Jump to content

Talk:Lovejoy Columns/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


RACC[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redlink for Rigga?[edit]

Resolved

YBG, thanks for adding a red link for the architectural collective Rigga. I do think they are notable. Currently "Rigga" redirects to Al Rigga, but I wonder if the redirect should be overridden with a short article about the group? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to think about how to apply the WP:DAB criteria. YBG (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and converted the Rigga redirect to a stub about the local group of artists, with a hat note at the top of the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Do[edit]

  • are these now considered outdoor sculptures? if so, amend categories appropriately
    • (I've not come across any sources referring to these as sculptures.) ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • year of construction for Lovejoy Viaduct? once known, add appropriate category for year of establishment  Done
  • included in Category:2006 establishments in Oregon b/c reconstructed and rested?  Done
  • picture of the Lovejoy Viaduct?  Done Thanks to User:SJ Morg!

---Another Believer (Talk) 21:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another to-do item:

  • Define what is meant by a "photo reconstruction". Can someone explain it in the article? YBG (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great question, and one I cannot answer… yet. I just went with what the source says, but I agree more specificity or explanation is needed. ----Another Believer (Talk) 00:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto that. I've got the viaduct construction narrowed down to 1920s. Stay tuned. Vintage Portland blog has tons of photos of the viaduct. Since the blog has been taken over by the City of Portland, it can also be counted as reliable source. I imagine the photos aren't copyrighted and/or the City will allow us to use them. Valfontis (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1927. The Broadway Bridge NRHP nom has info on the planning of the viaduct. Valfontis (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this edit, Valfontis. I was going to do the same. The source I started with used ramp, but more sources seem to refer to the viaduct. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • source for appearance in “Foxfire”
  • source for appearance in Gus Van Sant’s “Drugstore Cowboy”
  • source for appearance in an Elliot Smith video

---Another Believer (Talk) 02:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Using the Oregon Department of Kick Ass (Renwick's production company), at least until better sources are found. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramp vs. Viaduct[edit]

Resolved

I'm being pedantic, as many sources call the thing that was demolished a ramp, but it's really long, so the "flat" part is a viaduct. And it has access ramps. So who knows. No big whoop, but I thought we should be consistent. Maybe we should explain the modern usage of viaduct? See also Alaskan Way Viaduct. Valfontis (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of consistency, when we say Lovejoy Ramp or Lovely Viaduct, should ramp/viaduct be capitalized? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I neglected to read this before making an edit on this subject a few hours ago. So, a little belatedly, here are the reasons I changed Viaduct (where capitalized) to Ramp, in the first mention after the lead: First, I live in Portland and am old enough to remember that the thing was much more commonly referred to in speech and print as the Lovejoy "ramp" than as the viaduct, but it seemed widely implied that everyone realized the name was a bit of a misnomer, and that "viaduct" was a more accurate description of it, but this is not sufficient evidence for Wikipedia, I realize. Next, when I searched old Oregonian articles (via NewsBank) in the Multnomah County Library, in the pre-1987 archive, I got a lot more hits for "Lovejoy ramp" (capitalization is ignored there) than for "Lovejoy viaduct" (when placed in quotation marks to keep the words together). Most of the same articles also included the word "viaduct" in the text, for the reason I mentioned above, but never capitalized. Then, several of the articles I found from when the viaduct still existed (1999 and earlier) actually capitalized the R in Lovejoy Ramp. Although it's not possible to discern that from the headlines as given in NewsBank, since they annoyingly use all upper-case lettering, "Ramp" was also capitalized within the article text in those articles, making it clear that the media, at least, considered "Lovejoy Ramp" a name, not just a description. In the 15 years since the viaduct was torn down, it's not at all surprising that references to it as the Lovejoy "Ramp" in present-day articles have diminished, because a Lovejoy ramp still exists – a much shorter one starting at 9th – and because "ramp" was always a little misleading as a description, given that ramps don't usually run at the same level for several blocks. Last, I didn't find a capitalized "Viaduct" in any of the references already linked in this Wikipedia article (but didn't check them all thoroughly), whereas I did find several 1999 and earlier articles with "Ramp" capitalized, as mentioned. In any case, this is all relatively trivial, and I've probably already spent much more time thinking about it than I should have! If others feel it should be changed, that's probably fine, but I figured my edit that left it as "the Lovejoy Ramp, a ... viaduct ..." was logical. SJ Morg (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is very helpful, thanks. Should we change the lead to say "Lovejoy Ramp" or simply lowercase viaduct? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer "Lovejoy viaduct (also known as the Lovejoy Ramp)" in the lead, with subsequent references to simply say "the viaduct". I seem to remember 'viaduct' more than 'ramp', but then it's hard to get a count of google hits on my neurons. YBG (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: You didn't say whether you put quotation marks around "Lovejoy viaduct" or not, but if you didn't, then you definitely would have found more uses of "viaduct", but not as a name – as I mentioned in my earlier post here. However, I'm not averse to the idea of writing "Lovejoy viaduct (also known as the Lovejoy Ramp)".
@AB: I belatedly noticed that my edit left a little inconsistency with the article's first sentence, so I was already pondering the question you just asked. I think it should be changed to the same form as I used in the first post-lead sentence, to "Lovejoy Ramp, a viaduct ...". In addition to the findings I mentioned above, I just checked now and I find that even some of articles you found earlier and cited – such as the Walking Portland book and the 2004 Willamette Week article – write "Lovejoy Ramp", with a capital R. However, the wording and capitalization suggested by YBG would also be OK. SJ Morg (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I was referring to search results of old Oregonian articles, while YBG was referring to Google hits, and I'd like to point out that the latter are much, much more heavily skewed towards 21st century usage (see FUTON bias), whereas this viaduct existed only in the 20th century. SJ Morg (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the opening sentence to: "The Lovejoy Columns were a series of columns which once supported the Lovejoy Ramp, a viaduct to the Broadway Bridge from 1927 to 1999, located in the Pearl District of Portland, Oregon, United States." Feel free to make changes if needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored (in bold) the part I had in quotes that was inadvertently removed by SJM. The quotes I used surround the text I was suggesting, and have nothing to do with search parameters, be they Google or Oregonian. My reference to google hits had to do with a search of my little gray cells, which, so far as I know, are not yet accessible via any search engine this side of Glory. Or at least I hope not. YBG (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, YBG, does the current wording work for you? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should call it the "Lovely Viaduct" per AB, above. :) Seriously though, I'm glad to work with people who care about these things. Valfontis (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, jeez. Autocorrect... :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly made some changes, which don't quite conform to what that YBG-fellow suggested up above. Sigh. It is always easier to be opinionated until you actually have to craft an intelligent sentence. I didn't think it was necessary to mention that they were a 'series of columns', but I thought it best to qualify the Pearl lest it seem anachronistic. Feel free to revert or re-edit. YBG (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me! ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1927 vs 1928[edit]

Resolved

I wanted to add some info. on the Lovejoy viaduct to the Broadway Bridge article – it was on my to-do list for a few months already – but in the process of researching that a bit more this morning, I learned that most of the viaduct was not built until 1928, and none of it opened to traffic until late 1928. The section from Broadway to 10th and then south to 10th & Irving was built in 1927, but did not open until October 1928; construction of the long section between 10th and 14th didn't even begin until July 1928, and that section opened in December 1928. I added several details to the bridge's article, but for the Lovejoy Columns article the 1927-vs-1928 distinction is less important, so for now, I've simply changed one "1927" to "1927–1928". However, this may still need revision, because I seem to recall that some of the cited articles about the columns indicate that they were under the westernmost section, which wasn't built until 1928. If so, then 1927 and 1927–1928 should probably be changed to 1928. SJ Morg (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the article accordingly. I've not seen many articles with so many years of establishment, but I think the current scenario works. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. And I think it was a good idea to list three sets of years in the infobox. SJ Morg (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lovejoy_Columns/Archive_1&oldid=915663119"