Template talk:Oregon Pioneer History

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Oregon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical). History This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles

I added a separate category for transportation, and listed two very early steamboats on it. The idea is to get not all the boats (there's a lot) but just the real pioneers. Other topics for inclusion on this would be the Barlow Road, portages at Cascades and Willamette Falls, etc. Also, I would like to do something on non-steam navigation, such as canoes, bateaux etc., if that ever gets written that would be something to put in the new section.Mtsmallwood (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this. I'd like to see Applegate Trail, Barlow Road, Meek Cutoff, and Santiam Wagon Road moved to this section. (Santiam isn't even in the navbox yet.) I'm on the fence about whether Oregon Trail should be moved there; it's presently in "Topics" and maybe should stay there due to its overreaching importance. -Pete (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a broad navigation template such as this, I don't think it is a good idea to get too specific. Every thing in Transportation would fit as "Topics" and it will only lead to a really bloated template. That's why it was decided not to include all the ferries, but create a Historic ferries article to include. After transportation we could go with Politics, Settlements, Economy, Physical geography, Native American items, British items, American items, etc. Could more transportation items be added, yes, but I don't think they should have a separate group. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm increasingly uncomfortable with Places containing so many pioneer roads. The discussion above seemed concerned that the template would become a mishmash of trivial topics, but so far it's doing okay. But it still seems that Transportation and Places could usefully be re-factored. This seems a logical reorganization to me:

Places: Albina · Canemah · Champoeg · Fort Astoria · Fort Dalles · Fort Vancouver · Fort William · French Prairie · Linn City · Methodist Mission · Oregon City · Oregon Institute · Philip Foster Farm · Tualatin Academy · Whitman Mission · Willamette Trading Post

Roads: Applegate Trail · Barlow Road · Meek Cutoff · Thomas and Ruckle Road

Ships: Columbia · Lot Whitcomb · Canemah · Colonel Wright · Gazelle · Oregon Steam Navigation Company

The sections on topics, events, people, and Oregon history are fine. Anyone else? —EncMstr (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about that too. I like roads/ships laid out like that. Hopefully there will be more roads up soon. tedder (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make sections for the Catholic, ABCFM and Methodist Missionaries and stations through out the Oregon Country. This would only put the template in more of a "halfway" position of covering even more areas outside of Oregon state than currently. In terms of colonists (British and American subjects), their experiences were interwoven beyond what is now the state of Oregon before the Oregon Treaty (still true afterwards). Wouldn't it make more sense to cut the template at 1849 when the Oregon Territory was made? This way there is a template about topics across the entire region of what is now B.C., Washington, Idaho (tiny bits of Montana) and Oregon and another for the territorial/early statehood of Oregon. Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This template series is for Oregon history, as in the state. While yes, that includes broader topics and the early history includes a larger geographic area, but they were designed to connect articles relating to Oregon's history. If you want a region wide one, make one designed to do that. If you look at say California Gold Rush, you see there are multiple nav templates like this, as that event had a wide-ranging impact beyond just California.

Thus, the reason why 1890 was selected was due to that basically being the end of the pioneer era as the railroads began to better connect the state to the rest of the country. That also is about when the rapid population growth subsided from 80-90% growth down to what I'm guessing is about a 25% rate starting with the 1900 census, which to me marks a more maturing society. The starting point is when the Lewis & Clark Expedition ended, which marks the end of the celebrated exploration period and you then shortly thereafter start to see the fur traders move in. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As the missionaries were the only real interest I had I made separate template for them. Consider my hair splitting revoked. Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a bit more thinking, what about separate section for Indigenous leaders of this time period? Just having Chief Joseph seems odd, and I don't think the Native Oregon Template is appropriate either. Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our coverage of Native American topics is spotty and needs improvement but we should link more of what we have. Is this template limited to Euro-American pioneer history, however? In my mind that's what "pioneer" means. But of course there was interaction with the folks who were already here. Personally, my opinion only, now that we have so much coverage of missionaries, we need to up our coverage of Native people, to give them "equal time", as it were. How does that affect our template scheme? Valfontis (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was this template covered a time period of in the area of what became Oregon. In this period there were many personalities, up till the 1850s(40s?) the majority of the state was Native. To divide the region's history into separate templates among racial lines seems counter-intuitive. Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We already have to some extent: {{Oregon Native History}} but that navbox covers everything tribal related, not just the pioneer era. I'm not a big fan of navboxes personally, so others should weigh in, I just want to make sure we get more than Chief Joseph in the pioneer template if the definition isn't just "white people". Maybe we can just rename the template to not include the word "pioneer". I'm in no way suggesting we make the templates segregated though if breaking out separate sections helps people navigate topics they may be interested in then we should do that. Valfontis (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say add in more Native American history link to this template. This template was originally made about 8 years ago and has not been updated much in say the last 5-6 years, so there are likely some newer articles that could be linked to. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]