 | A fact from Whites Bridge appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 December 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Possible reference
editwhat about this bridge in the movie beetlejuice? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.101.225.38 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Fixed Formatting
editGood article... fixed the whitespace under the "history" headline.--Dk69 01:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Formatting
editThe Layout still looks like utter crap at 1280x1024.. there are about 15 lines of whitespace under 'history'.. I do see the point about it looking bad at 800x600, but honestly who uses this resolution anymore? Maybe somebody better at formatting than I can fix this.--Dk69 17:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well!!! Lots of edits around the images. Thanks for the gallery try but I changed it back. I won't go back to the moving pics back and forth but I'm a bit of a fan of having all the pics on one side. The pics are all relevant to the article and their captions make points that go with where I originally placed them. Thoughts? Note that if there's a solution here, it probably should be done to Ada Covered Bridge also originated by me and somewhat similar in how its images are laid out. Thanks as well for your kind words about the article, I'm rather proud of it. ++Lar: t/c 05:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ada Covered Bridge looks fine at my resolution. Personally its just probably nitpicky on my end. It may flow a little bit better if you place the images before the "==History==" headline instead of after. This will place the whitespace after the end of design, and still keep everything lined up basically the same way. Did you mean to leave out the WhitesBridge FlatRiver Marker Dscn9971crop.jpg? To me it seems relevant. Why the hate for the gallery application? It makes things a lot cleaner IMO. I'll let you make the edit if you want... There's bigger fish to fry!--Dk69 05:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I just reverted to the most recent change before the gallery... my original layout was a lot different, but I figured if a lot of people had tried different things I wasn't going to go all the way back to square 1. I'll take a look and see if some pic is missing or not. The marker may or may not be that important since it is text that is reproduced in the article. (I could go either way) Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ada Covered Bridge looks fine at my resolution. Personally its just probably nitpicky on my end. It may flow a little bit better if you place the images before the "==History==" headline instead of after. This will place the whitespace after the end of design, and still keep everything lined up basically the same way. Did you mean to leave out the WhitesBridge FlatRiver Marker Dscn9971crop.jpg? To me it seems relevant. Why the hate for the gallery application? It makes things a lot cleaner IMO. I'll let you make the edit if you want... There's bigger fish to fry!--Dk69 05:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I am going to revisit this a bit. Due to the recent arson, this page is getting more traffic. I think the layout should go pretty much just the opposite of what it is, that is it should go: History, Current Use, Design. Also, I know you guys futzed around with the pictures quite a bit to get a smoother looking article, but would anyone object to putting the pics where they logically belong in the article? That is, the marker with its text and the two views of design elements with the design section? If no-one objects, I'm gonna have at it later tonite. Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would support a more sensible arrangement. While we're at it, the two references to michmarkers should be combined (they point at the same webpage) and changed to use the official http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/hso/sites/6880.htm, which also happens to hold slightly more information. Chris857 (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I tweeked it around a bit. The "Current use" section was just modern history, so I merged it word for word into the history section. I am not married to the design. If anyone else wants to shuffle it, feel free. I suppressed the table of contents since it is a small article anyway. With it there was a ton of white in the lede section no matter how I juggled things. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- The bridge no longer exists. It was destroyed in an apparent arson on 7/7/2013. This article needs updating with this information. "Whites Bridge was a covered bridge in.." A section could be added about the arson with information collected and there are many articles that could be cited to provide the information. These two were published today on MLive.
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/07/whites_bridge_1-yr.html http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/07/whites_bridge_investigation.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.5.36 (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)