Talk:Metro Walk

message: After seven days, the discussion (which I might add did not have to be done) resulted in two people saying the article was not notable apart from other articles against only one saying it was. Merged Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop skirting around the facts, these are sources in major newspapers and other media. Those are the sources I am talking about. It meets GNG by far. The sources are only about Metro Walk. This village is not the train station. It is not owned by BART. So it shouldn't be merged with the station.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, not "by far".  Second, bare notability does not mean "automatic keep in an article all to itself".  Notability isn't always relevant in a merge discussion; a topic can be notable and still be merged Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's notable due to non trivial coverage in multiple sources per GNG. This thread is about whether to merge it with an article about a subway station not on its notability.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If notability stems from the subway station then it is not really notable; it just has due weight with regards to the subway station article.  IRWolfie- (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This thread is again about whether or not to merge. Secondly it's not, it's notable on its own. It simply is located next to a station, like millions of other buildings and structures are located next to stations.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

text: *Comment - I'm unaware of any archive or its removal. As this merge proposal has received a request for comment (RFC), the typical time allowed for editors to respond is thirty days, per Wikipedia:Requests for commentEnding RfCs. Please be patient and allow time for other editors to respond to the RFC. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, there appear to be a few anachronisms in what you've said...but that's really more to this being out-of-date/relying on out-of-date references more than anything.  You portray the development as novel; having done some study of T.O.D., I must point out that it's not...almost every mass transit project nowadays has some sort of mixed-used T.O.D....and in most cases those projects don't (and shouldn't) have their own articles; instead they are mentioned in the articles on the respective lines or stations they are associated with (also, "planned community" is stretching it...at 16 acres, the project is dwarfed by even a medium-sized shopping mall).  I also contest you divorcing the project from the station...it was built in the station's parking lot and because the station was there.  And "I'd like to live there" isn't a particularly good reason...I too would like to live in a T.O.D., but that doesn't make this or any other of the hundreds of developments of a few hundred units erected every year notable Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, out of date information also known as history is paramount. I.e. elections results from 1988, the minimum wage in 1970, the cost of the first Model T car. So the pricing shows that this is not a trailer park nor are these mansions, it gives the reader an idea of the socio economic factors at play here as reported by the press. This particular development is novel. It is the first one in the Bay Area and it is the only one that I know of that comes with the concept of built in business space on the ground floor of the house. It's part of the actual house not a separate unit of commercial space on the ground floor mind you. The houses come with a free business license included to spur economic development. That fits the definition of novel very well. This project although touted as the Richmond Transit Village is its own creation. It was only partially built on a former BART parking lot, most of it was built on former open space. It was also built because the sewer lines and street was there, but that does not mean we should merge with East Bay Municipal Utility District or Macdonald Avenue. It is absolutely a planned community of very high density. The latter reasons were opinion and not part of his actual argument, he was using it to help explain the mindset of why such a thing would be important to a reader.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See below thing about trying to lecture me on history, and please read WP:NOT.  And the only one you know of?  C'mon, I can probably name several in Los Angeles and a couple in Portland.  To say nothing of the fact that the concept of T.O.D. is a century old; the first T.O.D.s were streetcar suburbs, which existed in almost every metro area, including the Bay Area. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

text: It is independent of the neighborhood however and it would easily survive AfD which makes me think that merge is simply the wrong call.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to Richmond Station 

message: Merged
Should this be merged to Richmond Station (California)? One editor proposed a merge (then carried it out, but was reverted), noting this article might be notable, but not independently notable enough of the BART station it was built in the parking lot of.  A second editor claimed the article is notable and should not be merged.  A third editor has commented that the article is not independent enough of the station, but not particularly committal on the merge (though a lack of notability would suggest a mergist or deletionist position) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, there appear to be a few anachronisms in what you've said...but that's really more to this being out-of-date/relying on out-of-date references more than anything.  You portray the development as novel; having done some study of T.O.D., I must point out that it's not...almost every mass transit project nowadays has some sort of mixed-used T.O.D....and in most cases those projects don't (and shouldn't) have their own articles; instead they are mentioned in the articles on the respective lines or stations they are associated with (also, "planned community" is stretching it...at 16 acres, the project is dwarfed by even a medium-sized shopping mall).  I also contest you divorcing the project from the station...it was built in the station's parking lot and because the station was there.  And "I'd like to live there" isn't a particularly good reason...I too would like to live in a T.O.D., but that doesn't make this or any other of the hundreds of developments of a few hundred units erected every year notable Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, out of date information also known as history is paramount. I.e. elections results from 1988, the minimum wage in 1970, the cost of the first Model T car. So the pricing shows that this is not a trailer park nor are these mansions, it gives the reader an idea of the socio economic factors at play here as reported by the press. This particular development is novel. It is the first one in the Bay Area and it is the only one that I know of that comes with the concept of built in business space on the ground floor of the house. It's part of the actual house not a separate unit of commercial space on the ground floor mind you. The houses come with a free business license included to spur economic development. That fits the definition of novel very well. This project although touted as the Richmond Transit Village is its own creation. It was only partially built on a former BART parking lot, most of it was built on former open space. It was also built because the sewer lines and street was there, but that does not mean we should merge with East Bay Municipal Utility District or Macdonald Avenue. It is absolutely a planned community of very high density. The latter reasons were opinion and not part of his actual argument, he was using it to help explain the mindset of why such a thing would be important to a reader.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See below thing about trying to lecture me on history, and please read WP:NOT.  And the only one you know of?  C'mon, I can probably name several in Los Angeles and a couple in Portland.  To say nothing of the fact that the concept of T.O.D. is a century old; the first T.O.D.s were streetcar suburbs, which existed in almost every metro area, including the Bay Area. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

text: It is independent of the neighborhood however and it would easily survive AfD which makes me think that merge is simply the wrong call.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: Here are the sources here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciferwildcat (talk • contribs) 02:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Hey, I have removed the following paragraph:
::The floorplans of these cluster homes are from 1,395 to 1,615 square feet (130-150 m²).Homes feature BART at doorstep, Richard Paoli, San Francisco Chronicle, 14-03-2004, access date 28-11-2011 When sales began the homes sold from the $300,000 range and up. There are three models: bungalows, villas, and career homes. The later come with a ground floor space that can easily be used as a business or live/work space. The monthly community fee is $200.
Why, you ask?  Well, WP:NOT, of course...the paragraph reads like an advertisement (WP:NOTADVERT), much of the content is unencyclopedic, and furthermore, the housing price data is certain to have fluctuated since the 2004 publication, and will continue to fluctuate even if we get the number it currently is now.  We generally don't include fluid lists like that (Same with the community fee). Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈
:This information is of interest to demonstrate the size and scope of the development and what socioecomonic status it has. It was reported in a major newspaper and is not an advertisement. Real estate sections of newspapers are not ads. They are reviews and offer negative and positive attributes of such developments in addition to op/ed. Ads on the contrary only mention the positive and attempt to sell an item. For the history, it is important to note what it cost. If you looked up the model T article it would state the very out of date price at the time it was first sold, not the current cost of an F-150, make sense?LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No...it's not like that...because a Model T and an F-150 aren't the same thing...and house prices are completely different than car prices, namely that there isn't a consensus to put housing prices in articles, because the same house lasts a lot longer than a car.  What a house cost in 2012 is barely relevant, what a house cost in 2004 is completely irrelevant.  Please familiarize yourself with relevant policy before continuing to add bad content Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point, the original price is relevant to the reader. In the future when prices will inevitably rise, people will be able to see what it cost originally. Many articles deal with price. The prices are well sourced and independently so. What policy would that be? I think you are just trying to remove the content so that a reliable source on the subject from a major news outlet that covers the subject in detail can be removed and therefore obscure the notability of the article by removing a good reference.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm removing bad information that pretty clearly violates WP:NOT.  The paragraph is written like an advertisement, and your new, "fixed" version does nothing to resolve that.  I've seen articles been nominated for deletion because they had numbers that fluctuate much less than housing prices.  And saying "other articles have prices" is comparing apples and pianos...articles with prices are usually about something other than houses (something with more stable pricing), and just because they have it doesn't mean it's inline with policy...it could be they just haven't been cleaned up properly Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

text: "You can't just basically say i don't like that sources or anything it says when it covers the topic in depth"...um, you can if it violates WP:NOT or other Wikipedia content policies Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I said NOTADVERT in the very first edit in this thread...though it couldn't hurt if you familiarized yourself with all aspects of WP:NOT.  "Notability" is not the right word for the content.  Whether or not it was intentional, the thing reads like an advert.  And "it cost X dollars eight years ago" isn't helping, because people want to know "what does it cost NOW?", and since now is constantly changing, the result is a bucket of syrup that means it's just better to leave the data out altogether Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you fail to explain how it violates NOTADVERT. Based on my understanding it does not. Now based on rereading it is does not. Would you care to elaborate, are are you going to keep insisting it does violate based on actual IDONTLIKEIT instead? The size of a project, the cost of a project, the cost of the homes is relevant and should stay. I have explained why. To be objective we can't describe it as classy or ghetto, just the simple cost at the time. People may want to know all sorts of things but our job is only to report what we can prove with verifiable reliable sources. Aslo we have a responsibility to report the history.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed advertisement paragraph 

message: Readdtion of a paragraph that violates WP:NOT
Here, you re-added a paragraph.  The paragraph you re-added violates several aspects of WP:NOT.  Regardless of whether or not it was intentional, the paragraph reads like an advertisement, most likely because it is sourced from the real estate section of an article, which is essentially an advertisement posing as an article.  The housing prices and community fee data is eight years old; we generally don't include data like that because it is too prone to frequent fluctuation to be accurate.  As for the square footage data, I can't really find either a great many articles that include that data, or a policy that supports the inclusion of it, leading me to believe it doesn't really belong.  Please address these concerns on the talk page before adding the paragraph back Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "You can't just basically say i don't like that sources or anything it says when it covers the topic in depth"...um, you can if it violates WP:NOT or other Wikipedia content policies Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I said NOTADVERT in the very first edit in this thread...though it couldn't hurt if you familiarized yourself with all aspects of WP:NOT.  "Notability" is not the right word for the content.  Whether or not it was intentional, the thing reads like an advert.  And "it cost X dollars eight years ago" isn't helping, because people want to know "what does it cost NOW?", and since now is constantly changing, the result is a bucket of syrup that means it's just better to leave the data out altogether Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you fail to explain how it violates NOTADVERT. Based on my understanding it does not. Now based on rereading it is does not. Would you care to elaborate, are are you going to keep insisting it does violate based on actual IDONTLIKEIT instead? The size of a project, the cost of a project, the cost of the homes is relevant and should stay. I have explained why. To be objective we can't describe it as classy or ghetto, just the simple cost at the time. People may want to know all sorts of things but our job is only to report what we can prove with verifiable reliable sources. Aslo we have a responsibility to report the history.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: RE

message: From NorthAmerica and other's comments, and the fact that the references used are several years old, I think an update tag is appropriate.  For example, the article uses sources that are several years old to say it is still under construction...is it finished? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not finished and this is an encyclopedia, old references are good references for history's sake.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Old references are good references for history's sake".  Not if they're inaccurate or superseded by new information, they're not. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They are accurate and new information should be added in chronological order but wikipedia does not just maintain current information, it's main purpose is older and ancient information. That is a fundamental principle here that I am shocked you wouldn't understand, but I think you are just trying to cause trouble and interfere with any and all improvement because of a personal vendetta against me and anything related to Richmond. Either you hate the town or hate me and know I like the town.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: DO NOT LECTURE ME ON HISTORY.  I AM A ******* HISTORY MAJOR.  There's a difference between historically significant information and just plain inaccurate and out-of-date information.  And you apparently can't tell the difference Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

text: No one here is any more special than anyone else. The information in this article is historically relevant to this topic and should stay as wikipedia's job is to keep track of history as it is an encyclopedia.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one here is more special, how come I don't go nuts when other people change or remove my content and you do? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claims that your a "A ******* HISTORY MAJOR" give you no more weight as an editor than anyone else. Let's keep the discussion on the content shall we?LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one who's taking pot shots at me, claiming I don't understand policy.  But you need to learn that your edits, or edits you like, aren't sacrosanct.  Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements you have made conflict with policy and your claims at being a history major do not offer any credibility for the rules of this domain.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as my statements are based in policy, I very much doubt that.  I could point out that saying I know nothing about history, as you did above, is a personal attack... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Why would you make that up? That is not what I said. You should clean your glasses.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: *Removed update tag from the article: Per the City of Richmond website , CED Monthly Reports - September 2011 (Report here) 
"Status: Phase I is complete with 132 housing units, a plaza immediately west of the BART station, approximately 16,750 square feet of retail space and a 2,800 square foot inter-modal transit building that includes a ticketing agent/station vendor space and the multi-agency police facility (“patrol stop”) primarily serving BART police officers."
"Phase II is approved to consist of  99 housing units, approximately 10,750 square feet of retail space, and will elevate the Nevin Avenue walkway to provide enhanced transit access to the station from the east.  All Phase II improvements will be constructed on the east side of the existing BART station after the completion of the parking garage." (Et al.)
Northamerica1000(talk) 15:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Report from City of Richmond official website