Talk:Great Highway

Stop the takeover

Whoever coming over to make these one sided edits. Stop it at once. It very toxic. Centralist2021 (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

As I've noted on Centralist2021's talk page, this comment is both unduly combative as well as lacking any substance (like whatsoever), so they are expected to do better from this point on. El_C 03:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Any editor interested in this article is welcome to make constructive proposals but disruption and edit warring will not be permitted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

A even compromise for roadway article Great Highway

The "even compromise" article plan were both sides of content would be trimmed to the lowest until a solid development. This can take month or years to see the solid result actually happening. All mentions of stats, unofficial nicknames "great walkway", lawmakers, mayor is no longer needed. All a reader need to know is the Great Highway opened to traffic right now or not open except for walking and biking . Simple fair compromise. Centralist2021 (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Maintaining NPOV/preventing edit warring

There are no citations provided for the assertion that there are “community concerns” or that reopening the roadway to cars is a “balanced compromise”. This is biased language (a classic example of WP:WEASEL) and my edit simply stating that the roadway has been partially reopened in spite of protests against it is neutral and accurate. It should not have been reverted. Furthermore, the sentence "The plan will also focus away to expand or improve Muni service on western side of San Francisco" is both grammatically incoherent and completely inaccurate (there is no such plan as of yet). Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 12:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted part of a commit that inserts the claim "75% of Richmond district residents who actually use the Great Highway to transit across the city supported keeping the Great Highway open to cars" since I can't find it in the cited source. This edit was made by Disconnectcommunity (account temporarily blocked) but substantially similar edits were made on 7 Dec 2021 by Cyssf and on 18 & 19 October by 24.5.148.235. --Drnugent (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

That "claim" of 75% of Richmond district residents comes directly from the D4 mobility study that has been used to justify the closure but they do not fully describe the details of the survey. It should be maintained. You have to look at the presenting materials from the D4 mobility forums held by the SFMTA. ([:cyssf|cyssf]]

"comes directly" is not correct. As Drnugent says, that statistic doesn't appear in the cited source. Find a better source or stop adding it. Jef (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Maintaining unbias page

We are not having pro closure spill into roadway Wikipedia page. Details about reopen closer to source and there no reason repeat the survey results.Centralist2021 (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Who exactly is 'we'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Enquiring minds want to know. Also, Centralist2021, once again, your comment here is too terse to be useful (i.e. it isn't substantive, still). El_C 16:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

A fair or balanced compromise plan was made to open up the road during weekdays. The edit for "reopening details" are accurate. Based off the original source https://sfmayor.org/article/city-reveals-next-phase-great-highway-start-august-16 This is just to get it started. The Great Highway (roadway) reopened to car traffic was very recent so expect some more sources popping up to help polish it out. I am up for a article compromise and absolutely not up for "no compromise " Centralist2021 (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, Centralist2021. Are you also up for answering mine and AndyTheGrump's query? El_C 21:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I not here to side with "closed great highway" team or "open great highway" team. The reopening details was part of recent status of this roadway. Centralist2021 (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

So, that's a no, then. Got it. El_C 21:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I already explained in the comment "It can me or other people who coming in to help polish and focus on "reopening Great Highway" section of article". I move it here.

a Wikipedia article must report both, not pick sides. Centralist2021 (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, not pick sides. The last link you provided above is a press release from the Mayor. I'm sure the Mayor thinks it is 'fair' and 'balanced'. Quite possibly other people do too. However, Wikipedia, per multiple policies established over many years, doesn't decide for itself what is 'fair' and 'balanced', if multiple reliable sources suggest that there is disagreement over the matter: which appears to be the case. The press release is dated August 5th. At least two articles published since then state that protests have continued. [1][2] There may be more sources. Or possibly more protests. Either way, Wikipedia needs to report what is actually happening, and not just what the Mayor wishes to be happening. And that would include the protests. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

That already under section of Great Highway closure to motorized traffic since that section mostly about closure. It also talks about survey results. On wikipedia is not WP:Battleground by the way. Centralist2021 (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

O.k. I give up. Since Centralist2021 is either incapable of communicating in comprehensible English at the level required to participate in this discussion, or is being intentionally obtuse, I can see no point in trying to discuss this with them further. I suggest that others, actually capable of engaging in a rational discussion, attempt to do so on this talk page, after doing more research on what other sources are available. I'd look myself, but being UK based, aren't best placed to find such sources since US media websites routinely block UK traffic, and since someone with local knowledge will probably be more familiar with the relevant media. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep. Ain't no one got time for that. My own intention, when the article unlocks, is to keep on doing neutral edits as I have been doing all along, while removing biased trolling from the likes of Centralist. I am glad to see others supporting this position, in my experience of Wikipedia it's unusual. Jef (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"when the article unlocks, is to keep on doing neutral edits" This means refusal to compromise and no reason to be uncivil by shooting rounds that are looking for compromise on the article.Centralist2021 (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see the section I created above. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 01:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. And the edit you were presumably referring to. [3] I don't really consider that neutral either. Stating that the Highway was partially reopened "despite protests from city residents against it" leads to obvious questions for an uninvolved reader (or at least it should). Starting with the major one: do we know what proportion of 'city residents' are for and against the current limited reopening? And what would they like to see instead? You can see 'protests' against almost anything, but just how significant are they? This seems to be a complex ongoing debate, involving multiple perspectives, and the article ought to be able to reflect that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I took the "despite protests" language directly from the news headlines I included as citations. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 02:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Barring San Francisco Chronicle sources from this page

As discovered one of article writer "Heather Knight" were heavily in support closing the road on social media platforms. So these related to San Francisco Chronicle sources best not to be used for Great Highway Wikipedia article only and content shall be removed. Especially when talking about statistics. Thank you. Centralist2021 (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Pfft, no. Jef (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That’s absurd. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 15:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You'd like to ban the city's main newspaper as a source about news in the city it covers because one of its opinion columnists has...an opinion? That's utterly laughable. Abyssinia H (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Productive edits

Protecting the page from vandalistic users is good of course, but it's also important to keep improving it. Glad to see people joining in to fix and add things instead of just fighting. Writ Keeper, Abyssinia H, GoingBatty, thank you. Let's keep it going. Jef (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)