Template talk:Oregon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oregon template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 3 months

	Oregon portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

portal link?

Shouldn't there be a link somewhere in the template to Portal:Oregon? I considered adding it, but couldn't decide if it should be at the top—where it says "State of Oregon" which has both State and Oregon wikilinked—or in, say, the topics row as Portal or Overview or something like that. —EncMstr 23:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the full collection: User:JonMoore/states. Do any of those link to their portal? How do they handle it? Katr67 (talk) 23:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Color change

Please discuss changing the color of the template here. Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of template

Does anybody watch this page? Let's find out. I'm curious what people think about which articles on which to place this navbox. Personally I prefer to have it mainly on the pages that have links in the template, that is, counties and cities and a few selected topics. Why? Well, it makes little sense to me to have a box that is mainly geographic with a few very general topics on articles that are not geographic (counties and cities) or general. I'm a bit afraid of "box-creep". Other folks seem to think it's fine to add the box to a broader range of articles. Lately the tl was added to a bunch of Oregon-related list articles. I used to remove the box from articles on which I didn't think it belonged (like a minor community) but I won't be doing that anymore. I do, however, tend to like consistency, so perhaps we need a general guideline? I think it's also not a good idea to put the template on those state symbols of Oregon that are also topics of larger general appeal (Western Meadowlark, Coast Douglas-fir, etc.), as that seems a little, um, territorial or something, especially when the other states don't also have their navboxes there. God forbid the meadowlark end up with six state navboxes.* What do other folks think? Are these boxes helpful to our readers, or merely decorative and Oregon-boosting? Katr67 (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*As an aside, I know about other stuff, but I see that Category:Symbols of Oregon was deleted while Montana, Kansas, North Dakota, Wyoming and Nebraska were not...in fact, ours was the only category that was deleted--perhaps we were too thorough in our categorization? I think it's time for an appeal or a mass Afd for the other 49 states (which would seem a bit pointy, I'm sure.) Katr67 (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the template shouldn't be used on all Oregon-related articles, only on pages that have a link IN the infobox. What other articles would it belong on? (I know it's on others, I'm implying it doesn't belong) I suppose this answers your question about watching it, eh? tedder (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metro vs. City

I am curious why most cities that are part of a metro are not listed in this template. However, this is not true for all cities such as Hillsboro, Oregon, Beaverton, Oregon and Gresham, Oregon which are a part of Portland metropolitan area. Should the cities (e.g., Portland, Oregon) be added or Hillsboro, Beaverton and Gresham, etc. be removed? Similar arguments stand for Prineville, Oregon as a part of Bend-Redmond-Prineville, OR Combined Statistical Area and Woodburn, Oregon as a part of Salem Metropolitan Statistical Area, etc. Thanks. 50.126.125.240 (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the metros, those largely link to the MSA, where such an article exists. Then as to the cities, those were primarily meant for the larger cities and county seats, but without repeating any cities listed in the metros. The top about 12 most populous cities are represented in the template, but after that there is no real criteria. Feel free to propose one, as we need something to keep it from being a list of all cities. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not list the metros and the cities that compose such then the other cities that make the cut. It is easy enough to have hierarchical lists (even horizontal ones). 50.126.125.240 (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would make for a very long list for all the metros. Metros are defined by county lines, so every city in Marion and Polk counties is part of the Salem MSA. Do you think tiny Turner should be on a state-wide template? These templates are not meant to be all-encompassing, just links to the highlights. I don't think little towns like Banks, Amity, Turner, and the hundreds of others in the various metro areas should be listed. And FYI, almost every city is in a metro or micro area, and even if we limit it to those outside of metros, the list of cities would become small, and other than a few cities like Roseburg, fairly non-notable cities. I'm not opposed to something different, but I don't think this proposal would work well. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they are defined by county lines why try to organize the cities by them (towns and cities can and do cross such boundaries)? Why not list cities that make the cute (regardless of whether they are in a metro or not) and then list the metros and counties? I am just trying to come up with proposals. I am not sure every idea I might have is worthwhile implementing but I appreciate you listening and giving me your opinion. Thanks. 50.126.125.240 (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]