Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Oregon/archive1

Portal:Oregon

Looking for some pre-

• Something, perhaps "Associated Wikimedia" is pushing the horizontal scroll bar - it's too wide. RichardF (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Selected quotes" could have a link to Wikiquotes, even if it's just [[q:Special:Search/Oregon|More...]] RichardF (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Related portals" is out of date. RichardF (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The clickable Wikinews icon could be added. RichardF (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, just picky stuff here and there. RichardF (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Intro images should be viewable just like any other "archive," e.g., like the Portal:Indiana/Intro arrangement. RichardF (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done, looks better, thanks. Cirt (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just noticed that the A list of images... line shows up on the sub-page but not the main portal page - is that by design? — Zaui (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is by design, yes. Cirt (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Other state portal sections to consider:
  • Attractions: Portal:Florida, Portal:New Mexico, Portal:South Carolina, Portal:Virginia (with galleries). RichardF (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • State template: Portal:Florida, Portal:Georgia (U.S. state), Portal:Kentucky, Portal:Nebraska, Portal:North Carolina, Portal:Oklahoma, Portal:South Carolina, Portal:Wisconsin. RichardF (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha ha, Portal:Virginia's most recent "News" is from November 2006! Those guys sure are active over there at updating that portal... Cirt (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who said anything about "news"? That sounds to me like you're volunteering to send them a little wikinewslove! ;-) RichardF (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Attractions are listed in the topics area; most of the stuff listed on the state template is already accessible in the portal - either in topics or the category tree. — Zaui (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, the portal as is, really is quite comprehensive. It will hopefully foster more contributions to the Oregon-related articles, and drive a bit of interest to multiple different arenas within the topic. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The question really is if you want to "highlight" attractions, just like "Selected cities" or "State symbols." Otherwise, portals could just as well be redirects to categories. :-) RichardF (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I already brought up the idea of a "Selected cities" section at Portal talk:Oregon. Didn't seem to be too many people interested in it, at least not with the present quality-state of certain cities articles in Oregon. They wanted to wait a bit on that one. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's quite a few 'attractions' in the selected article list - Oregon Coast Range, Columbia River, Mount Hood, Crater Lake National Park , Rose Garden, Northern Oregon Coast Range - and looking at the List of articles left to add to Selected article we could easily populate a 'selected attraction' section. I don't think there's enough cites with B-class or better articles yet. — Zaui (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (outdent) Hrm, sounds interesting, I'll take a look at similar sections in other portals. Cirt (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• How about {{coor title d|44|N|120.5|W|region:US-OR_type:state}}? RichardF (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done, love that coord idea, very nice. Cirt (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the 'selected attraction' section, it sounds OK. My concerns are that 1) it sounds a little touristy, and 2) a little ambiguous. With the selected article and biography, you know what goes there. When I hear attraction I think Disneyland or the Space Needle. Though maybe a geographical feature as many of the "attractions" Zaui listed would qualify. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know, I'm thinking about this further and tend to agree a bit with Aboutmovies (talk · contribs). I mean, the portal currently has (7) randomly purging sections with images. I'm not saying that one could ever have too many, just that we have enough. And we also have several sections in the Portal:Oregon that the above-mentioned portals all do not - such as quotes, panorama, etc. Cirt (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • New thought. Wait for more quality articles, then when enough cities are ready for that component and a second one whether that be "attractions" or something else (one per column for balance)? Aboutmovies (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I concur. Cirt (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • What I wound up doing to focus attractions a little more was add a few infoboxes at Portal:Indiana/Indiana topics. That way, the focus is clear, no new section is needed, and the interpretation of what attracts one to an "attraction" is left up to the reader. :-) RichardF (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

• Can you attempt to fix the "Associated Wikimedia" thing? I'm not seeing this problem on my screen. Cirt (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take a look. RichardF (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. RichardF (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Selected quotes" - Added the "More..." link. Cirt (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• How is the "Related portals" out of dates? I don't think I understand what you mean by that. Cirt (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an incomplete list of state portals. What's your basis for inclusion and exclusion? RichardF (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, those were the portals there when I began to work on this portal. What's your basis for inclusion at Portal:Indiana/Related portals, maybe we can use that rationale? Cirt (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just include Portals that follow
      Portal guidelines. For example, Portal:Vermont and Portal:North Carolina should probably be excluded. — Zaui (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • What guidelines do they violate? Then should they also be removed from
        Portal:Contents/Portals? RichardF (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Neither portal has a topic section (unless you count Template:North Carolina) - one of the four content sections listed as "required". — Zaui (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, but it's not against guidelines to simply list them in the Related Portals section. In fact, if some editor navigates through to another portal that needs lots of work, and works on it and improves it - because they came through a link from a different "Related Portals" section, then that is part of the spirit of Wikipedia and of portals in particular - fostering improvement of content along similar topics. Cirt (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Added the clickable Wikinews icon, as suggested above. Cirt (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

RichardF (talk · contribs) kindly updated and expanded Portal:Oregon/Related portals. Thank you so much! Cirt (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]