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)

Boilerplate[edit]

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)

Newspapers[edit]

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? 131.252.241.248 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. 67.165.197.109 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) 69.204.172.23 (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. http://www.taxifarefinder.com/main.php?city=Portland

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)

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)

Work[edit]

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).

Neighborhoods[edit]

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
I prefer the roses, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(You mean Portland. This landscape doesn't look like Oakland.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I meant Portland :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Districtification[edit]

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)

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)
Sounds like a good idea. What about the suburbs, though? Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
Okay. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

Laundromats[edit]

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)

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)
$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)
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)