Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/K Street Bridge

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

K Street Bridge

[edit]
(
)

The K Street Bridge in 1993

* ... that when the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway (pictured) in Washington, D.C. was constructed, almost all the nearby crossings of Rock Creek were replaced for aesthetic reasons?

  • ... that the M Street Bridge (pictured, extreme top) is said to be haunted by a stagecoach driver and horses killed when the old bridge collapsed in a storm?
  • ... that the Pennsylvania Avenue Bridge (pictured, top) originally used operational water mains as its principal load-bearing arches?
  • ... that the L Street Bridge (pictured, center) does not carry or cross over L Street?
  • ... that the K Street Bridge (pictured) in Washington, D.C., for decades contained unused ramps intended to connect to the unbuilt Inner Loop Expressway?

Created by Antony-22 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC).

  • Note: I'm not sure if anything like this has been done before, but while making articles about unimaginatively-named and often closely-spaced bridges over Rock Creek, I noticed there was a rare opportunity to have five hooks referencing the same photograph. I've added two more to make a complete set. If possible I'd like this to go up on June 4, the 79th anniversary of the completion of the Rock Creek Parkway. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting submission. I am with you on trying out this innovative structure for the five articles that use the picture. I am not convinced to make a boring-bridges-only hook set, though. I think it would be best to split off Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway Bridge near P Street and Shoreham Hill Bridge and treat them as one or two separate nominations. I also think that the 'pictured' in the hooks should be more specific, e.g. pictured, centre for L Street Bridge. I also think that the DYK rule "picture must occur in the article" has to be fulfilled for all five articles in the hook set. Please let me know what you think. So far I have checked:
    1. K Street Bridge created on April 19, sufficiently long, picture does not occur in the article. Further, the picture does not depict the original version of that bridge, as the hook suggests, but a much more recent one. It should thus be reflected in the hook what exactly is pictured here. --Pgallert (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    2. L Street Bridge created 20 April, sufficiently long, picture is in the article. Hook should be changed to (pictured, centre) or something like this. --Pgallert (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    3. M Street Bridge 5x expanded on 23 April, sufficiently long. The picture does not occur in the article. Please also clarify if indeed the vicinity of M street is pictured here, or a fraction of M Street itself. --Pgallert (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    4. List of crossings of Rock Creek created 23 April, sufficiently long. Picture does not occur in the article. It should be stated in brackets which of the streets is the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway that is supposed to be in the picture. --Pgallert (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    5. Pennsylvania Avenue Bridge 5x expanded on April 24, sufficiently long. Picture does not occur in this article. Also here should be stated in brackets which of the streets in the aerial picture it is. --Pgallert (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    6. Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway Bridge near P Street I don't think this should be part of the hook set, as it does not relate to the picture. --Pgallert (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    7. Shoreham Hill Bridge I don't think this should be part of the hook set, as it does not relate to the picture. --Pgallert (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the extensive comments. I thought it might be odd to have five hooks on the same topic and then have the last two or three be different, so I wanted to have the option of just having an all-bridge set. If consensus is to split the last two hooks off I'm open to that. Also, I think that under these circumstances it doesn't make sense to have the same image in all five articles; it's already in two. I actually went back and forth on whether to add (pictured, top) etc. so I've added them back. I've also switched out the K Street hook for another one about the current bridge. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As someone who's been around DYK for a while, I can assure you that the proposed set is never going to happen. See WP:DYKSG#Rules of thumb for preparing updates, rules J2, J3, and J4. We only do sets of a single topic for special occasions such as Christmas or International Women's Day, and even then, the "topic" is broad enough that there are still hooks covering quite a variety of subjects. (And, no, the 79th anniversary of the completion of the Rock Creek Parkway is not such a special occasion.) We should generally not have any set containing more than one hook about bridges, and certainly never a set composed entirely or mostly of such hooks. You can make one or more multi-article hook(s); otherwise, the single-article hooks should run with just one in any given set. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • However, this really is a special case. For one, a multi-article hook does not work here because it would have to contain the word pictured five times. Further, I think there is no rule preventing a picture from reappearing at DYK, so what you are asking is to run the same picture five times, over a period of possibly several weeks. Would it then not really be better to sacrifice hook set diversity one single time? --Pgallert (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I am most definitely not asking to run the same picture five times. Although pictures can appear more than once on DYK, there should be a reasonable period of time between such appearances, and it would be a lot longer than several weeks. If these hooks run individually in separate sets, at most one would be a picture hook. I would have no objection to a multi-article hook having more than one different (pictured), as long as it fit within the multi-article hook length limit. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Antony-22 and Pgallert: The nomination is stalled because of the above issue. Like Mandarax, I have not come across a multi hook nomination spanning the whole DYK template but if you are dead set on this structure, I would suggest that someone ask over at WT:DYK for a broader consensus. Else alternative solutions could be to propose a multi-article single hook or split this into separate submissions. Fuebaey (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Chiming in to say that I can't imagine that one person will be allowed to take over an entire set. You can ask at WT:DYK, but the DYK rules are pretty clear, as Mandarax notes. These will have to be handled as separate hooks, unless you want to combine some into one or more multi-article hooks (L Street bridge could be added to another's hook, for example). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm totally willing to split out the Bridge near P Street and Shoreham Hill Bridge hooks that are unrelated to the image. I'd rather keep separate hooks for the rest because each hook has an independently interesting fact, and combining them into one hook would be either overly long (about 400 characters even when not counting the extra article names and (pictured)s) or would lose the interesting facts and become bland. I think that having five hooks for one image is a fresh idea, and the rules are not meant to be used to suppress innovation.
Complete reviews required. I'll be working on the additional QPQs soon. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it's an innovative idea, but will not have widespread interest as do our April Fool's Day or International Women's Day or other theme prep sets. It was also confusing to me what the (pictured, top), (pictured, center), (pictured, bottom) was referring to; I had to look very closely at the thumbnail image to figure it out, and I don't think casual readers will give it even that much chance. I suggest you run with one hook and the image on June 4, and leave the other ones for insertion, without images, at later dates. Hooks 2-8 ones are all short and hooky, just what we're looking for to spice up the humdrum prep sets that we're building lately. Yoninah (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Restored the original size of the thumbnail; DYK images are required to be 100x100px without exception. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, if people are offended by the novelty of multiple hooks for one image, I suppose they could be condensed into this single hook, which is still slightly long at 225 characters not counting extra article titles, italicized text and ellipsis. I suppose I could also crop the bottom of the picture to make the bridges clearer. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • It's not everyday that a multiple hook reads so much better as individual hooks. Each one is a quirky in its own right, and will get many more hits appearing on its own. Yoninah (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I mean, they're going to take up the same space whether run as individual hooks in the same set or spread out, so I don't see why they can't be grouped with the same image. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, separate hooks would take more space. White space, that is. --Pgallert (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems that neither the long break nor the suggested request for input on WT:DYK yielded any definite result. Should we ask a so far uninvolved editor to close the discussion on whether five bridges, one picture, is possible at DYK? And particularly to clarify whether 'no consensus' would mean to run, or not to run, the hooks at once? Alternatively, shortening ALT1 to 200 chars seems not impossible, either. --Pgallert (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I am willing to continue the review of each article. My preference is for one to run with the picture, and the rest to run as individual nominations. Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Of the people who have commented who are not the nominator, three have objected to them running in a single set, and one has not. (I can't tell where the fifth stands.) There has not been interest in making an exception, and I think there would need to be consensus for that exception to go against the standard methods of assembling prep sets. Absent such a consensus, I would be unsurprised that if five were promoted together, they didn't end up being broken up either in prep or in queue. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Why would you discount the nominator's opinion? As it should normally be the case with such discussions, closers are not counting heads but evaluating arguments. The argument here is 1) There is no rule against re-running a picture although all agree it would be a bad idea, 2) the combined hook reads awkward and doesn't include List of crossings of Rock Creek, simply because the 5 articles / 5 structures have not much interesting in common other than being in each other's vicinity, and 3) the suggested method is an elegant way of running all five hooks with pictures, and promoting all five articles with their own different stories, something that would hardly be possible in any other manner. --Pgallert (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Pgallert:, don't you see that you've written some amazingly hooky hooks that would just get lost (and get progressively fewer hits) when placed in a multi-hook? As a prep builder, I would jump at the chance to use the M Street and L Street hooks as the quirky (last) one in a set (spreading them out over a few days, of course). These hooks are far better than most of the pickings on the noms page, and would be a shame to waste in a multi-hook. Yoninah (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Striking ALT2 as uninteresting; since hooks are supposed to be interesting, this is a non-starter. It's also not helpful: the choices are clearly to run the individual hooks separately—I can't imagine that the picture would be used more than once in that case, since in the past the same picture appearing in different nominations about a month apart was not used a second time—or run them in a single set. As for discounting the nominator's opinion, that wasn't the intention at all: he has made a novel request that goes against standard DYK policy, and of the several people reviewing the request, only one is in favor. This is hardly the first idea that hasn't prospered, but as Yoninah notes, the individual hooks should do just fine on their own. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather keep the hooks together either way, though I'm willing to split out the first hook. The other four are quite short and refer more directly to the picture. IMO the people who have expressed concerns about running the multiple hooks together have only weakly opposed it, saying that they think unnamed others wouldn't support it or that it's against the letter of the rules, without making a substantive case why running the separate hooks together is bad. Is anyone willing to oppose this on the merits? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm frankly tired of this: the hooks are not going to be promoted as a group. The answer is no. It may not be the answer you want to hear, but it's the answer based on DYK practice. Let's move on and get them approved for promotion one by one, or shut down the nomination if you're unwilling to allow this to happen. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that a novel idea is being dismissed for "just because" reasons, but I accept that it can't progress if no one can be found who's willing to actually review and approve it. How about ALT1? Rule C3 says that a multi-article hook may be slightly longer than 200 characters "if it is reasonably compact and readable." Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned above, you are wasting great hooks by smashing them all together. Please open up 4 new templates for the 4 hooks after the first one, and I'll be happy to review them. Yoninah (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
That might be because you Antony-22 (talk · contribs) and I started in a different Wikipedia decade when, very occasionally, an exception would be made to an existing rule. That time is clearly over. --Pgallert (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Fine, you can separate them. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  • OK, I did that. I moved the image to Template:Did you know nominations/M Street Bridge because I felt that the hook combined with the image would get a lot of hits. If you disagree, please let me know. I will take my name off the nomination credits when I review each hook. Yoninah (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Reviewing K Street Bridge: New enough, long enough, adequately sourced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen. However, the hook fact needs an inline citation right after that sentence. I looked through footnote 3 but couldn't find the information; please point me to the right page. QPQ done. Yoninah (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It is in ref. 4: "Provisions in the 1960s were made at the interchange with the Whitehurst Freeway for the North Leg Freeway. Unused ramps here were demolished when the Whitehurst was reconstructed in the late 1990s." They are also mentioned on pp. 13 and 126 of ref. 3, which was written before they were demolished.
I don't think M Street is the best use of the image, since that bridge is barely visible at the extreme top of the image. I think the Crossings of Rock Creek hook is a better use of it. There are better images of the individual bridges that can be used if you think it would be warranted. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Antony–22, by all means supply better free images if you'd like, and to as many of the individual nominations as you feel appropriate. There's no guarantee that they will run, but having images in more nominations increases the odds that one of them will. Feel free to reassign the original image as you'd prefer. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, now I see it. Hook ref verified and cited inline. I added the location to the hook. K Street Bridge good to go. Yoninah (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I just noticed that you added an image. The image is pd. I added "(pictured)" to the hook. Yoninah (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/K_Street_Bridge&oldid=666871403"