Talk:Mount Hood Village, Oregon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon. To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion. |
|
| PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week. | ||
| Stub | This page is rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article is rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | |
[edit] Merge proposal & possible rename
It appears that Mount Hood Village, Oregon and Villages at Mt. Hood, Oregon refer to the same place and the same governmental jurisdiction. I would propose that they be merged, and renamed Villages at Mount Hood, Oregon per naming and discussion guidelines and discussion at the MoS abbreviation talk page, and if necessary, the "official" census name indicated in the intro paragraph. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- They should actually be left separate and linked if necessary. The Villages at Mt. Hood is a local designation as defined by county code and voted upon by the residents which make up this part of Oregon.--Nino 16:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- The area being referred to as "Mt. Hood Village" is comprised of a series of small towns East of Mt. Hood along Hwy 26. This area is known by locals as the Hoodland Area, not Mt. Hood Village. Spaning over 20 miles from Alder Creek to Rhododendron along Hwy 26, Hoodland includes the towns of Brightwood, Mountain Air, Wemme, Welches, and Zig Zag. This area also includes Barlow Trail and Lolo Pass and is home to the Salmon River, Sandy River, and Zig River, and also Wildwood Park. The Resort at the Mountain is a popular golf resort located in Welches, and the Hoodland Area is fondly viewed as the gateway to Mt Hood.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.208.235 (talk • contribs) 04:25, April 13, 2007
-
-
- Merge. While the CDP and the County-designated village are strictly speaking different entities, they are ultimately different facts of the same community (or set of communities). Leaving them in separate articles diminishes the overall community. Ipoellet 04:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Cleanup
Is the above a consensus? Per Nino, who top posted so apparently his/her post didn't get seen, I don't necessarily agree with the now-complete merger, but since I didn't !vote, I'll leave that for now. In any case, the merger has left a mess in its wake, (each community now links to this article twice) and I'd encourge the pro merge folks to clean up! I tried to clarify in the intro how the two entities are separate (which just highlighted for me why the merger wasn't a good idea) but further clarification would be welcome. Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merged articles
While I don't feel strongly one way or the other—which is why I hadn't commented before—I have trouble following what distinctions there might be between Mount Hood Village, Oregon and Villages at Mt. Hood, Oregon. If I found a juicy fact, how would I know which article to add it to? The merger is helpful in this regard. —EncMstr 00:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
