Talk:Astoria, Oregon/Archive 1

Movies

Shouldn't there be a separate section for movies given the number that are filmed here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.30.71.119 (talk • contribs) 21:42, November 20, 2005 (UTC)

This has been done. Katr67 00:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

History

It seems odd that the "history" of Astoria should start with the arrival of "white people". The Clatsop and Chinook Native Americans where there long before any "other" peoples. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.34.104.165 (talk • contribs) 08:01, May 8, 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, particularly as the fort played such a decisive role in the conquest of Indian lands in the 19th century. 220.101.180.21 11:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sister city

Astoria has a sister city in Germany! Here's the source: [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajbenj (talk • contribs) 3:27, May 12, 2006 (UTC)

More stuff

Can we add intersting tid bits to Astoria. This place is chock full of stuff for such a small time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thisuser (talk • contribs) 3:37, May 30, 2006 (UTC)

Education

This section was marked as needing cleanup. I made some changes and removed the cleanup tag. I'm new to all of this, so please let me know if I shouldn't have done that. ColinLittle 09:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that looks great, thanks! That section was added by someone who said it was for a college assignment but I was too lazy to actually fix it myself so I just slapped a cleanup tag on it. I did wikilink a couple things--the school districts and high schools generally all get linked. Katr67 15:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps add Clatsop Community College? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.30.74.242 (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Problems

The following section has some structural problems:

The fort and fur trade was sold to the British in 1813, and house was restored to the U.S. in 1818, control of the fur trade would remain under the British until American pioneers following the Oregon Trail began filtering into the port town in the mid-1840's.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.104.69.231 (talk • contribs) 16:02, January 28, 2007

Fort Clatsop

Fort Clatsop is no longer a national monument. It is now contained within the Lewis and Clark National Historical Park, created in 2004.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhe00 (talk • contribs) 07:32, February 3, 2007

Irving

Shouldn't mention be made of Washington Irving's Astoria, the book that not only documents the early settlement but also I think gave it its name? Shouldn't there be a link to Irving's page? Isn't this more important than TMT II and Free Willy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.137.225 (talk • contribs) 10:43, March 12, 2007

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Katr67 12:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, I've added it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.180.21 (talk • contribs) 11:28, March 13, 2007

Thanks! I invite you to sign up for an account--it has many benefits. 13:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Chief Dickhead

Shouldn't there be a mention of Astoria's most well know piece of art? 198.6.46.11 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Shanghaied in Astoria

No mention of the best thing about Astoria? That's a shame. Also, I recently created a terrible Shanghaied In Astoria page. If you have any info I ask that you help fix it. 198.6.46.11 (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable Residents

I've removed Holly Madison again as she was only a resident between her birth and 2nd birthday. I've researched the use of the use of "notable residents" and they usually have to have some type of impact on the place they have resided in. I've also removed Jona Bechtolt again, although I question his notability, the reason I've removed him is for the same reason. He is a resident of Portland and not Astoria. Everything he has done has been in Portland and had no impact on the city or people of Astoria. 198.6.33.13 (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The consensus we've come up with in Oregon is that birth or long time residents (make their mark there) can be included. Birth tries to reduce the subjectivity of, "how long is long enough?" The other part is a little easier to discern, since if they make their mark in a location then the article will usually mention that place a few times. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm...you would think that there would be a Wikipedia guideline about this. Would Oregon have the authority (for lack of a better word) to push though something like that? What happens if WP:USA, WP:North America or WP:Earth has a different consensus? Honest question. 198.6.33.13 (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed there are: WP:NN, WP:RS, WP:NPOV all address this to some degree. The definition by WP:ORE for notability matches Wikipedia. —EncMstr 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are literally guidelines -- the thing that distinguishes them from policy is that the are not binding. Both policies and guidelines are pretty loose in what they say about content and sections; for example, WP:NOTE concerns the level of notability necessary for the existence of an article, but doesn't get into how to deal with a "Notable residents" section.

Oregon has a very active community of editors relative to other areas of Wikipedia. Two significant results of that: lots of "drive by" editors add all sorts of random stuff to sections like that, and also, lots of thought has gone into how to deal with it.

The approach outlined by AM is one that many people have endorsed. In the hypothetical case you bring up -- that WP:USA or another project comes up with a conflicting consensus -- the only answer possible is that we would have a discussion with them, and try to come to the best general decision. We also might conclude that there are different considerations for, say, an Oregon city and a continent. So, yes, it's conceivable there could be a conflict, but there's also a well-worn path for dealing with that kind of conflict in a constructive way.

Hope this helps! If you want to discuss the disagreement in more depth, and think that mere birth is generally not a sufficient standard, I encourage you to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon. Or, if you think these particular people should be excluded in this particular article, in spite of the principle cited, just say so. Further consideration is fine, I think you made the beginnings of a good case. -Pete (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, thank you for taking to time to explain it. Based on that I'd agree that Holly Madison should be re-added but I think it would be beneficial to specify that she was only born there. Jona Bechtolt is less than notable but as long as his page is still up I won't remove him again. 198.6.33.13 (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think an explanation of a person's connection (or lack thereof) with a place in the "Notable residents" section is unnecessary and adds wordiness, and if the connection is noted in the person's article, that's good enough for me. That's just my personal standard, but I think it prevents the possibility of say: "*Joe Schmoe (was born in Eugene, moved to Portland, moved back to Eugene in 1997, lived in Reno and settled in Eugene again in 2001...), world-famous actor and all-around great guy" Katr67 (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I shortened the contextual stuff, does that help? I like having it there, but too much is too much. Just enough to give the reader a rough idea who the person is should suffice; if they want more, they can always click. I'd use the Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages guideline as a guide, deals with a similar issue. No extra links beyond the main link, keep it simple, avoid piping links. -Pete (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to use the dab page standard too, that is, a minimum of extra links, figuring those who want to know more can click. And since these bulleted lists are usually not complete sentences, I don't use any ending punctuation. ;) Katr67 (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wettest city in the US.

Perhaps there should be some mention of the hydrological situation: [[2]] 66.191.19.85 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)