Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/400 SW Sixth Avenue

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 12:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

400 SW Sixth Avenue

[edit]
(
)

Corner of 400 SW Sixth

Created by Aboutmovies (talk). Self nominated at 06:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC).

  • Thanks, Aboutmovies. The alt hook is overwhelmingly preferable to me. I can't get excited about carpet, however large in a given jurisdiction, especially carpets that are "believed to be" something (by whom?). I will give it a "yes" vote if the alt hook is used. The article is new enough, long enough, within policy, nice free image. Woz2 (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Reviewer has since vanished. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • New enough, long enough, well-referenced, AGF on mostly offline sources. The article is interesting and neutrally written. I actually prefer the original hook as something new and different for DYK; I added a link to Fitted carpet. Hook ref AGF and cited inline. Image is pd. QPQ done. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Hook was pulled from prep by EEng because the article's "was believed to be" is not "was". (Further explanation at WT:DYK#Carpet bombing.) Perhaps ALT1 could be restored? There may have been issues other than preference that led its being struck; if not, then the strikeout could be undone or a new hook proposed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
See a point I made here [2]. EEng (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • After reading the article and observing that most of the sources are not accessible to me for review, I suggest the following reworded hook:
I don't believe it's necessary to include "at that time" because that is connoted by the past tense verb in "was believed to be". --Orlady (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
"Believed to be", unattributed, is a bad idea -- it's even unattributed in the article, and in the source, which carries no byline, suggesting it's based on a press release. See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Carpet_bombing EEng (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • So if you think the hook wording is wrong, start with the article (because the hook needs to be based on the article), and change "believed to be" to "said to be", since "said" is the word that was used in the source that Aboutmovies describes.
Excuse me for trying to advance the process here by making constructive suggestions! I don't happen to admire people who build up their egos by cutting down everyone around them -- while obstructing progress. --Orlady (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
"Said to be" is exactly the same as "believed to be". Just because I point out that a given hook has a problem doesn't make me responsible for fixing it. The nom and reviewer are in a much better position to do that. It's not progress to promote hooks that make WP look silly, such as one offering an unknowable "biggest" claim apparently coming from an old press release. EEng (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
In an encyclopedia article, the words "said to be" without an indication of the speaker would be a case of weasel words, but DYK hooks aren't articles (among other things, hooks don't include reference citations), so the lack of attribution in the hook is not an issue. It's clear from the article that this statement appeared in the Oregonian newspaper in 1959 -- accordingly, the Oregonian is at least one entity that "said" this. Claims like this one are inherently unprovable (because no authority keeps track of things like the sizes of carpets in the Pacific Northwest), but they are worthwhile fodder for DYK because they are interesting. For DYK, we should avoid misrepresenting this sort of statement as objective fact, but there's nothing wrong with reporting that the statement was made. --Orlady (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I discuss the very points you make at the link I posted a bit above. It would really help if you would absorb what's already said in the discussion.

Again, since "believed to be" is essentially meaningless, it only becomes interesting if you can put it in the mouth of someone, or attribute it to a source, in a way that makes the claim worth mentioning. Otherwise we're just repeating throwaway claim made by no one in particular. EEng (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Aboutmovies, can you please give us the actual text of what the Oregonian article has to say about the carpet's size? Please include any actual quote about the size if there is one. (Don't include a huge swath, but a couple of sentences should be fine.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Carpet bombing. It goes on to the give the dimensions. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, since you want the hooks re-introduced, there they are. BTW, I did not say the article was a press release. I said it likely started due to one, which is very common in the news business. That is usually how the news works, a company or person sends out press releases, and then the media pick up on it. Sometimes the media does a whole story and sends out a reporter, other times they basically just re-word the press release. Either way, it is still a story.
  • Also, about the byline, that is my assumption, but keep in mind bylines are a more modern item, as older newspapers used to not use them (see byline for a real brief note on this). In my experience, the 1950s were still a transition time, and many articles in The Oregonian still lacked them. In fact, every pre-1980 source used in the Wikipedia article lacks a byline.
  • Or to put it another way, lets say it was not started due to a press release. Well, the reporter needs to get information from somewhere, so they are going to go to their best source, the company, who would then give them the same information. And as noted above and at the carpet bombing, for something like this there would be no way to fact check as to the carpet claim. Not to mention, its not exactly important, as no war in the Balkans is going to break out because someone else has the same claim. Seattle is not going to raise an army and march on Portland over this. Maybe they raise an army to steal our NBA team, but not over carpet, even if size matters. Aboutmovies (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that given the other kinds of problems we often have with hooks, this really has taken up way too much time. Personally I think the 5-to-11 floors is more clickworthy. EEng (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
In my time at Wikipedia, I've learned that it is fairly common for additional stories to be added to a commercial building, and for multiple buildings to be linked (or separated). So for people who are interested in buildings, that might be a ho-hum item. --Orlady (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
EEng, the tore down one building and built the 1st 5 story one, then once that was done moved the bank to that one and tore down the old bank building. Then the built the 2d 5 story one next to it, and when done connected the two. Then decades later added the extra 6 floors.
Otherwise, neither hook is exactly Hook Hall of Fame material, as unless prostitutes or one eyed people built the thing, its not exactly the most interesting subject. So I don't think it matters much as to which hook. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I prefer ALT2. EEng (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There is probably a better hook to be found, but I find myself asking if a building of this type is really notable. It's sourced virtually entirely to one local publication, The Oregonian, the other cites being merely to sale announcements or in one case what appears to be a sort of promotional wiki. Are we going to have an article on every one of the millions of nondescript corporate buildings on the planet? Gatoclass (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not the proper forum for such a discussion, AFD is where this needs to go if you have an issue as to notability. However, for the millionth time, The Oregonian is not a local paper; it is a major regional daily newspaper that we consider a regional source (kind of like the LA Times despite the title is a regional, if not national paper); same for the Portland Business Journal. And Emporis is used all the time for buildings, that's why there is even a template {{emporis}}. And frankly, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT is there a problem why we wouldn't have articles about every "nondescript corporate building[] on the planet" that meets the notability requirements? That is one of the reasons we have the notability criteria, to limit the subjective thought process and base decisions more on objective criteria. Honestly, here you are dealing with a $30 million property, and though it was built for less decades ago, when you have that amount of capital being thrown around, people (AKA the media) take notice, which leads to notability. To take it even further, we do not have the notability requirement as some sort of gatekeeper like a bouncer at a club and only let in the cool people or hot people. No, the purpose was to ensure articles meet WP:V, eliminate hoaxes, and ensure we have enough material for a decent article, no matter how uncool the topic. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, it's a regional paper - though IIRC that didn't stop an article I defended some time ago from being deleted for being sourced almost solely to that same paper. As for Emporia, I have my doubts about it as a genuine RS for a number of reasons, but given that it appears to be established on the wiki it would probably prove difficult to challenge its status now (but does this mean that all half million of the buildings in its database are going to end up with an article here?). Regardless, I think you are correct that this is not an appropriate forum for resolution of such issues - I just thought it was worthwhile asking the question. At this point I think I'll just do what I originally intended, which was to propose an ALT.
  • New review needed of ALT4 hook, and possibly another look at the earlier ones. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT4 is fine (the other carpet-based hooks fail to mention the time for "at that time" or "newly built"; the other hook on the five/eleven stories has a problem in that the article says it was a six story building in the lead but never explains where the additional story came from). Other criteria already reviewed by Yoninah and she knows her stuff. The picture is a fine example of a generic office building, so usable if there is not a photo of a pirate on a unicycle fighting a tiger that can take the picture slot. Belle (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/400_SW_Sixth_Avenue&oldid=1021555151"