Talk:Oregon Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

Ugh. I don't really know Oregon well enough to divide it into regions. Anyone willing to give it a shot? -- (WT-en) Evan 14:26, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

We now (three years later) seem to have aquired some regions in a scattershot manner. I want to migrate some more cities out of the main state page, so rather than propose a comprehensive solution, I'd like to add two more regions:

1. A "Portland Metro" region that will be at the north of the Willamette Valley near the Columbia.
2. We need something for the South of Oregon. I'm not sure what to call the region that contains tons of cities along Interstate 5 in the mountains south of the Willamette Valley. And I'm uncertain "High Desert" is the right designation for the non-desert of Klamath Falls which is just south of the region usually called High Desert.

I also really don't like the vagueness of the "Cascade Mountains". But we'll fight that battle if it becomes a problem. -- (WT-en) Colin 03:46, 12 October 2006 (EDT)

I added Eastern Oregon and Southern Oregon. I am thinking that we should do away with Cascade Mountains. Also, I agree with adding a Portland Metro. This seems to be how some of the official sites split it up and it does make some sense from my travels there. Comments? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 21:31, 22 December 2006 (EST)

I'm fuzzy on where the Coast meets Southern meets the Willamette. The Willamette region is pretty easy to divide from the coast based on how water flows (if it flows into the Willamette before it goes to the sea, then it's in the Willamette region. If it's west of there, it's on the coast). But the topography in the South isn't so convenient. For example, going downriver on the Umpqua River, there are little towns every couple of miles along the river. So which ones do we cut into Coastal vs. Southern? Wrh2 found useful maps on the California Tourism website and we just followed those as our definitions when carving up California. In Washington state, Evan arbitrarily assigned the counties into regions. Any way works (and can be improved later by other contributors) as long as there are concrete divisions. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:51, 22 December 2006 (EST)

There is a good county map in Wikimedia Commons that is PD, we could use that to slice up the counties into regions. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 21:45, 22 December 2006 (EST)

That would work if you think the shapes can be stuffed into regions. Nevada lacks regions because its counties suck as regions worse than anything I've ever seen. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:51, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Yeah, I agree... We would have to split some of the counties to make it work. You have any thoughts on a way to go? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 21:54, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Take a look at http://www.traveloregon.com/Explore-Oregon.aspx could we slice up like that? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 22:00, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Here is what I am thinking. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 23:06, 22 December 2006 (EST) [[Image:OregonRegions.jpg|thumb|center|320px|Region Proposal]]

I like it a lot. There's a PDF on the traveloregon.com website that also locates the cities within the regions. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:17, 23 December 2006 (EST)

Okay, good! I got the color a little too close to the adjacent region on Mt. Hood/The Gorge, also I don't think I have it quite right. I think they may have run the line down highway 26 picking up everything along that highway into Mt. Hood/The Gorge. So, I would like to tweak that a little to make sure it is right. Also, I always hate my work on maps, I wish I could do it better. Maybe we can talk someone into doing our region map.

Lastly, what about names of the regions. (We can deal with the cities on the main page after regions) Do you think what we have is good? We might want to include Mt. Hood in the Gorge name and do you want to use "Portland Metro"? And for "High Desert" is that okay, or maybe "Central High Desert". I like using the "High Desert" as part of the name. Thanks Colin for helping on this. Does anyone else have input? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 08:04, 23 December 2006 (EST)

For what it's worth... California has a map drawn by Ryan that's very loosely correct. But we use the state-provided maps for precisely slotting cities into the regions. So if your map is only approximate, but we have an Oregon one to lean on for the precise details then I think we'll be alright. That said, I've been meaning to make a Google Maps overlay for the California Region definitions so that we can have a permanent, shareable, and modifiable precise definition hosted at Wikivoyage.

Wikipedia says that the High Desert is Central+East Oregon, though it doesn't define those terms. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:04, 23 December 2006 (EST)

Rogue Coast? I've never heard that particular region called that. - (WT-en) Pingveno 00:27, 4 Jan 2004 (EST)

Google hasn't heard of it either. Most of the hits for the exact phrase are Wikivoyage and mirrors. I'm going to rename it. I wonder if the original author perhaps meant Southern Oregon Coast, since they describe it as undeveloped and I thought the northern section is developed. -(WT-en) Colin 01:19, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

How are we going to deal with the OCF? I'm inclined to make it its own article, like Black Rock City. --(WT-en) Evan 23:03, 4 Jan 2004 (EST)

Aquaria and museums don't normally get their own articles; see Project:What is an article? for more info. I moved the OMSI listing to Portland (Oregon), and the Oregon Coast Aquarium listing to the new Newport (Oregon) page. Elaborations welcome. --(WT-en) Evan 19:31, 3 Feb 2004 (EST)

Link removed in accordance with Project:External links, but looks like an interesting site that might have some useful info: http://www.therealoregon.com/. -- (WT-en) Ryan 00:58, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

Swept in from the Pub:

There seems to be quite a number of newbie contributors in Oregon for some reason. If you see anyone contributing there, check it out because they often seem to need some guidance. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:30, 10 March 2006 (EST)

One of them wrote me and said

As an assignment for a business class at Oregon State my classmates
and I are required to update a public wiki with "valuable contributions."

so that explains that. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:15, 10 March 2006 (EST)

There has been a huge rush of contributions this afternoon (16 March) that appear to be from this group. Maple Canyon, Waldo Lake, Great glen way, and a ton of images. A lot of the images appear to be copyvios, but I've run out of time to keep tracking them down so anyone who has a chance to look into them it would be much appreciated.

To the contributors: your contributions are much appreciated and very valuable additions. The concerns are that they are not copyright violations (see Project:Image policy), that they are valid article topics (see Project:What is an article?), and to a lesser extent that they are formatted correctly (see Project:Manual of style). -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:57, 16 March 2006 (EST)

Also to the contributors: It would also be a good idea to pay attention to the Project:Article templates applicable to what you're writing, so that your contributions are indeed "valuable." (I'd bet that that Oregon State instructor is aware of the templates -- or soon will be.) Using the templates to begin with will save some rewriting later that may simply wipe your contribution out, with a possibly similar wipeout on your grade... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:30, 16 March 2006 (EST)

Did anyone attempt to find out the professor(')s(') name? I'd be more than happy to send him/her a letter explain that we welcome the help from his/her students and how exactly he/she should instruct the students to contribute i.e. MoS, templates, and the copyleft. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 05:29, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

I rolled back the addition of a link to the Oregon Bed and Breakfast Guild (80+ B&B's). We'd love to have those B&B's listed in Wikivoyage in their correct towns and cities, but we don't want a big link at the state level. See external links for more details. --(WT-en) Evan 22:31, 13 December 2006 (EST)

Here's the listing, by the way: *Oregon Bed and Breakfast Guild, [1], Email: [email protected], Phone:1-800-944-6196, Association representing 80+ inspected and approved B&B's. The link is probably useful for data mining. --(WT-en) Evan 22:35, 13 December 2006 (EST)

There are too many cities on this page. I'd appreciate it if someone who knew Oregon better than me (for example, someone who had been there) could move all but 9 to the appropriate region pages. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 16:21, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Done! List is now nine. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:46, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Now we need to nail down the definitions of the regions so that we can de-orphan the removed cities. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:14, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Is anyone still working on this page? I noticed we have a "High Desert" region and an "Eastern Oregon" region, which seem to cover the same region. I think "High Desert" has a better ring to it, but we should really decide on one and delete the other. If no one chimes in for a while, I'll submit for deletion myself.(WT-en) Army of me 22:21, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

If they're the same, lets drop the boring directional name in favor of High Desert. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 22:34, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

That's one vote! Actually, although both of those regions overlap (as defined in their articles), I can see how perhaps someone might have intended that they be two separate regions.

The "High Desert" referring to the tall but narrow strip of land generally on the eastern slopes of the Cascades -- a sort of mountain-desert transition zone -- which is actually growing in population and tourism (for Oregon, that is); while Eastern Oregon could refer to the rest of the desert which generally makes up the rest of the state. Besides perhaps Pendleton and Joseph (and the immediate environs of those communities), however, this region is very far off the beaten path and just doesn't offer a great deal of interest to tourists, despite it's huge size.

On the other side of the argument, technically all of the Oregon desert can be called "high desert" (as is mentioned in the last post under the seemingly unresolved "Regions" topic on this page); more importantly, there may not be enough to merit separating them into two regions. Eventually I can do some research to try and resolve it, unless someone else who knows more can help out. (WT-en) Army of me 02:01, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

In fact, the more I look at things, the more I see how much work really needs to be done. For example, the map on the front page is a great and helpful addition, but it does not seem to fit the regions specified (such as the Eastern v High Desert region problem I mention above, plus there is a light-green colored region on the northwest section of the map that doesn't seem to correspond to anything in the article). I think keying each region description with the color of the map would greatly assist readers (see Texas for a good example).

Also, besides the regions, there seems to be a great deal of articles that split Oregon out by counties (I'm guessing this happened before the Regions were created). I think that's a bad idea for many reasons - they duplicate information that should be in the Regions, they are inconsistent and confusing (Clackamas County appears in two different regions), and they seem to contain overwhelming lists of information, which imho are not useful to readers - seeming to list every town in a county, even ones which would not be considered of interest to travelers and mostly just link to empty templates (if they link to anything at all), for starters. I think they should be phased out.

And I don't mean to sound like a complainer or Debbie Downer; I realize Oregon is not quite a mainstream tourist destination (although it's awesome enough that it could be!) and a lot of hard work and good intentions have gone into what's already here. That being said, I fully plan on expediting these changes myself ("plunge in", and all) unless someone disagrees (or takes it upon themself to make some changes of their own). *pauses to take a breath* (WT-en) Army of me 02:01, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

The light-green region should have been Portland Metro, which is also sometimes lumped as a subregion of Willamette to be maximally confusing.

Counties are used because the evil policy of 7+-2 means that you are required to subdivide major regions which have too many cities. Short of intensive local knowledge, you end up just making pseudo-divisions that make little sense... so at least counties provide a pseudo-region that makes a tiny bit of sense. It is indeed evil that some counties are split; but at least there are few of them so they are mostly harmless. Since the county articles contain little content other than pointers to the cities, it ought not to be hard to reorganize incrementally as better divisions are found.

To me, the Most Important Rule of regions is that they be clearly delineated. For example, my hometown's article had pissing matches about whether it is in the South Bay, East Bay, or Silicon Valley because all of those terms used by locals are fuzzy around the edges, and my hometown is a corner case for all of them. This nonsense was only terminated when I placed the city in its county which avoids personal opinion on the subject. Clear delineation also avoids nonsense like touts putting their Willamette Valley hotels in the "coastal region" because that is a more touristy region and they are more likely to be noticed there. And hey, it's only a two hour drive...

You're right that Counties can have duplicate info from their region. But that's an editing error; no subregion is really supposed to duplicate info from its enclosing region without darn good reason.

The main point of the original regionification was to create a hierarchy for sticking lots of stub articles into. When dealing with small towns, often a small stub is enough to attract contributions that would otherwise never have happened without the framework. So feel free to plunge forward on a reorg, and don't feel like you need to address every error all at once unless you are so motivated. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:38, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Uh, that was long-winded so let me be clearer: I support any reorg you want to do. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:58, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

I see, so the counties were intentionally meant to function as sub-regions. I certainly understand the need for sub-dividing (when needed), but after looking at all the regions, counties, and cities as a whole, I'm convinced we can get rid of the counties, if we want.

Hear me out. I am also a fan of clear delineation, but counties seem to be the enemy of it. The regions and counties clash, as we've both noted. I think our goal should be clearly delineated regions and, if needed, sub-regions within those (like is already done with the Oregon Coast). For many regions, I believe sub-regions are not even yet necessary, but if they are, I'm sure we can all agree on something reasonable.

I hear what your saying about "pseudo-divisions that make little sense", but I think part of the original problem was trying to divide up Oregon into regions based on county lines in the first place. I submit that for areas influenced so much by geography, like Oregon, they should be divided up by natural features (like *gulp* California). However, much of that work is already done here - we have regions for the Coast, Willamette Valley, the Gorge, the Cascades, the desert... these seem logical to me; let's work with those. If touts put their hotels in the wrong region, other users are there to set them straight; that's what we're here for.

Even if everything I've said may sound unreasonable, allow me to submit these proposals (and hopefully they're reasonable enough) -

• Eliminate the Portland Metropolitan Area as a region (from the map) and leave it as a sub-region of Willamette Valley.
• The eastern edge of Southern Oregon ends at the Cascades.
• Extend the Cascade Mountains all the way down, as they do geographically (this means it would also cover places like Crater Lake and Klamath Falls, under this scheme).
• Either leave Eastern Oregon (or "High Desert") as a crazy super-region (sub-divided, of course) or divide it into two regions as I've described under "Regions - East vs High Desert". Perhaps one region would consist of the strip of land south of the Columbia Gorge and just east of the Cascades (but extending eastward only up to the western edge of the desert) - basically consisting of the towns on US-97, from 84 to the north down to the junction with 58 to the south. This could be called the "High Desert" (which is kind of misleading) or perhaps something as simple as "Central Oregon". The remaining region to the east could remain "Eastern Oregon".

If I knew how to do maps, I'd easily dive in myself instead of just making all these proposals. But if these do sound okay (and I have been meaning to teach myself to make maps), I wouldn't mind making these changes myself - both to the map and by restructuring the other articles as necessary (moving information out of counties (if any) and creating sub-regions where needed, etc. etc.).

(Now that's what I call long-winded) (WT-en) Army of me 01:31, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, it's been a few years, and I think the map and the division of regions is impractical. I'm all for dividing Oregon by county line, with a couple of minor exceptions. Here's my idea:

1. Portland Metro-- Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas. This is where the urban tourist, arriving for pleasure or tourism, will be first, in most cases. They will choose other regions to explore (or not), but this is the unique population center.

2. High Desert/Cascades/Columbia Gorge-- Hood River, Wasco, Sherman, Jefferson, Deschutes, Crook. A place for outdoor adventures, whitewater, mountain biking, etc.

3. Willamette Valley-- Yamhill, Marion, Polk, Linn, Benton, Eastern Lane. Agricultural Breadbasket and center of population.

4. Coast and Coast Ranges-- Columbia, Clatsop, Tillamook, Lincoln, Western Lane, Western Douglas, Coos, Curry. The beautiful coast and the great Douglas Fir Forests that helped define the state.

5. Southern Oregon-- Eastern Douglas, Josephine, Jackson, Klamath. Would include the Rogue Valley and Crater Lake.

6. Eastern Oregon and the Frontier Counties-- Gilliam, Morrow, Union, Umatilla, Wallowa, Baker, Grant, Wheeler, Lake, Harney, and Malheur. Also could be called the "Empty Quarter," would have rugged scenery and expansive vistas.

I prefer this arrangement because it keeps the areas as compact as possible and I believe has a respect for the different cultural and economic regions. The prior arrangement relied more on purely geographic features. It would remove the "Cascades" region; however, there is very little population there, and unless the emphasis is on the Pacific Crest Trail, I don't see this as a problem. The tourist is going to approach the Cascades from one of the neighboring populated areas anyway.PhilD86 (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm just about ready again to start working on this. Since it sounds like no one objects, I will go ahead with the changes I've outlined above, with one exception. To handle the High Desert/Eastern Oregon dilemma, I've resolved to use two regions: Central Oregon (covering the rapidly growing regions of Bend, Sunriver, Sisters, etc.) and I will leave Eastern Oregon for everything else. Although neither name is as evocative as "High Desert", technically both regions fit that description, as mentioned (and I think we should avoid being misleading). Also, I think they are separate enough in character (and popularity) to warrant having separate regions.

As part of this little project, I will necessarily be doing a lot of redirecting of now-unnecessary articles. Don't worry, I'll be moving any pertinent, existing information to an appropriate new location. For example, the current counties will redirect to regions (if they straddle multiple regions, it will redirect to the one where most of its area lies). I don't think many users, if any, search by county anyway. If this results in a region becoming overstuffed with info, I will create sub-regions (although from what I've seen so far, this will likely be unnecessary).

As part of the clean-up, articles for cities that are stubbed out may be redirected to a region or to the nearest city. Also, many cities are not written in the wikivoyage style, so I may edit those too (if anyone has seen those... some articles are so full of WTF my face nearly melted). From my brief investigating, pretty much all of these towns I'm referring to are not on any tourist itineraries and don't have anything that can really be added to them (rest assured if they do, I will not "get rid of them").

As always, my primary goal is to make things as useful as possible to travelers. Thanks for listening. (WT-en) Army of me 01:11, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

I am not fond of the map. I think it is correct, just not quite useful or pleasing to view. I would rather go with a map with the counties colored in (with perhaps an exception for Lane County's coastal region).PhilD86 (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

This edit (which was self-reverted) made me do a double-take -- the capital of Oregon is not among the nine cities? I can't think of any state in which the capital is not in the top 5 important cities, let alone top nine. I'd re-add Salem myself but I don't know which of the existing nine to remove. Thoughts? (WT-en) LtPowers 17:21, 21 January 2011 (EST)

Glad I'm not the only one. Medford also comes to mind as a large omission (instead we have Ashland), since it is the major population center in Southern Oregon. It seems that the list was written with the idea of tourist destinations as opposed to real top cities (thus Hood River vs The Dalles). I hate to do it, but I think Cannon Beach, though lovely and a great tourist destination, might be a little small for the list. Corvallis could go as well. I'll regretfully take out Cannon Beach though, and add Salem.PhilD86 (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I consider myself a Texan, having spent the vast majority of my life there, but I have lived in Oregon for a bit as well. This hardly makes me an expert such as the likes of Merrium-Webster's fancy talking Audio Pronunciator, but I'm pretty certain I never heard any locals ever say ore"gin". I heard 'em say ore"gone" lots, usually in bars, but only to correct tourist. I also heard a lot of "it's Will-am-IT, D----t", also usually in bars and every so often directed at me... So, I must stress again I am no expert, however, the only pronunciation I ever heard from locals, the ones who should know the correct pronunciation, was OR-AH-GUN. (WT-en) CampFool 03:52, 24 December 2011 (EST)

I spent a little time in Texas myself, but consider myself a Northwest native, and currently live in the Willamette Valley. The second syllable seems to me to be an unaccented "ee" or more rarely, a schwa. We residents are aware there is a different way of pronouncing the final syllable common in the Eastern States (that's east of Colorado to us). But I find it hilarious when a visitor politely compliments our beautiful state, and all the natives can do is correct they way he says the name of our state. It's surprising how grating it is to the nerves. Perhaps you've never heard a room of eighty people shouting with one voice at the poor speaker, "It's Orygun!" Fascinating. We are normally a rather polite culture.PhilD86 (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nice to see some active discussion here. I'm normally a Wikipedia WikiProject Oregon type, but am venturing over to WikiVoyage to see what it's all about. And yeah, Phil, I agree with your pronunciation interpretation :) -Peteforsyth (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please, someone redraw the map that is unbareable to watch. --Andyrom75 (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

What about it is "unbearable"? -Shaundd (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify my earlier comment, I agree it's not WV standard but it does the job of pointing out the current region structure. A bigger problem for me is the region breakdown doesn't make sense in a couple of spots (the Cascades should generally be merged with Central Oregon and I don't understand why Metro Portland is a subregion of the Willamette Valley when the valley has no other subregions). -Shaundd (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Shaundd, I do not have experience to speak about the division, I'm only stating that is much more better do not have a map instead of having that one. Is not only out of voy standard, is really ugly! --Andyrom75 (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

While I agree that the map can be improved upon aesthetically, I disagree that it is worse than nothing. Furthermore I guess we should have the "redraw region boundaries" discussion before we create a new map... --Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion is needed to change the boundaries, but not to improve (or remove) a useless map where is impossible to understand where the current boundaries are, where the major cities are, the main roads, maybe the rivers, etc... just like any other usefull map used in voy. --Andyrom75 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's worth the effort to try to fix that particular map without coming up with better definitions of the regions. I'll try to kickstart a discussion in the next couple of days. -Shaundd (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Shaundd, as said I'm not an Oregon expert, so feel free to start the new discussion. I agree that improving the map before the new discussion is ended could result in a waste of time, so evaluate if it worth to keep on showing the current map. --Andyrom75 (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I’ve been taking a look at the Oregon regions and, like User:PhilD86 above, I think there are a couple of things that don't make sense. One is Portland Metropolitan Area, which is treated as a subregion of the Willamette Valley even though there are no other subregions. The second is the Cascade Mountains (Oregon) region, which is a geographic region, but seems like a poor travel region since you can’t travel between most of the listed destinations without going through Central Oregon or the Willamette Valley. To address this, I’m proposing:

1. Treat the Portland Metro Area as a top level region. From my visits, Portland and area is different from the Willamette Valley and I think every guide to Oregon I’ve read has treated it as a separate region.
2. Merge the Cascade Mountains region into neighbouring regions. Crater Lake would go to Southern Oregon (where it’s already listed); Mt. Angel, Opal Creek, Willamette National Forest and Detroit Lake State Recreation Area would go to the Willamette Valley; Mount Hood would go to Columbia Gorge (see #3 below).
3. Move Mount Hood and Government Camp to Columbia Gorge to create a Mount Hood-Columbia Gorge guide. They’re both recreation areas and fit in the space that’s not Portland Metro, not the Willamette Valley and not quite Central Oregon.

To define the regions, I’d mostly use the county lines proposed by User:PhilD86 above with a few exceptions around Mt Hood and the Columbia Gorge.

• Portland Metropolitan Area (orange) - Washington County, and the western parts of Multnomah and Clackamas that are outside Mt Hood National Forest.
• Oregon Coast (purple) - Columbia, Clatsop, Tillamook, Lincoln, western Lane, western Douglas, Coos, Curry
• Willamette Valley (light green) - Yamhill, Marion, Polk, Linn, Benton, eastern Lane
• Mt. Hood and Columbia Gorge (blue) - Hood River, the parts of Multnomah, Clackamus and Wasco that are part of Mt Hood National Forest, northern Sherman
• Central Oregon (red) - southern Wasco, southern Sherman, Jefferson, Deschutes, Crook
• Southern Oregon (dark green) - eastern Douglas, Josephine, Jackson, Klamath, Lake
• Eastern Oregon (yellow) - Gilliam, Morrow, Union, Umatilla, Wallowa, Baker, Grant, Wheeler, Harney, and Malheur

Thoughts? -Shaundd (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

My knowledge of Oregon is limited, but the proposal seems well thought-out. The only thing that seems odd is a top level region for two destinations - Mt Hood-Columbia Gorge. It sounds like that page would essentially just be a glorified list of two links to the child destination articles? If so, isn't there any possibility of incorporating them into the other regions? Barring that minor objection, I support implementing the change. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Ryan. My intention with Mt Hood-Columbia Gorge is to just have one page with the five or so destinations listed on it -- no separate sub-pages for Mt Hood and the Gorge. -Shaundd (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me, and it seems to make a lot more sense that the current layout. It'd be nice to have a catchier name than "Mt Hood-Columbia Gorge", but that's a minor critique. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've gone ahead and implemented this. Thanks everyone for your comments. -Shaundd (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply