Talk:List of ZIP Codes in Oregon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Oregon, a comprehensive WikiProject dedicated to articles about topics related to the U.S. state of Oregon. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or join by visiting the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.

The subject appears to be the same on "List of ZIP Codes in Oregon" and "List of 97 ZIP codes". I expect there are separate articles because seperate authors didn't know about the other. I suggest changing the latter to a redirect to the former. Also, I suggest the current version of my work in the latter become the contents of the former. EncMstr 16:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Concur with merge. Note that a mergeto banner is now on the 97 page. Dl2000 03:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Defunct zip codes

I am considering adding defunct zip codes to this list. I was going to differentiate those entries by italicizing them. Many localities that share zip codes (Tygh Valley/Wamic or Zigzag/Rhododendron) each had their own at one time. Any suggestions on how to make this clear, or does it need to be moreso than just with italics? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bdag (talk • contribs) 13:08, 11 May 2006 (PDT).

I've been grappling with a similar problem: the post office recognizes weird city names for some zip codes, but officially doesn't support them. (Well, it doesn't have to make sense, does it?) In their lingo, a city name is preferred, acceptable or unacceptable. For example, use usps zip code lookup for 97223. It lists Portland, sure enough. But it says "Tigard" is acceptable while "LAMBS GARDN HM CPU, OR" and "LAMBS ON SCHOLLS CPU, OR" are unacceptable. (CPU seems related to the mini post office in Lambs Thriftway—Community Postal Unit?)
The most promising solution seems to be footnoting ({{ref}} or <ref>). Another idea I don't like so much anymore is check marks in table columns. EncMstr 21:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone find out if 97329 (Cascadia) is defunct? It's a ghost town now (but for all I know the ZIP code remains in existence for people managing the site?) Sarge Baldy 04:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


As far as I know, Cascadia is still operating. Last time I drove by there, I saw a portable with '97329' displayed proudly on the side of the trailer. Even though the town is ghostly, there are still enough rural families for the post office to continue operating in the black. www.usps.com still recognizes it, though it could be a PO Box only locale.
I have finished the addition of all defunct zip codes that I know of, including editing a few current ones that have changed hands. The content took me months of scavenging (an ongoing project) and should be considered accurate, but feel free to adjust the formatting or technical wording. Please note that some post offices are still operable, but have scaled back to boxes only. Some zip codes are still operable, though no longer from the original post office. Bdag 05:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to say Hi and add that I like the idea of adding the defunct post offices. I am working for a state agency doing data entry of thousands of pieces of 50-year-old data and this includes the names of many, many defunct towns (post offices), which I started jotting down. Looking them up led me to Wikipedia and here I am. I'm hoping to add articles on some of the towns if they seem interesting enough. I'm also armed with Oregon Geographic Names. Happy editing! Katr67 00:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to the discussion. Please keep in mind that we are managing the zip codes themselves (which date back to 1963), not the post offices (which date to 1840's). A post office list would be extensive, especially given that there are hundreds of which were only open for a year or less. Bdag 20:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it. :) I meant to say "defunct ZIP Codes". My data (roughly from 1952-1957) doesn't have ZIP Codes, but most of these places seem to have received one when ZIP Codes were instated. (Many of these post offices are now closed, however.) Basically what I was saying is that in time, a lot of the redlinks on this list will go away because I will have been working on writing articles for them. Any remaining ZIP Code-free post offices may belong to List of cities in Oregon if there's enough on them to merit an article. Katr67 22:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah! In that case, have at it. I would be glad to assist in any way. Bdag 22:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref for Happy Valley, Damascus Zip Code change

From the Oregonian:[1]

I added the above July 1, 2006, and forgot to sign. Katr67 17:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gresham communities served by 97030, 97080

Do we really need all the neighborhoods of Gresham, Portland, Beaverton listed? I removed Mount Hood from 97030 since it conflicts with the town of Mount Hood. Bdag 20:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 97078

I believe FCNB is defunct (as listed under List of banks of the United States of America#Defunct banks 15), but USPS still lists the ZIP as "unique" [2]. Anybody know who is using the ZIP now? Is it a related company such as BB&T? Katr67 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hillsdale?

Should Hillsdale, Portland, Oregon be listed under 97201? Katr67 02:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No. 97201 was split a couple of years ago, all that portion south of Hamilton St. becoming 97239. Bdag 21:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I don't see Hillsdale listed under 97239 either, just Hillside. Is that a typo? Katr67 22:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed Hillside to Hillsdale under 97239, let me know if I was mistaken about that. Katr67 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll double check that one of these days if I can get off my lazy butt. The line between 97201 and 97239 is also a bit further north than Hamilton St. I believe it is around Canada. Bdag 00:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rockaway

Why is there an entry for both Rockaway and Rockaway Beach, there the same place and both links lead to the Rockaway Beach page. Is there a real reason I can't think of?Kingjoey52a 15:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Only that Rockaway Beach used to be called Rockaway and one of us (probably me) updated the link and not the pipe. I'll take care of it. (BTW, I'm not stalking you, I really do have all these things on my watchlist. Thanks for your input about your area!) Katr67 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formerly??

I'm not sure why formerly has been added to the 970 entries. The wording implies that that zip used to be the other communities, indeed not the case. As stated in the intro, each zip is listed with it's post office, followed by other significant communities that are served by the zip. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bdag (talk • contribs) 07:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

If you had checked the edit history you would have seen the note I added to the top of the list explaining the changes that I made. (I have reverted it):
Note: The first name or names listed under each ZIP Code are the "Actual City name" and any acceptable alternate names per the United States Postal Service. "Formerly" indicates that mail to these communities is to be addressed to the Actual City name for mailing purposes, though these localities may still retain their own geographic identity.
Per searches using the USPS site: http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/citytown_zip.jsp
The intro says: "In the list by ZIP Codes, multiple names separated by commas means either multiple communities and/or post offices are in the same ZIP Code, or the United States Postal Service recognizes several names for the area." Which is not quite the same thing as you say above; sorry if I've misunderstood you. Currently, if you search on the ZIP Codes, you will see that the USPS only recognizes one or two names for each area. My edits were attempting to clarify that issue. You cannot, for example, mail something to Clarno, Oregon--it gets addressed to Antelope instead.
I wish you had left the note before reverting the changes, because just doing the 970s was a lot of work. (I had planned to do the rest.) It kind of feels like you own this article, which I find discouraging, because many of my good faith efforts to organize it have been disputed by you. Anyway, I'm taking this off my watchlist, do what you will with it. Katr67 11:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps "formerly" isn't the right word. Also known as, historically, locally known as are some phrases which come to mind. Suggestions? — EncMstr 07:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I own the article, but I did put a lot of work into researching, formatting and refining it, as many others have. I think that the format of this article is obvious in the purpose that you are trying to clarify. The problem with adding 'formerly' to ALL the entries is that it is cumbersome and clutters the view. It's like trying to label every grain of sand as 'formerly a rock'. Pointless and a waste of time. Furthermore, many of what you have labeled 'formerly' never were post offices. For instance, Clarno never had a zip code, but it is a community served by that zip code. The problem with the 'formerly' theory is that not all of the communities under Beavercreek ever had a post office. Perhaps they should be deleted?

Another problem with the formerly is that this nomenclature has already been used in another way. For instance, 97008 is CURRENTLY Beaverton, but this zip code was FORMERLY assigned to Bonneville before it closed. The same goes for 97339. This zip code is CURRENTLY Corvallis PO Boxes, but it was FORMERLY assigned to McCoy before that branch closed to Dallas.

Likewise, I wish you had a left a note about adding formerly before you took all the time to trigger a controversy. I believe we need to come to a consensus before we both keep undoing each other's updates. Thank you for all your input so far. Bdag 23:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Katr67, After looking over the list and seeing what you are trying to achieve, I might offer up the phrase, 'also serving'. However, instead of trying to put this entry onto every applicable listing, we might consider writing this into the opening text so that it is clearer. That way you don't have to waste your time putting it on 400+ entries. I did not erase your 'formerly' on all entries, but I have made such an addition to the intro. Please review and see if this might be a good compromise. We might also consider putting the 'non-acceptable' entries in parentheses. Thanks. Bdag 23:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm on wikibreak so I may not fully participate in this discussion until later, but I did look at all the other state entries today and Oregon's is by far the most cluttered and complicated ZIP Code page of all the 50 states, even without my ham-handed efforts (though Kentucky has us beat for redlinks and weird placenames). List of ZIP Codes in Nebraska is the only one that addresses the "Actual City Name" issue and they have a handy table, which I think would be a good idea to emulate. I tried to look over the history of this article but I couldn't quite track who added all the extra city names or determine their source, as there are no citations. I'm not sure if there is someone who is invested in keeping all the city names served by each post office. Without a source, I'm not sure if it's just an artbitrary selection--there certainly hundreds *more* wide-spots-in-the-road that we could add under the "served by Foo, Oregon post office" criteria. What we have to ask is what this article is trying to achieve. If it is simply to be a useful list for people who would like to know the modern ZIP Code assignments, then I think the Nebraska approach would be a good one, and then yes, delete all the other city names. Since there seems to be an interest in which towns have historically been served by which post office, however, then perhaps we can add those to a table format, with a very clear explanation of what the names represent. I don't think it would make sense to split into a new article the historical content from the modern, but that might be another approach... Katr67 00:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Now THAT I can agree with. The neighborhoods and communities in general are too much clutter. Neighborhoods in larger cities are handy, but somewhat vestigial. I like Nebraska's thought, but the table format is a bit much. It doesn't have any love either :) However, I like their parenthetical format. Perhaps we could use: Main, Acceptable, (Unacceptable). And I agree with you on Kentucky. Bdag 00:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


I like the general concept of Nebraska's table, but agree it is ugly. I intend to make a beautiful version of it. The initial conversion is in User:EncMstr/Oregon ZIPs, but obviously has several deficiencies (to be addressed soon). Feel free to improve and experiment with it. — EncMstr 01:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King's Valley Post Office?

Can anyone tell me why the King's Valley Post Office closed out to Monmouth? It just seems more logical to me for it to have closed out to philomath.

See, that's your problem. You're trying to apply logic to a government agency. It could have just as easily been closed out to Dallas or Blodgett. Bdag 16:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes... I suppose you are right... but I read somewhere that it is the postal service's policy, that when they close a post office, to close it out to the nearest post office in the county (which King's Valley, Dallas, and Monmouth are in Polk County, and Philomath is in Benton County), unless there is a closer post office in another county, and Philomath is closer to Kings Valley than Dallas or Monmouth.

[edit] 97089 and other new ZIP codes

I've yet to find the ZIP code distribution map again, but last time I looked at it (from the Damascus city website), I remember 97089 belonging to the city of Damascus alone. Boring was given all of 97009 and Clackamas was given all of 97015. Although Carver is a recognized community, it is actually just another part of the city of Damascus, and never shows up on mail. Therefore, I believe Damascus should be the only city labeled to 97089, Boring should be the only city labeled to 97009, Clackamas should be the only community labeled to 97015, and Happy Valley should be the only city labeled to 97086. Unless it can be proven that other cities do overlap into these ZIP codes, which from what I can remember, none of them do. If someone can find that ZIP code redistribution map for the area, that would really help. LeviathanMist 20:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you go with the ZIP code search in the refs section, this is what you get for 97089:
Actual City name in 97089
DAMASCUS, OR
Acceptable City names in 97089
BORING, OR
So that is kind of the criteria the list is going with right now, erring on the side of inclusion. Granted, this list is a mess and there's an incomplete effort to clarify the difference between actual, acceptable and unacceptable city names. (See discussion above). Feel free to remove the disputed city names, I just ask that you comment them out <!--like this--> so we can keep track of them for future reference. If you'd like to help with the cleanup effort, let us know. It would be nice to see a big push towards getting this sorted out once and for all. Katr67 20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's the link to that map I was talking about - http://www.ci.damascus.or.us/References/zipCodeChange.pdf
Taking a second look at it, it doesn't really say anything about whether or not they overlap into different cities, but the map itself only labels one city/area per ZIP code. It is possible that small portions of certain cities may fall into different ZIP codes. (For example, I've known someone living on the southern border of Portland who had Milwaukie's ZIP code but was still considered part of the city of Portland). In general, these cases would be trivial though. LeviathanMist 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_ZIP_Codes_in_Oregon_e11c.html"