Talk:Chemult, Oregon

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
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).

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Merger

Basically, unless something major happens, neither of these subjects are going to have a high level of importance and Chemult (station) is going to be a pretty minor train stop in Chemult (place) which is a going to be a pretty minor place by the side of the U.S. Route 97 in Oregon.

In fact, I'd bet that the train stop is one of the things that make the place notable and different from other places roughly its size along 97. And for an example of how minor the station stop is, see this posting, written by a person who has a good history of writing about Oregon transportation stuff (and is connected to a railroad historical society). However, a possibly major reason for the train stopping in Chemult is not Chemult but the bus connection Bend and Redmond. (OTOH, it is the place where the tracks start to leave Central Oregon for the Cascades crossing.) IOW, Union Station makes up a small piece of Portland, but that is not the same here, and probably not many Amtrak passengers (de)boarding here actually come from/go to Chemult. Jason McHuff 07:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example of merged article created at Talk:Chemult, Oregon/temp. Jason McHuff 08:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Having the train station info box on the Chemult page would be confusing and look cluttered. Katr67 05:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Katr67. The station article is very topic-specific and has the standard station infobox which would be out of place in the town article. --Oakshade 07:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It doesn't fit in the typical city page. It should remain as it is. --DP67 ^talk/_contribs 08:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand. I just think that this isn't a typical city. In fact, its not even a city--its not incorporated. Jason McHuff 19:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an east-coast resident, I can assure you that there are plenty of unincorporated towns on this side of the country(especially on Long Island) that have their own articles, which are separate from the articles on the train stations that exist within them. And the stations and the towns deserve to stay separated. Therefore I to Oppose the merge. ----DanTD 21:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your observations. However, I don't think that Long Island stations would be a good comparison given that:

a) there may be a lot of people in those unincorporated areas. Chemult could be called "a wide spot in the rural highway" with little development around it[1].

b) they probably have decent ridership with multiple trains daily. Chemult hosts one train each way per day and has roughly 1/3 of the ridership of next-busiest Oregon Amtrak station[2] (Oregon City has lower ridership, but Amtrak just started serving it in 2004 and neither the thruway bus that serves other stations in the corridor or the long distance Coast Starlight train stop there).

c) those stations can have a lot of history.

d) the areas may have a well-developed economy/history/etc independent of the railroad. It looks like Chemult's history is tied to the rails, and that Amtrak may be a big part of the community[3] (thanks to User:Katr67 for adding the info to the article). Jason McHuff 09:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since there doesn't seem to be an agreement to do the merge, I'm going to remove the templates. Also, I will admit that I don't know a lot about Chemult and the station. My info is based on other peoples' view of the minor-ness (see linked Usenet post) as well as occasional trips on the Coast Starlight and passing through town on the highway once. Lastly, (though this tidbit is not usable since it could be called "original research" and would need to be verified) I believe I've heard of the idea of building a log cabin station from none other than the state passenger rail manager. Jason McHuff 20:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chemult, Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905072556/http://www.waterforlife.net/Klamath/treaty_of_klamath_indians.htm to http://www.waterforlife.net/Klamath/treaty_of_klamath_indians.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]