Template:Did you know nominations/Reilly Creek


 * 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 13:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Reilly Creek, Mill Creek (Reilly Creek)

 * ... that Reilly Creek is the shortest named stream in the Nescopeck Creek watershed?
 * ALT1:... that Reilly Creek is the shortest named stream in the Nescopeck Creek watershed and is considerably shorter than even its own tributary, Mill Creek?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Leishu, Template:Did you know nominations/Bárid

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 00:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC).


 * Wait. "Stony Creek" has a shorter name than "Reilly Creek", so Reilly Creek isn't, after all, the shortest named. EEng (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , the stream doesn't have the shortest name. ("Mill Creek" even is shorter.) The creek is the shortest such passage with a name in the watershed. So I propose:
 * ALT2: ... that Reilly Creek, the shortest stream in the Nescopeck Creek watershed with a name, is considerably shorter than even its own tributary, Mill Creek?
 * Epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT2 works for me. I've added Mill Creek to the nomination. If a QPQ is required for it, I'll do one soon. --Jakob (talk)  21:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure myself, but you can do a second QPQ to be on the safe side. Epicgenius (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I do hope you realized I was joking. How about this?
 * ALT2A: ... that while Reilly Creek is the shortest named stream in the Nescopeck Creek watershed, its tributary Mill Creek is the shortest named?
 * ALT3B: ... that Reilly Creek and Mill Creek are, respectively, the shortest named and shortest-named streams in the Nescopeck Creek watershed?
 * ALT3C ... that in the Nescopeck Creek watershed the shortest-named stream, Mill Creek, feeds the shortest named stream, Reilly Creek?

Personally I think 3B is best. We should never pass up an opportunity to educate the public about compound adjectives. EEng (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Mill Creek has 9 letters. Long Run has 7, Falls Run has 8, and Scotch Run, Barnes Run, Woffs Run, Gravel Run, Oley Creek, and Conety Run all have 9. --Jakob (talk)  22:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * QPQ done. Template:Did you know nominations/Eystein Olafsson. --Jakob (talk)  23:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (NB: For some reason, I didn't get the joke. But then again, I was zoned out before. Carry on...) Epicgenius (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Even better. This way we can present the Long and the short of it:
 * ALTX ... that in the Nescopeck Creek watershed the shortest named stream is Reilly Creek, the shortest-named Long Run?

Yes, it's grammatically correct (compare "In the divorce she got the house, he the business", though some would prefer a dash: "She got the house—‌he the business.") and it's designed to make the reader stop and puzzle a bit to figure it out. "Whah... uh... what?" Would be great if you can throw together a Long Run (Pennsylvania waterway) article. EEng (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's better. Epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

On reconsideration the ellipsis is too puzzling, so I've struck ALTX.
 * ALT4 ... that in the Nescopeck Creek watershed the shortest named stream is Reilly Creek, but the shortest-named stream is Long Run?

EEng (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If I went with this, I'd have to mention the fact about Reilly Creek in the article on Long Run and vice versa, and I can't really think of an excuse to do that. It'd look somewhat odd and might lead to some people exerting on the hook a force that acts in the direction of the force. For that reason, ALT1 or ALT2 is best in my opinion. --Jakob (talk)  17:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you fill in the cite-needed in this edit you're all set. Take it from me, ALT4'll get 10,000 clicks. EEng (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with that, too. We need a Long Run article, don't we? ALT4 would be even better than one. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if you look at the diff in my previous post, you'll see the Reilly article gives everything you need for the hook (even though it's a bit of an odd fact to have there, and it might even get deleted after the DYK appearance, that doesn't really matter -- it's harmless to leave long enough to support the hook's appearance), so a Long Run article isn't strictly necessary. But this nom could just go on hold for a while until a Long Run article is ready, if preferred. EEng (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's also a good option to consider. Epicgenius (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * ALT5 ... that in the Nescopeck Creek watershed the shortest named stream is Reilly Creek, but the shortest-named stream is Long Run (and there are two Little Creeks)? EEng (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Side note to Jakec: I think it's great that you're getting all these waterways written up -- it's a great example of how someone with a special interest makes a special contribution. However, now that I look at the source material, I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense, rather than having a separate article for each creek, to have one article for each watershed, with a section for each creek/stream etc. (Not all creeds/streams would need the same level of treatment -- some could have "stub sections".) That way, you could also (maybe later) include integrating/overview material on what feeds what, pollution sources and what happens to pollutants as they move downstream, etc. I think this would give the interested reader a much better way to find out about a given watershed. Just a thought. (And, yes, it would mean 1/5 as many articles so maybe 1/5 as many DYK credits, but I don't think that's what you're after, is it?) EEng (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Re ALT5, I will soon (after this is done) make an article on Little Nescopeck Creek (not this one, but the other one) and nominate that for DYK with its own hook. As for merging the tributaries into one article, I tend to be a pretty strong inclusionist, so I'd hesitate to merge articles that can stand on their own, as these can in my opinion. However, I do sometimes write brief overviews of the tributaries of large creeks, such as List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek. I'll do a similar list for Nescopeck Creek once all the tributaries have articles. --Jakob (talk)  21:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with that silly old inclusionist/deletionist dichotomy -- it has to do with what best serves the reader's understanding. These creek articles are 500 words each, and the (say) 10 of them in one watershed would fit very comfortably in a single 5000-word article; for a reader who just cares about one creek that's just as convenient (simply jump to the section on that creek) but for someone wanting an overview of the watershed, or to understand the relationship between Creek A and Creek B, it's much better. It seems to me an integrated article has lots of positives and no negatives. EEng (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There would actually be 16, two of which are much longer than 500 words and have the potential to be GA. I certainly wouldn't want to merge those. In general, I don't like articles that look like several smaller articles one after the other under the same title. It'd look a bit disjointed. In general, I think readers expect to find one article not several when they go to a specific page. And for those who do want a quick overview of all the tributaries, List of tributaries of Nescopeck Creek will be blue within the next few weeks or so. --Jakob (talk)  17:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Review request for the article. The wall of text is a hook discussion. Feel free to dive in and pick one. Fuebaey (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please use this hook: ALT6: ... that Reilly Creek is one of the shortest named streams in the Nescopeck Creek watershed and is considerably shorter than even its own tributary, Mill Creek? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakec (talk • contribs) 00:00, 3 December 2014‎
 * If we don't use one of the shortest named / shortest-named hooks, I'm gonna cry. You don't to see my cry, do you? EEng (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg hook cited - fact seen in source. No paraphrasing seen (easy as alot of material in source not in sentences). good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So you've decided to make me cry, have you? You heartless fiend! EEng (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)