Revision as of 21:32, 8 December 2006

Reorganized main page

What do you think of the way I reorganized the categories on the main page? --Martell 19:04, 5 December 2006 (MST)

Hmmmm, I don't know. I'm not opposed to changes, but I maybe I divide Oregon differently than you do.

I think Portland area hikes (or maybe Portland Metro hikes) are always going to be a different breed. No matter how cool Forest park is, it's always going to be an urban area. It's good for fitness, it's great for an afternoon after work, but it's always going to be an urban escape. The other 'urban escapes' (Tryon Creek, Fanno Creek, even Sauvie Island and Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge) fit the same niche. There's nothing wrong with them, of course, and we should include them in the wiki, but they're always going to be distinct from the less urban hikes. No matter how remote they seem, hikers will still deal with low flying jets and cleverly hidden sewer pipes. Since, people looking for an afternoon escape will search the wiki for urban hikes, I think the urban hikes should always be separate. Of course, this is probably just perspective and I can bend pretty easily, LOL.

While I'm being a rebel, is Mt Jefferson really in Central Oregon? As a lifelong Washington resident, I'm asking this as an honest question. I've always thought of central Oregon as Bend, Redmond and Prineville. Of course, as a railfan, I was surprised when a new regional from Eugene to Coos Bay and Black Butte, CA called itself the Central Oregon & Pacific. How do you guys define "central" Oregon?

Steve

--Stevefromdodge 23:48, 5 December 2006 (PST)

I guess I like the original way better for now. Although I can see how this is going to be very powerful for us in the future - we'll have to discuss that tonight.

As for "Central Oregon" - Yeah, I get Jefferson would be right on the borderline, at least as far Sullivan has it divided - he has Bend, Sisters and Mt Bachelor all in "Central Oregon" and the furthest South he goes in his "NE" book is Jefferson Park Ridge. Although I'm even less of an expert on the topic than Steve is! (Lived in Washington 3 years)

I'm wondering if we should rename "Portland Area Hikes" to "urban hikes" or something like that? WHat do you all think?

Also, are better off having this conversation in the ph.com forums? doesn't matter to me

Jeffstatt 05:50, 8 December 2006 (MST)

Well, Mt. Jefferson is definitely on the border between Northwest Oregon and Central Oregon. By adding the extra level of organization, we are making it more transparent as to how we have laid it out. It could end up in either, but the extra layer shows the user where to find it. I could see Three Sisters being listed right there with Mt. Jefferson under Central Oregon (and possibly some other big places).

As far as the Urban Hikes goes, we have a separate designation for Portland hikes, Category:Portland. On the main page it is labeled as "Near Portland" but of course we could change that to Portland Area Hikes, Urban Portland Hikes, etc.

--Martell 12:39, 6 December 2006 (MST)

Steve - Subcategories

I like the way you've got Portland set up now. I also like the added information after the categories.

I don't know how much change you want to make and how many categories you want but I could see something like...

Portland Area

 Portland Urban
 Clark County
 Salem
 Willamette Valley

Coastal Areas

 Oregon Coast
 Coast Range

Cascades

 Goat Rocks
 Mt Adams
 Indian Heaven
 Mt St Helens
 Columbia River Gorge
 Mt Hood
 Mt Jefferson
 Three Sisters

Central/Eastern Oregon

 Bend/Redmond/Prineville
 Wallowas
 Steens Mtn

Again, I'm OK with whatever works

Steve

I like having the Cascades broken out into it's own. This is starting to look more like the index page we discussed because of the length. Maybe on the main page we don't have to break down Central/Eastern and the Coast, but definitely on the index page. Hmm what should we call that page anyways.... --Martell 14:32, 8 December 2006 (MST)

Other photo idea?

I really really like Tom's Mt Hood photo on the main page, but I go back and forth thinking that something we could pick something perhaps a bit less obvious than a pic of Mount Hood? I put up a photo of Mt Hood sitting at the end of the Eagle Creek valley from the top of Table Mt. It has the two guys in the photo that are also in the photo in the logo (so it kinda ties everything together...however the quality of the photo is nowhere near as good. What do you guys think? Be honest, I grew up with 5 siblings in a blue color Catholic household - I'm pretty thick skinned!

Also, you'll notice I broke up the discussion here- I saw this format tonight on a Wikipedia page. BTW was I the last one to know that 4 tilde's (~) stamped my message?

Jeffstatt 05:50, 8 December 2006 (MST)

I like both pictures, but I think we should stick to having one up at a time. I also like the idea of that main picture changing a lot. I think we should always have the lettering the same, for continuity, but if we changed the picture every week or so, it would keep things really fresh.

Is it possible to have a rotating picture in a wiki? I see it a lot in html, but I don't know if it's possible here.

As to the tildes, no Jeff you're not the last. You just taught me!!

Stevefromdodge 09:26, 8 December 2006 (MST)

Having them rotate would be cool. Every time Dan shows he can walk on water, we ask him to trot across the lake for this and that LOL. I didn't indend both to stay there. I left them both up for comparison's sake. But Steve, you're right having them rotate would be great.

Jeffstatt 10:36, 8 December 2006 (MST)

"Every time Dan shows he can walk on water, we ask him to trot across the lake for this and that."

Yeah, but he's so GOOD at it. LOL -Steve