text:
Talk:Port Elizabeth

Eat and Drink Sections
These sections are seriously outdated. Many of the places have closed down. Will update it at some point when I get time. I'm curious whether one should group them into areas. For instance: beach front, Stanley street, 6th avenue (all these areas have clusters of restaurants).

Coffee
Mastertons is a small coffee shop that has been selling coffee in the same shop since 1924. http://www.mastertonscoffee.co.za/ Some of the best coffee you can buy in port elizabeth. Worth a mention.

Ext. Link
A wikivoyageer left a link *Nelson Mandela Bay Business Index which someone could use as a reference to mine information for the main page.

title: Talk:Port Elizabeth


text: Talk:Port Hope Simpson

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Port Hope Simpson


text:
Talk:Port Klang

"There is nothing much to bring a traveller to Port Klang except for the ferry links to Dumai and Tanjung Balai Asahan, both in Sumatra, Indonesia". I pretty much agree on this statement. I am a resident of port klang,perhaps i might have the right to comment.

I hope the authority will have some vision to turn this town like every port city of europe,where there is pedestrian mall along the marina and the coastline,where people can have activity like jogging,fishing,evening walk,browsing around...etc.

Currently this town is all about work. There is no attraction to even the domestic tourism. PORT KLANG afterall is not as big as its name. 118.100.214.202 11:55, 30 July 2008 (EDT)pendamar08 2°58'49.16"N 101°25'57.08"E

title: Talk:Port Klang


text:
Talk:Portland

Largest city
I don't think we want do deviate from our standard layout here.. I agree there may be a better standard way to indicate the relative interest in disambiguation articles, or even to order cities by visitor number or style, but this should be discussed elsewhere first. I have restored the default alphabetical order. --(WT-en) inas 20:21, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

 * That's fine, I was just putting it somewhat how Wikipedia had done it. Maybe we could adopt a new system as you say.  (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 21:29, 24 May 2009 (EDT).

disambig per london and wikipedia ? community input.
I was wondering, considering when one says Portland, I'd say 80-85% of the time they're talking about Portland, Oregon if we should make a disambig page like how we do with London, where it pops up to the main city, yet underneath there is a link to disambig if you meant Portland, Maine or Portland, Australia, etc. I think it would be most handy. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 19:07, 27 May 2009 (EDT).

 * I think Portland (Oregon) meets the "so much more famous" exception, in Project:Article_naming_conventions, and I would support redirecting Portland to Portland (Oregon), and adding the otheruses tag to it.  --(WT-en) inas 19:19, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
 * What I was more meaning was, and maybe you meant this to, was moving not redirecting Portland to Portland (Oregon) ... and then moving the current one to Portland (disambiguation). (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 20:15, 27 May 2009 (EDT).

 * In this case, I think the best way to proceed is to move Portland to Portland (disambiguation) - I have just done this, and then to redirect Portland to Portland (Oregon), and then add otheruses to Portland (Oregon), which will point back to the disambig page. This has all the effects you are looking for, but has a couple of advantages.  Firstly, we don't need to update umpteen pages already referencing Portland (Oregon), and secondly, if we ever get community dissent, and want to change the main portland page to the disamb again, it is as simple as changing one redirect.. --(WT-en) inas 20:30, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
 * I'll make Portland (Oregon) a redirect to Portland for the time being and if it serves any use in the future it can be edited. I'll move the actually Portland (Oregon) article to Portland.  (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 21:24, 27 May 2009 (EDT).

 * Then you will have to update all the links to the redirect. Just leave it to me, and I'll make the update now..  --(WT-en) inas 21:25, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Haha, just did actually :). (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 21:26, 27 May 2009 (EDT).
 * You haven't just moved it, you've deleted the text, and readded it, and lost all the history. I'll undo your changes..  --(WT-en) inas 21:29, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
 * But it isn't supposed to be Portland redirect to Portland (Oregon), rather the opposite. Portland should be the name of the article, not Oregon, and the Oregon should be a redirect.  (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 21:36, 27 May 2009 (EDT).

 * It is done both ways on the wikivoyage, and it works fine to have the main Portland redirect to Portland (Oregon), and to have the otheruses back to Portland (disambiguation). If you want to move the main Portland (Oregon) article, then you need to change everything that links to it, and to move the article.  It is not sufficient just to copy the text, and put in a redirect.  If you do that, and someone disagrees with what we are doing, it is a big hassle, to move it all back.  This way, we can plunge forward and make the change, and if someone disagrees, and we fail to get consensus, it is a 30 second change, to redirect the main Portland article to Portland (disamb) one, nothing lost.  --(WT-en) inas 21:44, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Oregon vs Maine
I don't understand what's going on here.

First, Portland redirects to Portland (Oregon). This is silly; if the one in Oregon is the primary topic, it should be at the base name.

Second, Talk:Portland redirects here, to Talk:Portland (disambiguation). This is inconsistent; the main and talk pages should both redirect to the same article and its talk page.

Third, who says the one in Oregon is primary anyway? It is certainly not "so much more famous" than the one in Maine to be considered almost indisputably the target of a search. It doesn't even come close to Paris or London, or even Saint Petersburg.

I propose moving this disambiguation page to Portland, the base name.

-- (WT-en) LtPowers 11:31, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

 * I agree, Portland (Oregon) doesn't seem to be much more famous than Portland (Maine) (although I'm probably biased, since I live in New England). – sumone10154 ( talk ) 01:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Don't get me wrong, Portland, Oregon, is a major city, and Portland, Maine, a somewhat less major city. But I really can't see the Oregon city meeting our "so much more famous" criterion.  I'd be interested to hear more from Inas, though.  LtPowers (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm ambivalent, which per policy, I think means Portland should be the disambiguation ;) --Peter Talk 06:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

 * I'd say the main Portland article should obviously be about the city in Oregon. I've never heard of any other Portland even though I'm from Eastern Canada, not too far from the one in Maine. Pashley (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Portland


text:
Talk:Portland (Maine)

By Ferry

see section is all messed up. --72.73.99.79 18:30, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Skyline of Portland
While this is an excellent view of downtown Portland, focusing on the financial district, it is not a typical "skyline" of the city, and some well-known buildings are not included. A more typical skyline is shown in this example, which may be copyrighted. David spector (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You can call it partial skyline of Portland. --Saqib (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Portland (Maine)


text:
Talk:Portland (Oregon)

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 (talk • contribs)

 * 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 (talk • contribs)

 * 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 (talk • contribs)

 * 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 (talk • contribs)

 * 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 (talk • contribs)

 * 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 (talk • contribs)

 * 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
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
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)

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?
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
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
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
This list is pretty deficient in Neighborhoods, forgetting some key ones like Foster-Powell.

Neighborhood Overload
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?
Should it? Pur ple back pack 89    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?
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
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)

Districtification for DotM
Portland has been nominated for DotM, and there some folks including myself pointed out that the article needs to be subdivided. As this has been discussed many times before on this talk page without result, and PerryPlanet has come up with a division that is seemingly easy and quick to implement, let's not drag this out further. I'm going to begin this project today. ϒψιλον (talk ) 10:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nine hours later: basically ✅, maps and everything!!!
 * There are still perhaps some holes to fill in both in the main article and districts, but as this isn't going on the Main Page tomorrow there's plenty of time. -- ϒψιλον (talk ) 19:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We need mapshapes for the dynamic maps in the districts. And maybe a dynamic map here (Berlin has one) Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ as well as possible, but Q7085276 is currently part of both the Northwest and Southwest districts. It seems our districting splits the area along the middle. Is there anything we can do about that? ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 19:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately I've no idea how to fix it. Often the division and borders that are easiest to a traveler to understand (in this case a long wide street) doesn't correspond 100% to official city or region divisions which WD and WP use.  ϒψιλον  (talk ) 17:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Portland reaffirms its position as preeminent city for cyclists in the US
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
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)

Still the neighborhood overload in the "Eastside"
What do you think of splitting the "Eastside" further to "North", "Northeast" and "Southeast"? Value would be to make it easier to to find listings especially as the city and interest in this article grows and more listings and information get added in as interest grows. Logically that's how the city is divided. The "North" are areas between the Willamette River and N Williams, while any addresses east of N Williams are in the "Northeast" part of town. E Burnside, east of the Willamette River, divides "Northeast" from "Southeast" so that's where I would propose to split the "Eastside" part of this article. Makes finding listings easier and quicker as this overall article expands. If you want to continue using "Eastside" I would say put it between the I-205 corridor and the city limits of Gresham & Troutdale in the eastside. Much of that are in unincorporated areas, still have "Portland" addresses and are different neighborhoods than the ones within city limits, closer into downtown. The "eastside" neighborhoods, east of I-205 are like suburbs and are more car dependent than the inner city neighborhoods. I am just tossing that idea out there for all to consider in further dividing the "Eastside" part of this article. Even the "downtown" can be carved out to its own sub-article which would be areas between I-405 and the Willamette River in the southwest (south of W Burnside) and between NW Broadway and the Willamette River in the northwest part (north of W Burnside, which consists of Chinatown & Union Station) while the areas west of Broadway could still be in the "northwest" sub-article.

Yes Portland is a quick growing and desirable city and I would think interest in this article would grow with it too. —The preceding comment was added by Anyone150 (talk • contribs)

 * Sure, if each of the subarticles will still have enough listings for usable status (something in Get in, See, Eat, Sleep) because if they don't, the main Portland article would be demoted to usable and could not be featured on the Main Page.
 * If you know the city well, feel free to go ahead to divide the city further and improve the article(s) including the descriptions of the districts in Portland_(Oregon). Also, User:JakeOregon maybe has some comments on this if he, per his user name, is from nearby and also knows Portland. Ypsilon (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Needed improvments for DotM
Things that have come up in Destination_of_the_month_candidates. This is mostly a note to myself but if someone else would like to to help out with the article, here they are:

 * General information; Understand section in the district articles ✅ (copying appropriate parts  from See in the main Portland article) :)
 * Description of the districts in the main article ✅
 * See section links to attractions ✅ actually this issue mentioned by CW was automatically resolved when dividing up See in our current district articles
 * Do major city events ✅
 * Eat; only one link for each chain with many restaurants ✅ Actually, if the restaurant had two places, I let the other one stay also. But chains with 3+ restaurants I compacted into single listings.
 * Connect sections in districts? ✅
 * Not the same neighborhoods in See and our districts ✅; at a closer look they weren't garbled up at all, I actually didn't have to move anything between bullet points, just add a few subheadings at appropriate places
 * Get in for districts improved ✅
 * Get around for the Eastside ✅

--Ypsilon (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks, mate. What a smashing job you're doing! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

"fake" company
this weird IP edit (analogous at the metro area article) claims a company to be fake which seems to be a thing if judging by the website. What's going on there? Hobbitschuster (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:JakeOregon maybe knows more about what buses can actually be seen on roads and streets in Oregon? --Ypsilon (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard of them. The city's official tourism site doesn't mention it. So I'm not sure. JakeOregon (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I brought this up at the pub: Travellers' pub. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Warning box?
I'm seeing a lot of news reports about violence in Portland, mainly by Trump's storm troopers. Should this page include a warning? Pashley (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

 * And now in mid-September, Portland has some of the worst pollution in the country, due to the fires. But I don't think any of us knows how long that will be the case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

 * The current warning box seems a bit alarmist. Not to discount the importance of the protests, but from what I've seen and heard from friends and family in Portland, the most intense, violent action is generally confined to a few city blocks downtown and largely takes place in the evening and night. It's certainly very tense politically but outside of the major flashpoints the city is generally safe. I think the box should warn visitors to stay away from those areas specifically and not to engage in political arguments, instead of a blanket "THE WHOLE CITY IS ABOUT TO BLOW"-type pronouncement. --Junoda (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I edited the warning box to what I thought was a simpler description, appropriate to a travel guide:

User:Nsxdsm reverted. I think his or her more elaborate warning is unnecessary & far too wordy. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 * I have a friend who's been at the demonstrations regularly for months and says that except for the Federal courthouse and about 2 blocks from it, Portland is as entirely normal as an American city can be during the COVID pandemic. I think that if "Portland has become an extremely dangerous location", we would be hearing about that from mainstream (non-Fox, etc.) news sources, so I question that and suspect it's unnecessarily alarmist for now. Also, "If you are a local planning to protest", you shouldn't be getting your information from a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 * I just noticed that Junoda posted more or less the same thing in the first Talk:Portland (Oregon) thread above. We should probably merge the two threads, since they have exactly the same title. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Now merged. 03:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * the new version is too simple and does not take into account everything going on, also it reflects roughly the last week of events Nsxdsm (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you point to mainstream news stories about how the whole city of Portland and maybe some suburbs are "extremely dangerous"? I'm not there, but when things were blowing up while Department of Homeland Security and border control folks were patrolling in unmarked rented vans and grabbing people off the streets, there was a lot of media coverage. The media pretty much always like to cover crash-and-burn stories. So maybe you could help us out on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This warning box is total nonsense inspired by sensational media reports and should be removed. And "avoid" protests? Really? —The preceding comment was added by 179.50.140.159 (talk • contribs)

 * Thanks for removing the box. Whether it was total nonsense or not, it's certainly outdated. Also, welcome to Wikivoyage! Please sign posts on talk pages by typing 4 tildes (~) at the end of each post. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV
A user keeps adding loaded political phrases to describe the nature of the ongoing social unrest in Portland. I understand that they may be feeling very strongly about this. They may be feeling like they are absolutely correct and justified. However, this is not a political forum for pushing a particular ideology or viewpoint. Please review the Political Disputes section of WV:BF, for the policy is quite clear on the matter. Which side(s) should be considered 'extremists', who is fighting for what, or what the protests are really about is of no relevance to the traveler. --386-DX (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Fascists don't deserve "equal weight". Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

 * As I said, "Be fair" doesn't mean "be vague". It also doesn't mean false equivalency. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Oversimplification of districts
All of the East Side as one district? Why not break it up into North, Northeast, Southeast, East? —The preceding comment was added by 179.50.140.159 (talk • contribs)

 * Wikivoyage tries to divide cities into districts when that's helpful to travelers and in the way that's most useful to them. So my questions for you would be (1) How many listings (See, Do, Eat, Drink, Buy, Sleep) would you expect to be in each of the districts you're proposing? (2) Do you have specific boundaries in mind (because if the city's Wikivoyage districting is changed, the maps would need to be updated, too)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

 * As Ikan says, being useful to travellers is the main criterion. As someone who has never visited Portland, I think it is likely OK from that point of view; I think I could navigate using this article, but I might be wrong. Probably the part about neighbourhoods could be improved. I cannot tell if splitting it up would also be an improvement.
 * Another criterion is how much text we have. Is there enough to be a problem in the main article? To make reasonably complete smaller articles? Scanning the East Side article, I do not see a problem now, but is large enough that it cannot grow much more without creating a problem. Pashley (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Eastside has 22 See and Do listings, 45 Eat and Drink listings, and 17 hotels, so splitting it in half might make sense. Splitting it four ways would leave us with small articles that would force the reader to jump back and forth between articles to find things. Although it would probably be easy for someone familiar with the city to find new listings to expand the resulting articles. Ground Zero (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree splitting the Eastside into 4 districts would risk  spreading the entries across too many pages, though more entries can definitely be added. Of course, there's been restaurant closings in 2020/21, but taking an initial look at the Eastside page, I was a bit surprised I found little to delete.   As to how to split the Eastside- Portland is traditionally divided into "quadrants", (historically 5, but now a 6th on the west side). On the Eastside, these are Northeast and Southeast Portland (divided at Burnside St.), and North Portland (west of Williams Ave. as the "Get Around" section of this article says, which I didn't confirm, but sounds about right). As an aside, there's also the term "East Portland" usually meaning anything east of 82nd Ave. (or nearby I-205), but that area is still addressed as NE or SE (and we don't have that many listings in that area). JakeOregon (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 * I do think that we should change up the districting, but probably keep the number of them low still. To start with, there should be multiple eastside districts, and a single westside district. I would suggest "westside", "North and Northeast Portland", "Southeast Portland", and "East Portland". East Portland would probably end up pretty stubby, but it's a pretty large area. The Northwest and southwest districts in the current organization aren't terrible, and it might be ok to keep them so that we don't have to bother with more reorganizing on that front, but the east side needs to have two districts and a stub. Evoyo (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

 * We don't want stub district articles. How many listings in total do you expect in each of the smaller districts you propose to create? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually we should and can divide a little more on the "Eastside." On the Eastside, Burnside divides Northeast from Southeast while N Williams Ave divides Northeast from North. So the district lines on the Eastside of the river should follow that logic too. Locals (and the local media) do make those distinction of "North Portland", "Northeast Portland" etc. in their speech and so do the addressing of houses. Anything beyond that (Hollywood, Hawthorne, Buckman, Sellwood, St Johns, Vermont/Multnomah Village, Hillsdale, etc) becomes more tedious to edit and keep track off. Anyone150 (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Map added
Hello fellow WikiVoyage editors,

I have just added a (self-created) map of PDX to this page. If there are any issues or you have suggestions to the image, please let me know on the appropriate Commons page, and please ping me there if you can. However, if there is a discussion on the importance if this image in the article, please reply here and ping me. Thanks! TheTechie (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Portland (Oregon)


text:
Talk:Portmagee

Hi I was just wondering about the name of this place, is it Port Magee or Portmagee. I made a redirect page from Portmagee here, just wondering so as to avoid confusion.(WT-en) Meltwaterfalls 04:28, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Portmagee is consistently the spelling on maps and by the Irish Post Office. This page now also covers Valentia Island, St Finian's Bay, Ballinskelligs and Waterville. Grahamsands (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Portmagee


text:
Talk:Port Moresby

Hello, I vote for the deletion of this section as it doesn't add anything informational. There is already a Port Moresby page which I have added to a bit. There is no "province" called Port Moresby (its located in central province) so to have one Port Moresby(regional) and one Port Moresby page seems kinda pointless. Well those were my two cents. - The Snackmaster

 * Done. (Or to be precise, the region page was renamed and moved on top of this.) (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:33, 16 November 2006 (EST)
 * Much better :) thanks a lot! -The Snackmaster

I am removing the statement regarding being safer than New York. This is laughable.

Golf Course Crocadiles

 * Be careful, crocodiles inhabit the water holes of the golf course. The local caddies sometimes sneak in at night and eat a few of them so they dont overpopulate though.

Really? 70.233.152.91 02:29, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Seems like the whole section on crocodiles could be rigorously edited. Gives the impression you cannot drive down the street without seeing one, which is totally untrue.

151.32.65.37 10:51, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

 * Please plunge forward! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:53, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Port Moresby


text:
Talk:Porto

This article is pretty good already. I saw that it only had outline status so I immediately bumped the status to usable, but I feel that it won't take much more to reach guide status. People of Porto: plunge forward! (WT-en) Robert 01:00, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Personal anecdote
Moved this from the article page: (WT-en) Texugo 22:00, 5 January 2011 (EST)

I stayed a few days in Porto and at first, I was very good about paying for each metro trip, but after a couple days I got a bit complacent and stopped swiping my card for each ride, because you come to realize (as mentioned above) there are no barriers so there is a type of honor system, but be wary. I was unfortunate enough to be caught by the Metro police on my last day. They check your card and see all of the transactions made on it. I was very lucky to get away with it. The two police made me get off the train at the next stop so that they could talk to me. They asked me several times things like "so you think you can just ride for free?" in broken English and were very intimidating. One of them calculated some figures and told me I owed something around 300 Euros. I freaked and pleaded, and honestly I played dumb, said I didn't remember, the train was arriving just as I was to the station...etc. I also had nothing even close to that much money on me! I think what helped is that I had a payment on my card, I just didn't swipe it in. What didn't help with my playing dumb is that they saw I did actually know how the system worked. Moral of the story: it seems like a free ride, and you may get away with it a few times, but if you're caught and aren't as fortunate as I was, it will be much more expensive than the few Euros per trip! —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) User:64.78.191.234 (talk • contribs)

Cidade Invicta
The "Cidade Invicta" designation isn't related to the french invasions. The term actually comes from the Portuguese Civil war a few years later.

The french invaded and pillaged the city during the second french invasion,thus making no sense to call the city Invicta (Undefeated). --213.13.120.131 12:39, 22 February 2011 (EST)

I second that and in fact the French invaders ended up taking the tripe dish recipe back to France. I suggest rectifying the erroneous statement to avoid prolonging the error. CharlieCares (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

History error
The "Cidade Invicta" title was given to Porto for its undefeated resistance against Dom Miguel's prolonged siege, during the 1820s Liberal Wars after the Napoleonic army left Portugal... I propose changing the misinformed statements to reflect the true context. CharlieCares (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I find you toooooooo nitpicky and encyclopaedic, perhaps too much. However, Wikivoyage must never be inaccurate. Hope you like the change. Ibaman (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

 * )) Sorry mate. Perhaps lately I have tooooo much time in my hands, but if I had a penny for all the travel trouble I've encountered 'coz of sloppy info... Anyways, thank you. CharlieCares (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

 * For the record, I've been to Porto already, and had my tripas à moda at the Ribeira waterfront, and the people at the restaurant told the "Napoleonic enemy troops in the Peninsular War" story. The prose you "corrected" was mine, transcribed verbatim from what I heard from the locals. Let's agree, this is a point that has very little to do with "sloppy travel info" and is very unlikely to cause "trouble" for the traveller. This is not a post-graduation thesis on the history of the Portuguese nation, this is a travel guide... sorry if I sound unpleasant. And thank you for clarifying and adding content. Ibaman (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Personal anecdote II
The following account may be a classic example of portuense mind set. Not too long while stroling with a friend in the ribeirinha area of Porto, someone approached us and asked for for a cigarette. I replied we don't smoke... The person retorts; I didn't ask if you smoke. I just want a cigarette. Feeling slighly irritated I replied... I'm terribly sorry, I don't smoke but normally I carry cigarettes on the off chance someone like you asks, but today I forgot. He looked at us with a serious expression nodded his head, ok! and left saying; ...Today is not my lucky day. CharlieCares (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Etymology of the city's name

 * In Latin, as in Portuguese, portus means "port" (the infrastructure of working facilities) and "harbor" (the geographical term for a body of sheltered waters) equally. Cutting the linguistic chase short, "cidade do Porto" = "city of The Harbor", with the non-obvious English synonym chosen for expressiveness. As "porto", besides deriving from the Latin toponym which names the whole present country, in Portuguese is a masculine word and thus inflects the definite article, the translation's point becomes clear if it's written in the obsolete way "cidade d'O Porto". For the record, as a Lusophone-born and raised dude, I testify that "city of Harbor" or "the Joyous Harbor" or "the Chickens' Harbor" would sound very wrong. This is too much nitpicky for the actual main page prose, but it's worth clarifying IMHO. Ibaman (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 * We got Hamina over here, Swedish Fredrikshamn ([King] Fredrik's harbor) reduced to just "hamn" plus a couple of extra vowels. --Ypsilon (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Yeah, Copenhagen's etymology readily came up to me as I read this, and here I am now thinking, "wow, how Danish and Swedish must and must not be very similar". To digress a little more, it's funny to remember that etymologically its closest "identical twin" must be the French Le Havre, which is also its closest geographically as well. I love Wikivoyage. Ibaman (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Guide status?
Back in February, after making various improvements to the Porto article, I unilaterally upgraded it to Guide status. I'm now worried that I may have been hasty. I would appreciate review and feedback. Thank you. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, disclaimer, not all that familiar with Porto, but it looks pretty good. The eat section is very detailed with information on Porto's cuisine, and my only issue in that regard would be that there's no "splurge" option given Porto's size. The information on understanding Porto and how its citizens see themselves is very helpful, and the sleep section seems good. The guide status here fits in my opinion. -- Lively Ratification  (talk)  03:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Great point regarding lack of Eat > Splurge listings. Thank you. I'll work on fixing that. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with LR here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 06:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Featured destination?
Is this article good enough for Dotm? Or is something missing? /Yvwv (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Many of the restaurant listings and all of the hotel listings are undated. Are these places still open? Ground Zero (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Porto


text:
Talk:Porto Alegre

Please, if you want to contribute, make sure your English is good. The mistakes and the Portuguese-to-English automatic translation (babelfish style, probably) under Buy & Drink sections were awful.

I would like to make some points about this page:

"It is important to understand that the culture of the city isn't a "Brazilian culture", but almost an Argentinian or Uruguayan."

This is not true - although there is some argentinian and uruguayan influence in Rio Grande do Sul is ridiculous to say that this State hasn´t a brazillian culture. This is nonsense.

"These people are called "gaúchos", the same word that identify Argentina and Uruguay. So, this can be bad if you are searching for a typical Brazilian city,"

Again, nonsense. There is no typical Brazilian city. Each region of Brazil has diferent kinds of influences. Salvador is much more African oriented, Rio de Janeiro has more portuguese roots, São Paulo is more italian, Curitiba more Ucranian. There´s no reason to consider one more brazilian than another. The same goes to Porto Alegre and Rio Grande do Sul.

"but it can be good if you speak Spanish, because the locals typically understand the language well."

This basically happens in the rest of Brazil also - brazilians understand spanish fairly welll.

>>"It is important to understand that the culture of the city isn't a "Brazilian culture", but almost an Argentinian or Uruguayan."

>>This is not true - although there is some argentinian and uruguayan influence in Rio Grande do Sul is ridiculous to say that this >>State hasn´t a brazillian culture. This is nonsense.

- I don´t agree with you. The original phrase makes sense. If you visit porto alegre and montevideo (uruguay) you will see that p. alegre have almost the same kind of culture of montevideo, even in the architeture. You can think the music, are the same (tipically the "milonga"), or you can think the drink, "chimarrão". Even the accent is almost the same in two different languages.

>>"These people are called "gaúchos", the same word that identify Argentina and Uruguay. So, this can be bad if you are searching for a typical Brazilian city,"

>>Again, nonsense. There is no typical Brazilian city. Each region of Brazil has diferent kinds of influences. Salvador is much >>more African oriented, Rio de Janeiro has more portuguese roots, São Paulo is more italian, Curitiba more Ucranian. There´s no >>reason to consider one more brazilian than another. The same goes to Porto Alegre and Rio Grande do Sul.

Again, you are wrong. Almost in entire Brazil the country have some cultural common cultural things, like samba, carnaval, mpb (popular music), micareta, etc. In Porto Alegre, the 7th september is more important than carnaval and the people knows more "gaucho" music than samba. Another thing: until the federal militar governants, the 3 most listened radios in Porto alegre was argentinian or uruguayan radios.

>> "but it can be good if you speak Spanish, because the locals typically understand the language well."

>> This basically happens in the rest of Brazil also - brazilians understand spanish fairly welll.

Yes, portuguese and spanish are similar languages, but if you speak fast spanish in Rio de Janeiro or São Paulo probably the people won´t understand you.

So, I think that the original text was right. Porto Alegre have more cultural links with Buenos aires and Montevideo than Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. They drink more chimarrão (like b.a. or montevideo) than coffe (like são paulo); they listen more gaucho music than samba or mpb (at the low social classes, most people don´t even know mpb)... Oh, I find this joke in a cultural Porto Alegre magazine: (yes, the original is in english)

"1. Abstract

Rio Grande do Sul is an island situated near to the coast of Argentina. Its capital is Montevideo and this is the place where Diego Armando Maradona was born. Although it belongs to the Empire of Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul is not linked to the continent. It is an island, such as Catalonia, or Madagascar. Thus, Rio Grande do Sul is not connected to the Brazilian continent. I find myself in a situation in which I can stand upon this idea. There’s a mass of blood that disconnects them, known as Alma Castelhana (Castilian’s Soul). It is confirmed in the maps we use nowadays. I do not tolerate objections."

happy wikis, Lc

Districts
A new "Districts" section was just added. We don't usually have districts sections in cities that are not divided into different district articles by consensus, but it can be OK to have one if it helps the traveler. But what won't help the average traveler is a list of neighborhoods a mile long, for example "Auxiliadora, Azenha, Bela Vista, Bom Fim, Cidade Baixa, Farroupilha, Floresta, Historic District, Independência, Jardim Botânico, Menino Deus, Moinhos de Vento, Montserrat, Petrópolis, Praia de Belas, Rio Branco, Santa Cecília and Santana." Can we keep the information bite-sized and still have a "Districts" section that is more helpful than harmful to travelers and this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 * agreed; I have taken action. Long lists such as these are unnecessary and we have policy against them. They don't help the traveller. Ibaman (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Thanks! That's so much better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be desirable if a static map was added, tho. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 07:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Porto Alegre


text:
Talk:Portobelo

Google Maps
Is it possible to paste in a google map on this page?(WT-en) Captjack 14:11, 17 September 2010 (EDT)

 * No, it would be a copyvio, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 10:47, 12 October 2010 (EDT)

External link question
I have tried to add the city Portobelo, Panama to this site. Do you know what I am doing wrong?

Page "Boracay" I created a new section called "Boracay Beach Live Beach cameras" and have listed 3 live cameras on Boracay beach. I wanted to link the title of each camera to the live feed page but unfortunately it does not allow links external. How is it that there is so many external links allowed on the page when not allowed????? How do I put the links to the live camera feeds to make my new section better? Actual camera stream footage a link away. If it is acceptable, I would like to add links which can easily be found by typing titles into Google. can someone with authority add or is it to against protocol? If editor does not like links then never-mind, but it just makes new section sub-standard causing people to manually search for the links in a search engine which is not very helpful since the article is about Boracay. What better way to discuss Boracay than a live camera feed!!!

Just my thoughts take it or leave it. If editor likes links to cams then please add it.

 * Please see Project:External links. Also, actual discussion should take place only at Talk:Portobelo, not on the Project:Requests for comment page itself. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:48, 29 December 2010 (EST)

Suspect typo
from Correct typos in one click bording->boarding? (omit) context: *Anfibia board: Go anfibia bording bording and feel what's like to

title: Talk:Portobelo


text:
Talk:Porto de Galinhas

Phone book-style Sleep listings
I reverted these additions because they present serious overkill, practically the whole phone book worth of lodgings. We are here to recommend places, not list all of them. Feel free to add some of them back in if you are familiar with a place (and try to give it a description!), but let's not list every place in town. (WT-en) texugo 09:24, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Porto de Galinhas


text:
Talk:Porto-Novo - The capital

Porto-Novo - The capital

 * Delete. The article is blank and there is already one for Porto-Novo. - (WT-en) DanielC 08:31, 24 January 2007 (EST)
 * Should we just redirect? Delete is fine, too, though. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 19:34, 26 January 2007 (EST)
 * Redirected. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 03:56, 13 February 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Porto-Novo - The capital


text:
Talk:Port Orange

No Cheating
List tourism-related business located in Port Orange here. Do not attempt to list it a second time in Daytona Beach. It will be deleted from the incorrect city. (WT-en) Gamweb 14:23, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Port Orange


text:
Talk:Port Phillip Bay scenic drive

Rename
I moved this from "Port Phillip Bay Drive" (capitalization problem). -- (WT-en) Evan 13:16, 10 Aug 2003 (PDT)

 * Um..aren't street signs capitalized that way? --(WT-en) Jiang 18:04, 11 Sep 2003 (PDT)

 * They are - but this wasn't a road sign. I goofed. The article's about a drive by car around Port Phillip Bay in Victoria :) (WT-en) KJ 00:38, 12 Sep 2003 (PDT)

Could this be renamed to eliminate that confusion? Scenic drive around Port Phillip Bay of simply Drive around Port Phillip Bay? --(WT-en) Jiang 01:04, 12 Sep 2003 (PDT)

 * Better? (WT-en) KJ

Purpose?
I'm not sure about the need for this article. There is now a Mornington Peninsula page and one for Geelong and the Bellarine Peninsula (which may or may not be split in two eventually). At present this article is actually mostly about Mornington Pen and I wonder whether the relevant material should be moved to the Mornington Peninsula page and this one deleted. I don't have strong feelings about this though I really don't favour one of the alts which might be to bundle Mornington Pen, Geelong and Bellarine Peninsula all into this article. Thoughts? (WT-en) Nurg 02:24, 19 Jan 2004 (EST)

 * I agree that there's a bit too much overlap here. I'm not a great fan of the scenic drive articles in general though. Articles should really consentrate on the place and then give options for see it (walk, drive, bus, etc). I'd hate to see "Scenic walk in Blah" "Scenic bike ride in Blah" "Scenic bus ride in Blah" and no article on Blah itself. I'd be happy with moving this to Mornington Peninsula, but I no nothing about the area itself... I say plunge forward and do it(WT-en) Majnoona

VFD Discussion

 * Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since March 2007, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:08, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Keep. This looked quite useful, and not that far from usable status, to me. – (WT-en) Vidimian 13:54, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Based on discussion at Talk:Port Phillip Bay scenic drive, would a reasonable compromise be to redirect this article to Mornington Peninsula? I'm still of the opinion that it's not usable enough to merit keeping as a standalone article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:46, 16 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Any thoughts? Barring further comment a redirect seems like the best solution. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:42, 23 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Actually this itinerary includes Bellarine Peninsula in addition to Mornington Peninsula, but as it doesn't include much information about Bellarine, it might be sensibly redirected to Mornington Peninsula. – (WT-en) Vidimian 02:58, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Mornington Peninsula. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:30, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Port Phillip Bay scenic drive


text:
Talk:Port Richey

Comments
I would like to add in a "Stay Connected" section, to outline any area's that offer WiFi and Internet Cafe's. (WT-en) Rouslinbr 13:41, 4 February 2008 (EST)

 * There should actually be a a Contact section between Sleep and Get out, specifically for that use, see the small city Project:Article templates. I'll add it in. --(WT-en) Nick 15:11, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Merge with New Port Richey
These two "cities" are adjacent to each other but New Port Richey is much larger and has the points of interest (except for one state park near Port Richey which is listed as in it), so as this is just an outline and unlikely to become anything else, I propose we redirect and merge with New Port Richey. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Port Richey


text:
Talk:Portsmouth (New Hampshire)

This is a really great article! Good work. (WT-en) Majnoona 17:16, 28 Jan 2004 (EST)

title: Talk:Portsmouth (New Hampshire)


text:
Talk:Port Stephens

I would like to add some information about port Stephens in Australia, but I cant seem to find it. Do I need to make the page for Port Stephens, Australia and how do I do it? Thanks, --(WT-en) adrigen 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

 * Fixed --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:24, 13 December 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Port Stephens