilon: wikidata:Q7085276 is currently part of both the Northwest and Southwest districts. It seems our districting splits the area along the middle. Is there anything we can do about that? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 19:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I've no idea how to fix it. Often the division and borders that are easiest to a traveler to understand (in this case a long wide street) doesn't correspond 100% to official city or region divisions which WD and WP use. ϒψιλον (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portland reaffirms its position as preeminent city for cyclists in the US[edit]

As people who wish to tour the United states without a car might be interested to hear, Portland prides itself on a good cycling and public transit infrastructure. According to these two articles, justifiedly so. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Laundromats seem to be very hard to come by in Portland. I found a good one, Sunshine on Glisan, 532 NE Brazee St, Portland, OR 97212, (503) 360-9424, which was open till 11 PM on Monday at least and is on the 19 bus line. It's so hard to find laundromats that I think we should have a subsection of "Cope" listing them. Anyone who can participate in this endeavor would be doing a very good service for travellers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. How expensive was it? I recently had the pleasure of the "cheap" laundromat that was easily reachable being 6€ a pop... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
$3.25 for a "small" washer that was actually quite sizable and fit all our clothes, and 25 cents per 7 minutes in the driers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not bad at all. In Dresden they are common enough and hover somewhere between 2€ and 3€ (though the driers are a bit more pricy than a Quarter) Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still the neighborhood overload in the "Eastside"[edit]

What do you think of splitting the "Eastside" further to "North", "Northeast" and "Southeast"? Value would be to make it easier to to find listings especially as the city and interest in this article grows and more listings and information get added in as interest grows. Logically that's how the city is divided. The "North" are areas between the Willamette River and N Williams, while any addresses east of N Williams are in the "Northeast" part of town. E Burnside, east of the Willamette River, divides "Northeast" from "Southeast" so that's where I would propose to split the "Eastside" part of this article. Makes finding listings easier and quicker as this overall article expands. If you want to continue using "Eastside" I would say put it between the I-205 corridor and the city limits of Gresham & Troutdale in the eastside. Much of that are in unincorporated areas, still have "Portland" addresses and are different neighborhoods than the ones within city limits, closer into downtown. The "eastside" neighborhoods, east of I-205 are like suburbs and are more car dependent than the inner city neighborhoods. I am just tossing that idea out there for all to consider in further dividing the "Eastside" part of this article. Even the "downtown" can be carved out to its own sub-article which would be areas between I-405 and the Willamette River in the southwest (south of W Burnside) and between NW Broadway and the Willamette River in the northwest part (north of W Burnside, which consists of Chinatown & Union Station) while the areas west of Broadway could still be in the "northwest" sub-article.

Yes Portland is a quick growing and desirable city and I would think interest in this article would grow with it too. —The preceding comment was added by Anyone150 (talkcontribs)

Sure, if each of the subarticles will still have enough listings for usable status (something in Get in, See, Eat, Sleep) because if they don't, the main Portland article would be demoted to usable and could not be featured on the Main Page.
If you know the city well, feel free to go ahead to divide the city further and improve the article(s) including the descriptions of the districts in Portland_(Oregon)#Districts. Also, User:JakeOregon maybe has some comments on this if he, per his user name, is from nearby and also knows Portland. Ypsilon (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needed improvments for DotM[edit]

Things that have come up in Wikivoyage:Destination_of_the_month_candidates#Portland_(Oregon). This is mostly a note to myself but if someone else would like to to help out with the article, here they are:

  • General information; Understand section in the district articles Yes Done (copying appropriate parts from See in the main Portland article) :)
  • Description of the districts in the main article Yes Done
  • See section links to attractions Yes Done actually this issue mentioned by CW was automatically resolved when dividing up See in our current district articles
  • Do major city events Yes Done
  • Eat; only one link for each chain with many restaurants Yes Done Actually, if the restaurant had two places, I let the other one stay also. But chains with 3+ restaurants I compacted into single listings.
  • Connect sections in districts? Yes Done
  • Not the same neighborhoods in See and our districts Yes Done; at a closer look they weren't garbled up at all, I actually didn't have to move anything between bullet points, just add a few subheadings at appropriate places
  • Get in for districts improved Yes Done
  • Get around for the Eastside Yes Done

--Ypsilon (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mate. What a smashing job you're doing! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"fake" company[edit]

this weird IP edit (analogous at the metro area article) claims a company to be fake which seems to be a thing if judging by the website. What's going on there? Hobbitschuster (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:JakeOregon maybe knows more about what buses can actually be seen on roads and streets in Oregon? --Ypsilon (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard of them. The city's official tourism site doesn't mention it. So I'm not sure. JakeOregon (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobbitschuster, Ypsilon, JakeOregon: Just to let you know, I brought this up at the pub: Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#What's the deal with RNO PDX Bus Lines?. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning box?[edit]

I'm seeing a lot of news reports about violence in Portland, mainly by Trump's storm troopers. Should this page include a warning? Pashley (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now in mid-September, Portland has some of the worst pollution in the country, due to the fires. But I don't think any of us knows how long that will be the case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current warning box seems a bit alarmist. Not to discount the importance of the protests, but from what I've seen and heard from friends and family in Portland, the most intense, violent action is generally confined to a few city blocks downtown and largely takes place in the evening and night. It's certainly very tense politically but outside of the major flashpoints the city is generally safe. I think the box should warn visitors to stay away from those areas specifically and not to engage in political arguments, instead of a blanket "THE WHOLE CITY IS ABOUT TO BLOW"-type pronouncement. --Junoda (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the warning box to what I thought was a simpler description, appropriate to a travel guide:

Travel Warning WARNING: Since early 2020 Portland has had a complex mix of leftist protests, originally focusing on police mistreatment of blacks, and right-wing counter protests. Both sides, and the police, are sometimes violent.
Avoid the center of the city, especially at night. Check local media for current information.

User:Nsxdsm reverted. I think his or her more elaborate warning is unnecessary & far too wordy. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a friend who's been at the demonstrations regularly for months and says that except for the Federal courthouse and about 2 blocks from it, Portland is as entirely normal as an American city can be during the COVID pandemic. I think that if "Portland has become an extremely dangerous location", we would be hearing about that from mainstream (non-Fox, etc.) news sources, so I question that and suspect it's unnecessarily alarmist for now. Also, "If you are a local planning to protest", you shouldn't be getting your information from a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that Junoda posted more or less the same thing in the first Talk:Portland (Oregon)#Warning box? thread above. We should probably merge the two threads, since they have exactly the same title. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Now merged. 03:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
the new version is too simple and does not take into account everything going on, also it reflects roughly the last week of events Nsxdsm (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to mainstream news stories about how the whole city of Portland and maybe some suburbs are "extremely dangerous"? I'm not there, but when things were blowing up while Department of Homeland Security and border control folks were patrolling in unmarked rented vans and grabbing people off the streets, there was a lot of media coverage. The media pretty much always like to cover crash-and-burn stories. So maybe you could help us out on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This warning box is total nonsense inspired by sensational media reports and should be removed. And "avoid" protests? Really? —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Thanks for removing the box. Whether it was total nonsense or not, it's certainly outdated. Also, welcome to Wikivoyage! Please sign posts on talk pages by typing 4 tildes (~) at the end of each post. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


A user keeps adding loaded political phrases to describe the nature of the ongoing social unrest in Portland. I understand that they may be feeling very strongly about this. They may be feeling like they are absolutely correct and justified. However, this is not a political forum for pushing a particular ideology or viewpoint. Please review the Political Disputes section of WV:BF, for the policy is quite clear on the matter. Which side(s) should be considered 'extremists', who is fighting for what, or what the protests are really about is of no relevance to the traveler. --386-DX (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fascists don't deserve "equal weight". Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, "Be fair" doesn't mean "be vague". It also doesn't mean false equivalency. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oversimplification of districts[edit]

All of the East Side as one district? Why not break it up into North, Northeast, Southeast, East? —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Wikivoyage tries to divide cities into districts when that's helpful to travelers and in the way that's most useful to them. So my questions for you would be (1) How many listings (See, Do, Eat, Drink, Buy, Sleep) would you expect to be in each of the districts you're proposing? (2) Do you have specific boundaries in mind (because if the city's Wikivoyage districting is changed, the maps would need to be updated, too)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As Ikan says, being useful to travellers is the main criterion. As someone who has never visited Portland, I think it is likely OK from that point of view; I think I could navigate using this article, but I might be wrong. Probably the part about neighbourhoods could be improved. I cannot tell if splitting it up would also be an improvement.
Another criterion is how much text we have. Is there enough to be a problem in the main article? To make reasonably complete smaller articles? Scanning the East Side article, I do not see a problem now, but is large enough that it cannot grow much more without creating a problem. Pashley (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eastside has 22 See and Do listings, 45 Eat and Drink listings, and 17 hotels, so splitting it in half might make sense. Splitting it four ways would leave us with small articles that would force the reader to jump back and forth between articles to find things. Although it would probably be easy for someone familiar with the city to find new listings to expand the resulting articles. Ground Zero (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree splitting the Eastside into 4 districts would risk spreading the entries across too many pages, though more entries can definitely be added. Of course, there's been restaurant closings in 2020/21, but taking an initial look at the Eastside page, I was a bit surprised I found little to delete. As to how to split the Eastside- Portland is traditionally divided into "quadrants", (historically 5, but now a 6th on the west side). On the Eastside, these are Northeast and Southeast Portland (divided at Burnside St.), and North Portland (west of Williams Ave. as the "Get Around" section of this article says, which I didn't confirm, but sounds about right). As an aside, there's also the term "East Portland" usually meaning anything east of 82nd Ave. (or nearby I-205), but that area is still addressed as NE or SE (and we don't have that many listings in that area). JakeOregon (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that we should change up the districting, but probably keep the number of them low still. To start with, there should be multiple eastside districts, and a single westside district. I would suggest "westside", "North and Northeast Portland", "Southeast Portland", and "East Portland". East Portland would probably end up pretty stubby, but it's a pretty large area. The Northwest and southwest districts in the current organization aren't terrible, and it might be ok to keep them so that we don't have to bother with more reorganizing on that front, but the east side needs to have two districts and a stub. Evoyo (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't want stub district articles. How many listings in total do you expect in each of the smaller districts you propose to create? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we should and can divide a little more on the "Eastside." On the Eastside, Burnside divides Northeast from Southeast while N Williams Ave divides Northeast from North. So the district lines on the Eastside of the river should follow that logic too. Locals (and the local media) do make those distinction of "North Portland", "Northeast Portland" etc. in their speech and so do the addressing of houses. Anything beyond that (Hollywood, Hawthorne, Buckman, Sellwood, St Johns, Vermont/Multnomah Village, Hillsdale, etc) becomes more tedious to edit and keep track off. Anyone150 (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map added[edit]

Hello fellow WikiVoyage editors,

I have just added a (self-created) map of PDX to this page. If there are any issues or you have suggestions to the image, please let me know on the appropriate Commons page, and please ping me there if you can. However, if there is a discussion on the importance if this image in the article, please reply here and ping me. Thanks! TheTechie (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]